This study investigated teacher and parent ratings of teacher-nominated gifted elementary school students’ verbal abilities, mathematical abilities, deductive reasoning, creative thinking, and engagement, and connected these ratings to school grades. Teacher and parent ratings were compared with regard to accuracy levels and halo effects. Furthermore, this study explored the correlations between teacher and parent ratings and how they are related to school grades. The study was based on data from 572 elementary school students participating in an enrichment program. The results indicated the same accuracy levels for teachers and parents. However, teacher ratings were more strongly affected by halo effects than parent ratings. The correlations between teacher and parent ratings were small to medium. Both raters’ ratings were independently and positively associated with German grades when controlling for each other. Positive teacher or parent ratings of mathematical abilities and engagement buffered the relation between the other rater’s ratings and math grades.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 81-101. doi:10.1177/0016986216634438
2.
AlvidrezJ.WeinsteinR. S. (1999). Early teacher perceptions and later student academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 731-746. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.731
3.
AndersY.McElvanyN.BaumertJ. (2010). Die Einschätzung lernrelevanter Schülermerkmale zum Zeitpunkt des Übergangs von der Grundschule auf die weiterführende Schule: Wie differenziert urteilen Lehrkräfte?[ Assessment of learning-relevant student characteristics at the transition from primary to secondary school: How differentiated are teachers’ judgments?]. In MaazK.BaumertJ.GreschC.McElvanyN. (Eds.), Der Übergang von der Grundschule in die weiterführende Schule [The transition from elementary school to secondary school] (pp. 313-330). Bonn, Germany: Federal Ministry for Education and Research.
4.
BabadE.BernieriF.RosenthalR. (1989). Nonverbal communication and leakage in the behavior of biased and unbiased teachers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 89-94. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.89
5.
BabadE. Y.InbarJ.RosenthalR. (1982). Teachers’ judgment of students’ potential as a function of teachers’ susceptibility to biasing information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 541-547. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.42.3.541
6.
BaudsonT. G. (2016). The mad genius stereotype: Still alive and well. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1-9. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00368
7.
BaudsonT. G.FischbachA.PreckelF. (2014). Teacher judgments as measures of children’s cognitive ability: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 148-156. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.001
8.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2013). Development and validation of the German Test for (Highly) Intelligent Kids—T(H)INK. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 29, 171-181. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000142
9.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 212-225. doi:10.1177/0016986216647115
10.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B (Methodological), 57, 289-300. doi:10.2307/2346101
11.
BennerA. D.MistryR. S. (2007). Congruence of mother and teacher educational expectations and low-income youth’s academic competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 140. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.1.140
12.
BuckleyK. C. (1994). Parent’s views on education for the gifted. Roeper Review, 16, 215-216. doi:10.1080/02783199409553578
13.
CarmanC. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 52-70. doi:10.1177/1932202X12472602
14.
ChanD. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students by teacher ratings: Parent ratings and student self-reports in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11, 69-82. doi:10.1080/713669176
15.
ChristensonS. L. (1999). Families and schools: Rights, responsibilities, resources, and relationships. In PiantaR. C.CoxM. J. (Eds.), The transition to kindergarten (pp. 143-177). Baltimore, MD: ERIC.
16.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
17.
CohenJ.CohenP.WestS. G.AikenL. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
18.
CudeckR. (2000). Exploratory factor analysis. In TinsleyH. E. A.BrownS. D. (Eds.), Handbook of applied multivariate statistics and mathematical modeling (pp. 265-296). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/B978-012691360-6/50011-2
19.
CummingG. (2010). P values versus confidence intervals as warrants for conclusions that results will replicate. In ThompsonB.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness (pp. 53-69). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12079-003
20.
FischbachA.BaudsonT. G.PreckelF.MartinR.BrunnerM. (2013). Do teacher judgments of student intelligence predict life outcomes?Learning and Individual Differences, 27, 109-119. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2013.07.004
21.
FisicaroS. A.LanceC. E. (1990). Implications of three causal models for the measurement of halo error. Applied Psychological Measurement, 14, 419-429. doi:10.1177/014662169001400407
22.
Endepohls-UlpeM.RufH. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16, 219-228. doi:10.1080/13598130600618140
23.
EndersC. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
24.
FroilandJ. M.DavisonM. L. (2014). Parental expectations and school relationships as contributors to adolescents’ positive outcomes. Social Psychology of Education, 17, 1-17. doi:10.1007/s11218-013-9237-3
25.
