The purpose of this study was to investigate the validity of the HOPE Scale for identifying gifted English language learners (ELs) and how classroom and English as a second language (ESL) teacher HOPE Scale scores differ. Seventy teachers completed the HOPE Scale on 1,467 students in grades K-5 and four ESL teachers completed the scale on 131 ELs. Measurement invariance tests indicated that the HOPE Scale yields noninvariant latent means across EL and English proficient (EP) samples. However, confirmatory factor analysis results support the use of the scale with ELs or EP students separately. Results also indicate that the rating patterns of classroom and ESL teachers were different and that the HOPE Scale does not yield valid data when used by ESL teachers. Caution is recommended when using the HOPE Scale and other teacher rating scales to compare ELs to EP students. The importance of invariance testing before using an instrument with a population that is different from the one(s) for which the instrument was developed is discussed.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (2014). Standards for educational and psychological testing.
BensonN. F.KranzlerJ. H. (2018). Another look at the construct validity of the Gifted Rating Scales: Preschool/kindergarten and school forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(8), 782-797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917710377
4.
BermúdezA. B.RakowS. J. (1990). Analyzing teacher’s perceptions of identification procedures for gifted and talented Hispanic limited English proficient (LEP) students at-risk. Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 7(3), 21-33.
5.
BernalE. M. (1974). Gifted Mexican-American children: An ethno-scientific perspective. California Journal of Educational Research, 25(5), 261-273.
6.
BernalE. M. (2002). Three ways to achieve a more equitable representation of culturally and linguistically different students in GT programs. Roeper Review, 24(2), 82-88. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190209554134
7.
BiancoM. (2005). The effects of disability labels on special education and general education teachers’ referrals for gifted program. Learning Disability Quarterly, 28(4), 285-293. https://doi.org/10.2307/4126967
BiancoM.LeechN. (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: Effects of teacher preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 319-334. https://doi.org/10.1177/0888406409356392
10.
BrownT. A. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the U S A, 113(45), 13678-13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
13.
CarmanC. A.TaylorD. K. (2010). Socioeconomic status effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75-84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355976
14.
CarmanC. A.WaltherC. A. P.BartschR. A. (2020). Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery to identify the gifted/talented: An investigation of demographic effects and norming plans. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 193-209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752097
ChenF. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834
17.
ChoS.YangJ.MandracchiaM. (2015). Effects of M3 curriculum on mathematics and English proficiency achievement of mathematically promising English language learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(2), 112-142. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X15577205
18.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2007). LAS Links: Connecting assessment, language, and learning.
19.
De WetC. F.GubbinsE. J. (2011). Teachers’ beliefs about culturally, linguistically, and economically diverse gifted students: A quantitative study. Roeper Review, 33(2), 97-108. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.554157
20.
EsquierdoJ. J. (2006). Early identification of Hispanic English language learners for gifted and talented programs [Doctoral dissertation, Texas A&M University]. The OAKTrust Digital Repository. http://hdl.handle.net/1969.1/3944
21.
FanX.SivoS. A. (2007). Sensitivity of fit indices to model misspecification and model types. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(3), 509-529. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701382864
22.
FinneyS. J.DiStefanoC. (2006). Non-normal and categorical data in structural equation modeling. In HancockG. R.MuellerR. O. (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 269-314). Information Age.
23.
FrenchB. F.FinchW. H. (2006). Confirmatory factor analytic procedures for the determination of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 13(3), 378-402. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem1303_3
GilliamJ. E.CarpenterB. O.ChristensenJ. R. (1996). Gifted and talented evaluation scales. Prufrock Press.
26.
GiessmanJ. A.GambrellJ. L.StebbinsM. S. (2013). Minority performance on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, second edition, versus the Cognitive Abilities Test, Form 6: One gifted program’s experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 101-109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213477190
27.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.HamiltonR.PetersP.CarpenterA. Y.O’RourkeP.PuryearJ.McCoachD. B.LongD.BloomfieldE.CrossK.MunR. U.AmspaughC.LangleyS. D.RobertsA.Estepar-GarciaW. (2018, June). Exploratory study on the identification of English learners for gifted and talented programs. University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
28.
