Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

The Legacy and Logic of Research on the Identification of Gifted

Persons

Renzulli, J. S. and Delcourt, M. A. B.

Renzulli, J., & Delcourt, M. (1986). The Legacy and Logic of
Research on the Identification of Gifted Persons. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 30(1), 20-23. doi:10.1177/001698628603000104

The authors offer three alternative criteria to intelligence test scores as key criterion
for identification.

Reflections:

The validity of a criterion cannot be established by any empirical

means, but rather is a matter of the value that one chooses to attach
to a particular phenomenon.
We must consider a broad definition of giftedness when identifying students.
Test scores have traditionally been used as predictors of performance.
Although test scores are valuable, we have learned that it is important that
we look at them only as a part of the picture. There are some students who
may be gifted in areas that are not easily discerned via traditional testing.
Renzulli and Delcourt suggest one should look at three additional
performance criterion. First, academic mastery in a domain specific area.
This usually shows a strong relationship between traditional testing and
desired performance, but loses power when the definition of giftedness is
expanded to include the elements of creativity or originality. Next they
suggest one looks at creative productivity on a product assessment. The
major focus is on the gifted behaviors displayed during the process. This
criterion also includes teacher evaluations, self and peer evaluations.
Both designs side step the issue of trying to predict who is truly gifted in
the absolute sense. In other words, giftedness is not viewed as the

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

possession of a golden chromosome on the parts of certain individuals that

need only be discovered through the right combination of assessment
techniques. Rather, both designs seek to examine the potential that certain
individuals may have for the development of gifted behaviors.
The last criterion suggests long range creative productivity as the ultimate
criterion for giftedness because it provides external validation. Each of
these criterion has its place and helps to broaden the classification of
giftedness and how students are identified. It is important to remember that
all of these criterion help indicate potential rather than an absolute! We
must remember to look at the whole child and think of the broad definition of
gifted.

Are Teachers Really Poor Talent Detectors? Comments On Pegnato

and Birch's (1959) Study of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of
Various Identification Techniques
Gagne, F.
Gagne, F. (1994). Are Teachers Really Poor Talent Detectors?
Comments On Pegnato and Birch's (1959) Study of the
Effectiveness and Efficiency of Various Identification
Techniques.Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 124-126.

The author shows that effectiveness and efficiency are not independent of
each other when determining if teachers are poor talent detectors, as stated
in the much cited study of Pegnato and Birch conducted in 1959.
Reflections:
Basically, Pegnato and Birch stated that teachers are a reliable source for
screening gifted children based on the number of students referred and the
number of students identified. The is definition of gifted has changed greatly
since their study which they based the effectiveness of teachers judgement
on the number of students identified by IQ. Also, the effectiveness and
efficiency were compared to other methods unequally.
This article reminded me of the importance of thoughtfully filling out the CISS
and GRS-M motivation scale. Also, of how important it is to have the input of
many adults who have contact with each student, as they may see

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

something from a different perspective in a different setting. It is our goal to

find gifted students, not test as many as possible.

We Can Identify and Serve ESOL GATE Students: A Case Study

Reed, C. F.
Reed, C. (2007). We Can Identify and Serve ESOL GATE Students:
A Case Study.Gifted Child Today, 30(2), 16-22. Retrieved from
http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ756550

Catherine Reed relates how she was initially disheartened by the demographics of
gifted students at the public middle school where she taught. Not one in her class
was an ESOL student due to school's inability to identify its ESOL gifted students.
The entire school district relied on standardized testing using the Otis-Lennon
School Ability Test (OLSAT) as the primary indicator of intellectual promise. It is
impossible for ESOL students, whose language skills range at the basic level, to
score high in OLSAT. Because of this dilemma, the author proposed a screening
program for ESOL students at her school. Through a combination of communication
with parents, administration, and staff she started to get support and was able to
identify 16 candidates. The students practiced test taking skills and took sample
tests. They recognized that a standardized test, alone, could provide an estimate
only of the childs abilities. If we relied on test scores in isolation of other indicators
of promise, such as curiosity, perseverance, and the need for faster paced
instruction, none of the ESOL students would qualify. The ESOL teachers were able
to take into account their progress and habits in the classroom as an indicator and
were able to serve ESOL students successfully in the gifted program. At Shakerag,

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

we have a low number of ESOL students, two, who are identified as gifted. There
have been many comments from many teachers throughout the years, as soon as
s/he learns more English, I bet s/he will be in TAG. If we are seeing those
characteristics of giftedness in our classrooms, the potential is there. In the time of
individualized instruction and giving our students more choices in their learning
processes and products, I feel that we are becoming better equipped to serve these
students. It is very important that we look at EVERY student as a whole of many
parts and keep an open mind when discerning their potential.

