Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The underrepresentation of students from low-income families and of culturally diverse students is a longstanding and pervasive problem in the field of gifted education. Teachers play an important role in equitably identifying and serving students in gifted education; therefore, the Having Opportunities Promotes Excellence (HOPE) Scale was used in this study with a sample of Korean elementary school teachers (n = 55) and their students (n = 1,157). Confirmatory factor analysis and multigroup confirmatory factor analysis results suggested the HOPE Scale shows equivalence of model form, factor loading, and factor variances across different income and ethnic groups. A follow-up interview with teachers (n = 6) revealed they acknowledged the importance of using the HOPE Scale as an additional method for identifying gifted students; however, they indicated less confidence about rating gifted students’ social characteristics compared with academic components in the HOPE Scale.

Keywords

gifted identification low income measurement invariance multicultural teacher nomination

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abu

N. K.

Akkanat

Ç.

Gökdere

(2017). Teachers’ views about the education of gifted students in regular classrooms. Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 7(2), 87-109. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323838217_Teachers’_Views_about_the_Education_of_Gifted_Students_in_Regular_Classrooms_Turk_Ustun_Zeka_ve_Egitim_Dergisi

Bracken

B. A.

McCallum

(2018). UTAGS complete kit: Universal Talented and Gifted Screener. Prufrock Press.

Brown

S. W.

Renzulli

J. S.

Gubbins

E. J.

Siegle

Zhang

Chen

C. H.

(2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 68-79. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900107

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. Guilford Press.

Browne

M. W.

Cudeck

(1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In Bollen

K. A.

Long

J. S.

(Eds.). Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Sage.

Byrne

B. M.

(2012). Structural equation modeling with Mplus: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Routledge.

Callahan

C. M.

(2007). What can we learn from research bout promising practices in developing the gifts and talents of low income students? In VanTassel-Baska

Stambaugh

(Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 53-56). National Association for Gifted Children.

Chen

F. F.

(2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(3), 464-504. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834

Chen

F. F.

Curran

P. J.

Bollen

K. A.

Kirby

Paxton

(2008). An empirical evaluation of the use of fixed cutoff points in RMSEA test statistic in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 36(4), 462-494. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124108314720

10.

Creswell

J. W.

Miller

D. L.

(2000). Determining validity in qualitative inquiry. Theory Into Practice, 39(3), 124-130. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip3903_2

11.

Denzin

N. K.

Lincoln

Y. S.

(1994). Handbook of qualitative research. Sage.

12.

Elhoweris

Mutua

Alsheikh

Holloway

(2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity of teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial and Special Education, 26(1), 25-31. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260010401

13.

Esquierdo

J. J.

Arreguín-Anderson

(2012). The “invisible” gifted and talented bilingual students: A current report on enrollment in GT programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(1), 35-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211432041

14.

Fan

Silvo

S. 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

15.

Fischer

Karl

J. A.

(2019). A primer to (cross-cultural) multi-group invariance testing possibilities in R. Frontiers in psychology, 10, Article 1507. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01507

16.

French

B. F.

Finch

W. 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

17.

Garver

M. S.

Mentzer

J. T.

(1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33-57.

18.

Geisinger

K. F.

(1994). Cross-cultural normative assessment: Translation and adaptation issues influencing the normative interpretation of assessment instruments. Psychological Assessment, 6(4), 304-312. https://doi.org/10.1037/1040-3590.6.4.304

19.

Gentry

Gray

Whiting

Maeda

Pereira

(2019). Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, Title I school status, and race [Executive summary]. https://www.education.purdue.edu/geri/new-publications/gifted-education-in-the-united-states/

20.

Gentry

Pereira

Peters

S. J.

McIntosh

J. S.

Fugate

C. M.

(2015). HOPE teacher rating scale administration manual. Prufrock Press.

21.

Gilliam

J. E.

Carpenter

B. O.

Christensen

J. R.

(1996). Gifted and Talented Evaluation Scales. Pro-Ed.

22.

Guadagnoli

Velicer

W. F.

(1988). Relation of sample size to the stability of component patterns. Psychological Bulletin, 103(2), 265-275. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.103.2.265

23.

Gubrium

J. F.

Holstein

J. A.

(2001). Handbook of interview research: Context and method. Sage.

24.

Hambleton

R. K.

(2001). The next generation of the ITC test translation and adaptation guidelines. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 17(3), 164-172. https://doi.org/10.1027//1015-5759.17.3.164

25.