GeiserC.MandelmanS. D.TanM.GrigorenkoE. L. (2016). Multitrait-multimethod assessment of giftedness: An application of the Correlated Traits-Correlated (Methods-1) Model. Structural Equation Modeling, 23, 76-90. doi:10.1080/10705511.2014.937792
26.
GenserB.StrasserE.-M.GarbeU. (1981). Stimmen Mütter und Kinder in der Einschätzung ihres schulbezogenen Verhaltens überein? [Do mothers and children agree in their evaluation of their school-related behavior?]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 13, 341-347.
27.
GlueckC. L.ReschlyA. L. (2014). Examining congruence within school-family partnerships: Definition, importance, and current measurement approaches. Psychology in the Schools, 51, 296-315. doi:10.1002/pits.21745
28.
GräfM.UnkelbachC. (2016). Halo effects in trait assessment depend on information valence: Why being honest makes you industrious, but lying does not make you lazy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 42, 1-21. doi:10.1177/0146167215627137
29.
GralewskiJ.KarwowskiM. (2013). Polite girls and creative boys? Students’ gender moderates accuracy of teachers’ ratings of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 47, 290-304. doi:10.1002/jocb.36
30.
HarderB.TrottlerS.VialleW.ZieglerA. (2015). Diagnosing resources for effective learning via teacher and parent checklists. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 57, 201-221.
31.
HellerK. A.PerlethC. (2007). Münchner Hochbegabung-stestbatterie für die Primarstufe (MHBT-P) [Munich giftedness test battery for primary school students]. Goettingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
32.
HellerK. A.PerlethC.LimT. K. (2005). The Munich model of giftedness designed to identify and promote gifted students. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 147-170). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610455
33.
HelmkeA. (2012). Unterrichtsqualität und Lehrerprofessionalität: Diagnose, Evaluation und Verbesserung des Unterrichts [Instructional quality and teacher professionality: Diagnosis, evaluation, and enhancement of instruction]. Seelze, Germany: Klett-Kallmeyer.
34.
HelmkeA.SchraderF. W. (1989). Sind Mütter gute Diagnostiker ihrer Kinder? Analysen von Komponenten und Determinanten der Urteilsgenauigkeit [Are mothers good diagnosticians? Analysis of components and determinants of judgment accuracy]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 21, 223-247.
35.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55. doi:10.1080/10705519909540118
36.
HuntJ. M.ParaskevopoulosJ. (1980). Children’s psychological development as a function of the inaccuracy of their mothers’ knowledge of their abilities. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 136, 285-298. doi:10.1080/00221325.1980.10534123
37.
LiH.LeeD.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). Parent ratings using the Chinese version of the Parent Gifted Rating Scales–School Form. Reliability and validity for Chinese students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68, 659-675. doi:10.1177/0013164407313365
38.
LittleT. D.RhemtullaM. (2013). Planned missing data designs for developmental researchers. Child Development Perspectives, 7, 199-204. doi:10.1111/cdep.12043
39.
MacCallumR. C.BrowneM. W.SugawaraH. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.1.2.130
40.
MachtsN.KaiserJ.SchmidtF. T.MöllerJ. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85-103. doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
41.
MarshH. W.LüdtkeO.MuthénB.AsparouhovT.MorinA. J.TrautweinU.NagengastB. (2010). A new look at the Big Five factor structure through exploratory structural equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471-491. doi:10.1037/a0019227
42.
MarshH. W.MorinA. J. S.ParkerP. D.KaurG. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85-110. doi:10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700
43.
MarshH. W.NagengastB.MorinA. J. (2012). Measurement invariance of big-five factors over the life span: ESEM tests of gender, age, plasticity, maturity, and la dolce vita effects. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1194-1218. doi:10.1037/a0026913
44.
MaslowskyJ.JagerJ.HemkenD. (2015). Estimating and interpreting latent variable interactions. A tutorial for applying the latent moderated structural equations method. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 39, 87-96. doi:10.1177/0165025414552301
MillerS. A.DavisT. L. (1992). Beliefs about children: A comparative study of mothers, teachers, peers, and self. Child Development, 63, 1251-1265. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1992.tb01693.x
47.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998-2015). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
48.
MuthénB.SatorraA. (1995). Complex sample data in structural equation modeling. Sociological Methodology, 25, 267-316. doi:10.1234/12345678
49.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012-2013 State of the states in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.
50.
O’HaraL. A.SternbergR. J. (2001). It doesn’t hurt to ask: Effects of instructions to be creative, practical, or analytical on essay-writing performance and their interaction with students’ thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 197-210. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1302_7
51.
