The CASA Criteria for Evaluating Gifted and Talented Identification Systems: Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access

Abstract

Debates over identification procedures for gifted and talented students dominate the field and serve as the topic of many of its internal and external debates. We believe this is due to a lack of commonly accepted criteria for how to evaluate identification procedures. In this article, we present the Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access (CASA) criteria, a framework to evaluate identification systems according to their cost, alignment to services, sensitivity, and access. We believe these criteria would facilitate more productive conversations over identification and continued growth and improvement for the field as a whole.

What Happens After Nomination? Evaluating the Probability of Gifted Identification With the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking

“…Lessons learned include that other facets in the identification process should be investigated beyond the tests that are administered (e.g., alignment to programs/services, combination rules, policy implementation, identification committee). More specifically, we should be concerned with how and why criteria are used for identification decisions (Gubbins et al, 2021;Lee, 2021;McBee et al, 2014;Peters et al, 2023).…”

“…This could be further exacerbated by district-created nomination instruments that may show even weaker relationships with tests used for formal evaluation. There is a need to evaluate specific choices in criteria and each phase of identification to further understand how nominated students perform on formal evaluation criteria (McBee et al, 2016;Peters et al, 2023). defined as a system that uses more than one determinant (e.g., qualitative [portfolios, rating scales] or quantitative data [standardized tests]) for each student that informs consideration for admittance into the gifted program (Jolly & Robins, 2018).…”

“…We urge that it is more important for gifted administrators to determine the purpose of certain assessments used (i.e., the why) and how they are being used for gifted identification (see Alignment criteria from the CASA Criteria; Peters et al, 2023). As evident within this study, the TTCT-Figural can be used for identification, but it may matter more how it is used in the process (e.g., weighting, combination, cutoffs, norming) and why it is included in the first place.…”

“…This could be further exacerbated by district-created nomination instruments that may show even weaker relationships with tests used for formal evaluation. There is a need to evaluate specific choices in criteria and each phase of identification to further understand how nominated students perform on formal evaluation criteria (McBee et al, 2016; Peters et al, 2023).…”

“…Scholars over time have suggested that commonly used standardized measures (e.g., IQ tests) and rigid cutoff scores within them (i.e., top 3–5%) can unfairly penalize students of color, ELs, and students from low socioeconomic backgrounds (Ford, 2010; Mun et al, 2016, 2020; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2018). Other decisions contribute to the effectiveness of gifted identification, such as norming procedures (i.e., national, building-level; Peters et al, 2019b), different combination rules (e.g., OR, AND, MEAN; Lakin, 2018; Long et al, 2022; McBee et al, 2014), and other decisions for program development and capacity (e.g., funding, hiring personnel, program availability; see Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access [CASA] Criteria; Peters et al, 2023).…”