Hammerschmidt

M. M.

(2016). Teacher perceptions regarding the teaching of gifted students in the traditional classroom setting [Doctoral dissertation, Texas Tech University]. https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/72341

26.

Hansen

J. B.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1994). Comparison of trained and untrained teachers of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 115-121. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800304

27.

Harradine

C. C.

Coleman

M. R. B.

Winn

D. M. C.

(2014). 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

28.

Horn

J. L.

McArdle

J. J

(1992). A practical and theoretical guide to measurement invariance in aging research. Experimental Aging Research, 18(3), 117-144. https://doi.org/10.1080/03610739208253916

29.

Bentler

P. M.

(1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives, Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118

30.

Jöreskog

K. G.

(n.d.). LISREL 9.30. https://ssicentral.com/index.php/products/lisrel/

31.

Kaplan

George

(1995). A study of the power associated with testing factor mean differences under violations of factorial invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 2(2), 101-118. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519509539999

32.

Kenny

D. A.

McCoach

D. 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

33.

Kline

(1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.

34.

Korean Educational Development Institute. (2015). Gifted Education Statistical Yearbook 2015. https://ged.kedi.re.kr/stss/main.do

35.

Korean Educational Development Institute. (2016). Gifted Education Statistical Yearbook 2016. https://ged.kedi.re.kr/stss/main.do

36.

Kuzel

A. J.

(1999). Sampling in Qualitative Inquiry. In Crabtree

B. F.

Miller

W. L.

(Eds.), Doing Qualitative Research (2nd ed, pp.33-45). Sage.

37.

Lakin

J. M.

(2012). Multidimensional ability tests and culturally and linguistically diverse students: Evidence of measurement invariance. Learning and Individual Differences, 22(3), 397-403. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.12.003

38.

Lakin

J. M.

(2016). Universal screening and the representation of historically underrepresented minority students in gifted education. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 139-149. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16630348

39.

Lee

Eum

(2018). Analysis of research trends on economically disadvantaged gifted education. Journal of Holistic Convergence Education, 22(2), 29-54. https://doi.org/10.35184/kshce.2018.22.2.29

40.

Lee

(2015). A comparative study on gifted programs abroad for economically disadvantaged or minority students: The cases of US, UK, Germany, Australia, and Israel. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 25(3), 439-463. https://doi.org/10.9722/JGTE.2015.25.3.439

41.

Lee

(2016). Multicultural gifted education in Korea: Current issues. Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 15(3), 103-129. https://doi.org/10.17839/jksgt.2016.15.3.103

42.

(2016). Confirmatory factor analysis with ordinal data: Comparing robust maximum likelihood and diagonally weighted least squares. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 936-949. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0619-7

43.

Marshall

Cardon

Poddar

Fontenot

(2013). Does sample size matter in qualitative research? A review of qualitative interviews in IS research. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 54(1), 11-22. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2013.11645667

44.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103-111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686

45.

McCallum

R. S.

Bracken

B. A.

(2012). Examiner’s manual: Universal multiple abilities scale. Pro-Ed.

46.

McCarney

S. B.

Anderson

P. D.

(1998). The Gifted Evaluation Scale—Technical manual (2nd ed.). Hawthorne Educational Services.

47.

McCoach

D. B.

Gable

R. K.

Madura

J. P.

(2013). Instrument development in the affective domain. Springer.

48.

McNeish

Hancock

G. R.

(2018). The thorny relation between measurement quality and fit index cutoffs in latent variable models. Journal of Personality Assessment, 100(1), 43-52. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223891.2017.1281286

49.

Ministry of Education. (2013). 3rd Master plan for the promotions of gifted and talented education (2013-2017). http://gifted.kedi.re.kr/images/gifted/policy/report04.pdf

50.

Ministry of Education & Human Resources Development. (2004). Plans for the promotions of gifted and talented education to 5% of K-12 populations. http://gifted.kedi.re.kr/images/gifted/policy/report02.pdf

51.

Moon

T. R.

Brighton

C. M.

(2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447-480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793

52.

Morse

J. M.

(2000). Determining sample size. Qualitative Health Research, 10(1), 3-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/104973200129118183

53.

Muthén

(1997). Latent variable modeling of longitudinal and multilevel data. In Raftery

A. E.

(Ed.), Sociological methodology (pp. 453-480). Blackwell.