PeetS. H.PowellD. R.O’DonnelB. K. (1997). Mother-teacher congruence in perceptions of the child’s competence and school engagement: Links to academic achievement. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 18, 373-393. doi:10.1016/S0193-3973(97)80006-8
52.
PetscherY.LiH. (2008). Measurement invariance of the Chinese Gifted Rating Scales. Teacher and parent forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26, 274-286. doi:10.1177/0734282907303873
53.
PfeifferS. I.PetscherY.KumtepeA. (2008). The Gifted Rating Scales–School Form: A validation study based on age, gender, and race. Roeper Review, 30, 140-146. doi:10.1080/02783190801955418
54.
PoropatA. E. (2009). A meta-analysis of the five-factor model of personality and academic performance. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 322-338. doi:10.1037/a0014996
55.
RauerW.SchuckK. D. (2003). FEESS 3−4. Fragebogen zur Erfassung emotionaler und sozialer Schulerfahrungen von Grundschulkindern dritter und vierter Klassen [FEESS 3-4. Questionnaire for assessing emotional and social school experiences of 3rd and 4th grade primary school children]. Göttingen, Germany: Beltz.
56.
Rennen-AllhoffB. (1991). Wie verläßlich sind Elternangaben?[How reliable are parents’ reports]. Praxis der Kinderpsychologie und Kinderpsychiatrie, 40, 333-338.
57.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness. A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246-279). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610455
58.
RothenbuschS.ZettlerI.VossT.LöschT.TrautweinU. (2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 883-897. doi:10.1037/edu0000085
59.
RuncoM. A. (1989). Parents’ and teachers’ ratings of the creativity of children. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 73-83.
60.
SchackG. D.StarkoA. J. (1990). Identification of gifted students: An analysis of criteria preferred by preservice teachers, classroom teachers, and teachers of the gifted. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 346-363. doi:10.1177/016235329001300405
61.
SchraderF.-W. (2010). Diagnostische Kompetenz von Eltern und Lehrern [Diagnostic competence of parents and teachers]. In RostD. H. (Ed.), Handwörterbuch Pädagogische Psychologie [Hand dictionary of educational psychology] (4th ed., pp. 102-108). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz.
62.
ShavininaL. V. (2009). International handbook on giftedness. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2
63.
SilviaP. J.WintersteinB. P.WillseJ. T.BaronaC. M.CramJ. T.HessK. I.. . . RichardC. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68-85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
64.
SkinnerE. A.KindermannT. A.FurrerC. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69, 493-525. doi:10.1177/0013164408323233
65.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
66.
SommerU.FinkA.NeubauerA. C. (2008). Detection of high ability children by teachers and parents: Psychometric quality of new rating checklists for the assessment of intellectual, creative and social ability. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 189-205.
67.
SpinathB. (2005). Akkuratheit der Einschätzung von Schülermerkmalen durch Lehrer und das Konstrukt der diagnostischen Kompetenz [Accuracy of teacher judgments on student characteristics and the construct of diagnostic competence]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 85-95. doi:10.1024/1010-0652.19.1.85
68.
SpinathB.SpinathF. M. (2005). Development of self-perceived ability in elementary school: The role of parents’ perceptions, teacher evaluations, and intelligence. Cognitive Development, 20, 190-204. doi:10.1016/j.cogdev.2005.01.001
69.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610455
70.
StubbeT. C.BosW.EuenB. (2012). Der Übergang von der Primar- in die Sekundarstufe[Transition from elementary to secondary school level]. In BosW.TarelliI.Bremerich-VosA.SchwippertK. (Eds.), IGLU 2011: Lesekompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich[IGLU 2011: Reading competencies of primary school children in Germany by international comparison] (pp. 209-226). Berlin, Germany: Waxmann.
71.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
72.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 176-188. doi:10.1177/0016986212456079
73.
SüdkampA.KaiserJ.MöllerJ. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 743-762. doi:10.1037/a0027627
74.
TinsleyH. E.TinsleyD. J. (1987). Uses of factor analysis in counseling psychology research. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 34, 414-424.
75.
UrhahneD. (2011). Teachers’ judgments of elementary students’ ability, creativity and task commitment. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 229-237.
76.
WildK. P. (1993). Hochbegabtendiagnostik durch Lehrer [Giftedness diagnostic by teachers]. In RostD. H. (Ed.), Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder: Das Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Life environment analysis of highly gifted children: The Marburg highly talented project] (pp. 236-261). Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
77.
WilliamsV. S.JonesL. V.TukeyJ. W. (1999). Controlling error in multiple comparisons, with examples from state-to-state differences in educational achievement. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 24, 42-69. doi:10.3102/1076998602400104
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