HarradineC. C.ColemanM. R.WinnD. C. (2013). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: Findings of U-STARS~PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 24-34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040
29.
HarrisB.RappK. E.MartinezR. S.PluckerJ. A. (2007). Identifying English language learners for gifted and talented programs: Current practices and recommendations for improvement. Roeper Review, 29(5), 26-29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2007.11869221
30.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
31.
HunsakerS. L.FinleyV. S.FrankE. L. (1997). An analysis of teacher nominations and student performance in gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(2), 19-24. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629704100203
32.
IrbyB.Lara-AlécioR. (1996). Attributes of Hispanic gifted bilingual students as perceived by bilingual educators in Texas. SABE Journal, 11, 120-142.
33.
IrbyB.Lara-AlécioR. (2003). The Hispanic bilingual screening instrument: A factor analysis report. http://www.teachbilingual.com
34.
JarosewichT.PfeifferS. I.MorrisJ. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(4), 322-336. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290202000401
35.
Joint Committee on Testing Practices. (2004). Code of fair testing practices in education. American Psychological Association.
36.
KennyD. A.McCoachD. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333-351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
37.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
38.
LakinJ. M. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099
39.
LohmanD. F.KorbK. A.LakinJ. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275-96. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208321808
40.
MatthewsM. S.CastellanoJ. A. (2014). Talent development for English language learners: Identifying and developing potential. Prufrock Press.
41.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 2(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686
42.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258-278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256
43.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69-89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794
MillerL. S. (2004). Promoting sustained growth in the representation of African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans among top students in the United States at all levels of the education system (Research Monograph No. RM04190). University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
46.
MollL. C.AmantiC.NeffD.GonzalezN. (1992). Funds of knowledge for teaching: Using a qualitative approach to connect homes and classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 31(2), 132-141. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405849209543534
47.
MunR. U.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.HamiltonR. (2016, December). Effective practices for identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature. University of Connecticut, National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
48.
MuthénB. O. (2008). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. Sociological Methodology, 27(1), 453-480. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9531.271034
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155-160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206
51.
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2005). Increasing minority children’s participation in gifted classes using the NNAT: A response to Lohman. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 29-36. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900104
PegnatoC. W.BirchJ. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25(7), 300-304. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440295902500702
54.
PereiraN.GentryM. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experiences of high-potential Hispanic English language learners in Midwestern schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(3), 164-194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13494204
55.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 298-313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210378332
56.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2012). Additional validity evidence and across-group equivalency of the HOPE Teacher Rating Scale. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 85-100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212469253
57.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. T. (2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273-287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
58.
PetersS. J.PereiraN. (2017). A replication of the internal validity structure of three major teaching rating scales. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(2), 1-19. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17701940
59.
PetersonJ. S. (1999). Gifted—through whose lens? An application of the postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(4), 354-383. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200403
PlataM.MastenW. G. (1998). Teacher ratings of Hispanic and Anglo students on a behavior rating scale. Roeper Review, 21(2), 139-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553946
62.
RenzulliJ. S.GaesserA. H. (2015). A multi criteria system for the identification of high achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Revista de Educacion, 368, 96-131. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-290
63.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K.WestbergK. L.GavinM. K.ReisS. M.SiegleD.Sytsma-ReedR. E. (2010). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students (3rd ed.). Prufrock Press.
64.
RyuE. (2014). Factorial invariance in multilevel confirmatory factor analysis. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 67(1), 172-194. https://doi.org/10.1111/bmsp.12014
65.
RyserG. R.McConnellK. (2004). Scales for identifying gifted students. Prufrock Press.
66.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyS. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.LittleC. A.McCoachD. B.KnuppT.CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
67.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.KnuppT. (2015, November). Promising practices in gifted education for underserved populations [Paper presentation]. National Association for Gifted Children 62nd Annual Convention, Phoenix, AZ, United States.
68.
SivoS. A.FanX.WittaE. L.WillseJ. (2006). The search for “optimal” cutoff properties: Fit index criteria in structural equation modeling. Journal of Experimental Education, 74(3), 267-288. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.74.3.267-288
69.
TenenbaumH. R.RuckM. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253-273. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.253
Van de VijverF. J. R.TanzerN. K. (2004). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 54(2), 119-135. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2003.12.004