Early Identification of the Gifted and Talented

Hollinger, C. L. and Kosek, S.
Hollinger, C., & Kosek, S. (1985). Early Identification of the Gifted
and Talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29(4), 168-171.
doi:10.1177/001698628502900406
Hollinger and Kosek completed a study that examined the predictive validity
of the STAR (Screening Test for Academic Readiness) for use as one
screening tool in the identification process for pre-kindergartners. It was
predicted that the STAR deviation IQ obtained prior to kindergarten entry will
be a significant predictor of WISC-R scores obtained later by those same
students during their middle school and high school aged students.
Although this article was mostly about the validity of this particular test. My
reflections focus on the importance and validity of identifying children at a
very young age for services.

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

There is relatively consistent agreement regarding the need for early

identification of and educational intervention for the gifted and talented child
(Barbe & Renzulli, 1975; Bonds & Bonds, 1983; Johnson, 1983; Maddux,
1981; McCarthy, 1980; Sellin & Birch, 1980). Such agreement is based upon
the recognition that the preschool and primary years represent a critical
period of time in terms of both cognitive and psychosocial development and
that during this period, environmental influences play a substantial role in
determining the degree to which development of potential will be maximized
(Bloom, 1964; Gardner, 1983; Hunt, 1961; Piaget, 1955, 1962; Schaeffer,
1980). Despite the recognized importance of early identification of the gifted
and subsequent educational intervention, surprisingly few programs for the
gifted and talented in this age group exist (Takacs, 1982).
Although I have always agreed that identification of a childs strengths and
challenging them at an early age is important, I do not necessarily agree that
a separate gifted class is the best placement for a very young gifted child.
Unless maybe we are speaking of a profoundly gifted child that does great
difficulty relating to their chronological peers, I feel that the emotional and
social wellbeing of the pre-kindergarten/kindergarten child can best be
served in a heterogeneous classroom if the classroom teacher is equipped to
appropriately challenge these children. In my opinion, push-in services for
the pre-kindergarten/kindergarten gifted would be a good option.

While 72% of the present sample would have been correctly identified for
either inclusion in or deletion from subsequent assessment phases in the
identification process, 16%, the percentage of false acceptances, would have
been inaccurately recommended for individual IQ testing and further
assessment. the inaccuracy of such false acceptances should be viewed as
a type of error much less costly than false rejections where a truly gifted
child is denied the opportunities offered by gifted and talented placement.
The 12% false rejection rate found in the present study is therefore viewed
as the issue of greatest concern.
Those falsely rejected based on STAR showed up in later testing and would
have been serviced at that time. Again, is it truly important for all gifted
students to be served at an early age? Those who are in true need of
services are most likely the ones who will show high scores regardless. Is it
possible that those who do not show high scores at an early age may be
gifted, but are not developmentally ready?

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

An ability measure cannot serve as a sole criterion for placement decisions,

nor should it serve as a sole criterion for screening. Parent and teacher
questionnaire data and indicators of creativity or ability in diverse talent
areas must be included if the identification process is to be comprehensive.
I agree completely with this statement. Regardless of the age of the student,
it is important that we look at several indicators when identifying giftedness.
Any test or screener can provide only one piece of what should be a very
comprehensive process. I feel that our Fulton County system provides this
comprehensive process in identifying gifted in our schools.
It seems to me that some students are falsely placed in gifted classes
because they qualified at an early age. It has been my feeling in the past
that these bright students show as gifted because they have possibly been
exposed to more than other children and/or their parents have drilled them.
This can look like high achievement or motivation on their part. By the time
they are in third grade many of their non-gifted peers have caught up or
even surpassed them academically. It left me questioning, is the push to
get these students into TAG at an early age the best use of our resources?
This study reminded me that achievement, and motivation are only one part
of the screening and showed me that mental abilities testing at an early age
can very likely be an indicator of giftedness. Whether I agree if these
students should be pulled or served in the classroom has no bearing on the
fact that they should be served somewhere.

