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

Abstract

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.

Measurement Invariance of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales

“…For example, the U.S. Department of Education has conceptualized giftedness as extraordinary intellectual and specific academic or artistic abilities or high performance capability in creativity or leadership (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement, 1993 To conduct a comprehensive evaluation of a potentially gifted child, teachers and parents are often invited to provide information on the child (Pfeiffer, 2002). Although early reports (e.g., Gear, 1978;Pegnato & Birch, 1959) indicated that teachers were relatively poor at identifying gifted students because they were too close to students to have a sound perspective, more researchers (e.g., Gagné, 1994;Hunsaker, Finley, & Frank, 1997;Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986), however, have argued that teacher nomination and teacher rating for gifted children identification were very useful in identifying gifted students. Furthermore, teacher accuracy can be improved through the use of psychometrically sound rating scales that have been formulated from a list of characteristics of gifted children.…”

“…Although early reports (e.g., Gear, 1978;Pegnato & Birch, 1959) indicated that teachers were relatively poor at identifying gifted students because they were too close to students to have a sound perspective, more researchers (e.g., Gagné, 1994;Hunsaker, Finley, & Frank, 1997;Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986), however, have argued that teacher nomination and teacher rating for gifted children identification were very useful in identifying gifted students. Furthermore, teacher accuracy can be improved through the use of psychometrically sound rating scales that have been formulated from a list of characteristics of gifted children.…”

Exploring Alignment in Gifted Education Program Policies and Practices

“…identification of gifted students have continued to evolve since initial conceptions of giftedness and intelligence (Terman, 1925;Renzulli, 1984;Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986).…”

“…In alignment with NAGC (2010) standards and NCRGE theory of change, scholars support the use of multiple measures, creation of full-student profiles rather than use of specific cut-off scores, collecting and valuing the input of trained evaluators throughout the identification process, and periodic universal gifted screening for all students (e.g., Callahan, 2005;Olszewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012;Renzulli, 1984;Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986;Stambaugh, 2007).…”

“…In general, researchers recommend the use of multiple measures for identification, the creation of student profiles, observations of students in the classroom, and some form of universal screening procedure (e.g., Callahan, 2005;Olzsewski-Kubilius & Clarenbach, 2012;Renzulli, 1984;Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986;Stambaugh, 2007). Additionally, results indicate multiple measures should be utilized in ways that expand identification pools (McBee et al, 2014).…”