Identifying the leadership gifted: Self, peer, or teacher nominations?

Friedman, Paul G.; Friedman, Reva Jenkins; Dyke, Mary Van

doi:10.1080/02783198409552858

Cited by 13 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to teacher judgments, self and peer evaluations are also included in Performance Criterion II. This is described by studies identifying student characteristics such as leadership (Friedman, Jenkins-Friedman, & Van Dyke, 1984). It should be noted that leadership &dquo;performance&dquo; in this particular study was based upon ratings of observed student behaviors.…”

Section: Performance-based Research Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy and Logic of Research on the Identification of Gifted Persons

Renzulli

Delcourt

1986

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are we identifying the "truly gifted" student? How should we test the efficacy of our procedures? The authors assess research on the topics of defining and identifying exceptional potential. They propose three alternative criteria to intelligence test scores as the key criterion for identification.What are the major issues, problems, and potential research designs for conducting studies on the identification of gifted and talented students? Almost every research study dealing with the gifted and talented includes descriptive information about various types of identification procedures ; however, studies about the actual effectiveness of the identification process itself have focused almost exclusively on a single research design. This design generally has attempted to evaluate the effectiveness of various criteria for determining who is &dquo;really gifted!&dquo; At issue in such studies is the almost total use of IQ scores as the ultimate criteria (dependent variable) for evaluating the effectiveness of alternative criteria (predictor or independent variables). This article will examine some of the problems associated with this design and present three other research designs that are potentially valuable in adding to our understanding of the meaning of giftedness. Before examining these designs, however, we will review some of the major problems and issues underlying research on identification.

show abstract

Section: Performance-based Research Designsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Legacy and Logic of Research on the Identification of Gifted Persons

Renzulli

Delcourt

1986

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…A search of the literature produced one study which, with modification, seemed appropriate for arriving at a measure of actual leadership behavior. A leadership task modeled after that reported by Friedman et al (1984) required subjects to participate in a problem-solving activity in a small-group setting in which their leadership ability could emerge. Evaluation of student participation for creative generation of alternatives, style of leadership (task orientation or people orientation), and task commitment was based on Renzulli's (1979) three-ring conception of giftedness.…”

Section: The Journd Of Secondary Gifted Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Within these requirements, the groups were formed by applying a random number table to the alphabetical class list. Random assignment was a departure from the method employed by Friedman et al (1984), who preselected student leaders for each group. There was no preselection in this study in order that each group member might have equal opportunity to exhibit leadership behavior.…”

Section: The Journd Of Secondary Gifted Educationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This is a departure from Friedman et al (1984) who asked their subjects to nominate only the three peers they felt were best suited for the leadership role, and, therefore, failed to obtain complete data for all students. The vast majority of the students (93%) in the present study had attended the school since grade 10 and, therefore, knew each other well enough to complete the rankings comfortably.…”

Section: Self; Peer and Teacher Runkingsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Indicators of Leadership in Gifted Grade Twelve Students

Edmunds¹,

Yewchuk²

1996

Journal of Secondary Gifted Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated the nature of the relationships among four commonly used indicators of leadership (skills, past behavior, actual behavior, and rankings), as well as XQ and gender diperencesfor the same indicators. The subjects were 90 academically gifed 12th grade students evenly distributed by gendet. The results indicated significant positive relationships among actual leadership, past leadership, and leadership skills; between peer and teacher rankings; and between IQ and leadership skills. No evidence was found to substantiate Hollingworth's ( 1 939) claim for an optimal X Q spread between leaders and followers. Males scored significantly higher than females on past leadership behavior and task orientation Zeadership style, Thefindings indicate a need for further investigation and consolidation of the components that constitute leadership in order to enhance identification of leadership potential and evaluation of leadership curricula,eadership appears to be a blend of characteristics within which above-average intelligence (Karnes & Chauvin, Bean, 1991), and an established indicator of leadership does

show abstract

“…We knew from our preliminary interviews that school children spontaneously inquire whether they may nominate themselves, but we knew almost nothing about the validity of self-nominations. On the one hand, Friedman, Friedman, and Dyke (1984) compared self-nominations, peer nominations, and teacher nominations in a situation aimed at identifying leaders. They stated that their results did confirm the superiority of selfnominations as predictors of leadership.…”

Section: Structure Of the Experimental Pnfsmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Well Do Peers Agree Among Themselves When Nominating the Gifted or Talented?

Gagné

Bégin

Talbot

1993

Gifted Child Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To validate a set of peer nomination forms, 40 different prototypical descriptions were written to represent four aptitude domains (intellectual, creative, socio-affective, physical) and four talent fields (academic, technical, artistic, interpersonal). They were distributed among six experimental forms, which were paired and administered in counterbalanced oreder at a 3-week interval to a sample of 2350 pupils about equally divided between both sexes and three grades (4, 5, 6), and to the teachers of their 88 groups. Indices of reliability —interpeer agreement— were computed for each prototype in every group. A majority of the prototypes maintained acceptable interpeer agreement levels; important variations were observed associated with a small age effect, a significant group effect, and a very large prototype effect, confirming that interpeer agreement depends first and foremost on the specific aptitude or talent assessed. Consensus among peers was best for intellectual and physical aptitudes, and academic and artistic talents; it was worst for socioaffective aptitudes and interpersonal talents.

show abstract

Identifying the leadership gifted: Self, peer, or teacher nominations?

Cited by 13 publications

References 1 publication

The Legacy and Logic of Research on the Identification of Gifted Persons

The Legacy and Logic of Research on the Identification of Gifted Persons

Indicators of Leadership in Gifted Grade Twelve Students

How Well Do Peers Agree Among Themselves When Nominating the Gifted or Talented?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About