54.

Neumeister

K. L. S.

Adams

C. M.

Pierce

R. L.

Cassady

J. C.

Dixon

F. A.

(2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479-499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503

55.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Clarenbach

(2012). Unlocking emergent talent: Supporting high achievement of low-income, high ability students. National Association for Gifted Children. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED537321.pdf

56.

Osterlind

S. J.

Everson

H. T.

(2009). Differential item functioning. Sage.

57.

Ozcan

Kotek

(2015). What do the teachers think about gifted students? Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 190(May), 569-573. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.05.044

58.

Patton

M. Q.

(2002). Qualitative research and Evaluation methods. Sage.

59.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

(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

60.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

(2013). 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

61.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

Whiting

G. W.

McBee

M. 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

62.

Perry

J. L.

Nicholls

A. R.

Clough

P. J.

Crust

(2015). Assessing model fit: Caveats and recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation modeling. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19(1), 12-21. https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.952370

63.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Jarosewich

(2003). The Gifted Rating Scales. Psychological Corporation.

64.

Plucker

J. A.

Makel

M. C.

Matthews

M. S.

Peters

S. J.

Rambo-Hernandez

K. E.

(2017). Blazing new trails: Strengthening policy research in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 210-281. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701838

65.

Plucker

J. A.

Peters

S. J.

(2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: Conceptual, measurement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56-67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738566

66.

Putnick

D. L.

Bornstein

M. H.

(2016). Measurement invariance conventions and reporting: The state of the art and future directions for psychological research. Developmental Review, 41(September), 71-90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2016.06.004

67.

Renzulli

J. S.

Smith

L. H.

White

A. J.

Callahan

C. M.

Hartman

R. K.

Westberg

K. L.

(2002). Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students. Creative Learning Press.

68.

Reynolds

C. R.

Carson

A. D.

(2005). Methods for assessing cultural bias in tests. In Frisby

C. L.

Reynolds

C. R.

(Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of multicultural school psychology (pp. 795-823). John Wiley.

69.

Ryser

G. R.

McConnell

(2004). Scales for identifying gifted students: Ages 5 through 18. Prufrock Press.

70.

Ryu

(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

71.

Sprague

B. N.

Hyun

Molenaar

P. C.

(2017). Revisiting measurement invariance in intelligence testing in aging research: Evidence for almost complete metric invariance across age groups. Journal for Person-oriented Research, 3(2), 86-100. https://doi.org/10.17505/jpor.2017.08

72.

Subramanian

G. H.

Peslak

A. R.

(2010). User perception differences in enterprise resource planning implementations. Journal of Computer Information Systems, 50(3), 130-138. https://doi.org/10.1080/08874417.2010.11645415

73.

Sung

(2017). Identification and education for the multicultural gifted and talented students. Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 16(2), 5-21. https://doi.org/10.17839/jksgt.2017.16.2.5

74.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 11-25. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000103

75.

Szymanski

Shaff

(2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students. Gifted Children, 6(1), 1-27. https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/giftedchildren/vol6/iss1/1

76.

Thompson

M. S.

Green

S. B.

(2006). Evaluating between group differences in latent variable means. Structural equation modeling: A second course (pp. 119-169). Information Age.

77.

Ullman

J. B.

(2007). Structural equation modeling. In Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (5th ed., pp. 676-780). Allyn & Bacon.

78.

Valencia

R. R.

Suzuki

L. A.

(2001). Intelligence testing and minority students. Sage.

79.

van de Vijver

Tanzer

N. K.

(1997). Bias and equivalence in cross-cultural assessment. European Review of Applied Psychology, 47(4), 263-279.

80.

Vandenberg

R. J.

Lance

C. E.

(2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3(1), 4-70. https://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002

81.

Williams

L. J.

Holahan

P. J.

(1994). Parsimony-based fit indices for multiple-indicator models: Do they work? Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 1(2), 161-189. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519409539970

82.

Yoon

Lai

M. H.

(2018). Testing factorial invariance with unbalanced samples. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 25(2), 201-213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2017.1387859

83.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121-136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564

84.

Yuan

K. H.

Bentler

P. M.

(2000). Robust mean and covariance structure analysis through iteratively reweighted least squares. Psychometrika, 65(1), 43-58. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02294185

Validity Evidence of The HOPE Scale in Korea: Identifying Gifted Students From Low-Income and Multicultural Families

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References