GLOSSARY
1) Referral Process- The process in which a student is referred for possible
TESTING. The components of the process have no bearing on eligibility
for services.
2) Eligibility Process- The process in which a student is determined to be
eligible or ineligible for services.
3) Eligibility Team/Multiple Criterea Team4) Psychometric- (Option A) when a student meets criteria for services in
both mental abilities and achievement scores.
5) Multiple Criteria- (Option B) when a student does not meet criteria
under Option A, s/he can qualify by meeting criteria in the areas of
creativity AND motivation as well as either mental abilities OR
achievement. The student must meet criteria in 3 areas to qualify.

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

6) Reciprocity- If a student qualifies for services in any Georgia public

school, s/he will automatically receive services if moving to any other
Georgia public school.
7) WISC (Wexler Intelligence Scale)- IQ test given one on one by a
certified psychologist. Test consists of verbal comprehension, visualspatial abilities, fluid reasoning, short term memory, and processing
speed.
8) NPR (National Percentile Ranking)- a score that reflect a percentage
comparison of same-grade peers rom a nation-wide sample scored equal to or less
then the individual tested.

9) Norm Referenced- Tests a student on a broad range of skills and then

compares their score to the scores other examinees, giving them a
percentile ranking score.
10)
Criterion Referenced- Tests a student on a specific set of skills
and then compares their to a preset standard, giving them a
percentage score.
11)
Mental Abilities Tests- Measures innate and acquired abilities
needed for schoolwork. It is a good predictor. Emphasis is on
reasoning and ability to see relationships.
12)
Acheivement Tests- measures the extent to which an individual
has acquired certain information or mastered cetain sh=kills as a result
of direct instruction. Emphasis on facts, basic skills, and specific
subjects.
13)
NNAT (Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test)- a nonverbal ability test
intended to assess cognitive ability independent of linguistic and
cultural background. Created by Jack Naglieri. Published by Pearson
Education. Given one on one. Often used as a second look to identify
cognitive ability in students who have a large discrepancy between the
verbal and non-verbal scores on the CogAT. Possibly good for ESOL.
14)
CogAT (Cognative Abilities Test)- a nationally norm-referenced
test that assesses learned reasoning and problem solving ability using
verbal, quantitative, and non-verbal symbols. Administered to
students grades K-12.
15)
Renzulli Scales For Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of
Superior Students- designed to obtain teacher estimates of a students
characteristics in the areas of learning, creativity, motivation,
leadership, art, music, drama, communication, planning, math,
reading, technology, and science. Can be given in whole or part.
16)
STAT 10 (Stanford Achievement Test)-a nationally normreferenced standardized test used to measure acquired learning in a
specific subject in grade K-12.
17)
Torrence- Ellis Paul Torrance (October 8, 1915[1] - July 12, 2003)
was an American psychologist from Milledgeville, Georgia. He is best

Kellie Segraves

Identification and Assessment of the Gifted

June 2015

known for his research on creativity and creating the Torrence Test of
Creative Thinking.
18)
Naglieri- In addition to creating the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test
(see above), Jack Naglieris scholarly research includes investigations
related to topics such as intellectual disabilities, specific learning
disabilities, giftedness, and Attention Deficit Disorder; psychometric
studies of tests such as the Wechsler Scales of Intelligence, Cognitive
Assessment System, and the Kaufman Assessment Battery for
Children; examination of race, gender, and ethnic differences in
cognitive processing; fair assessment using nonverbal and cognitive
processing tests; identification of gifted minorities, IDEA and
identification of specific learning disabilities; and cognitively based
academic interventions.
19)
Tomlinson- Carol Ann Tomlinson is an American educator, author
and speaker. She is best known for her innovative work with
techniques of differentiation in education.
20)
Renzulli- Joseph Renzulli is Professor of Educational Psychology at
the University of Connecticut. He is best known for his contributions in
furthering the understanding and broadening the conception of
giftedness. He developed the three-ring model of giftedness.