Teachers play important roles in identifying and promoting gifted students. An open question is: Which student characteristics do teachers use to evaluate whether a student is gifted or not? We used data from a representative sample of Dutch primary school teachers (N = 1,304) who were asked whether or not they thought the students (N = 26,720) in their class were gifted. We investigated students’ cognitive and noncognitive attributes as well as demographic factors that might be relevant for this judgment. In sum, the findings revealed that teachers considered students to be gifted when, in comparison with their peers, students were superior in cognitive domains, especially with respect to academic achievement, scored higher on openness to experience and lower on agreeableness, were male, were younger, and came from families with higher parental education. These findings are discussed in relation to research on teacher nominations, teachers’ representations of giftedness and gifted students, and theoretical conceptions of giftedness.
BarrettP. (2007). Structural equation modelling: Adjusting model fit. Personality and Individual Differences, 42(5), 815–824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018
BaudsonT. G.FischbachA.PreckelF. (2016). Teacher judgments as measures of children’s cognitive ability: A multilevel analysis. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 148–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.06.001
4.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28(1), 37–46. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
5.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2016). Teachers’ conceptions of gifted and average-ability students on achievement-relevant dimensions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 212–225. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216647115
6.
BeckerG. (1978). The mad genius debate. SAGE.
7.
BergoldS.HastallM. R.SteinmayrR. (2021). Do mass media shape stereotypes about intellectually gifted individuals? Two experiments on stigmatization effects from biased newspaper reports. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 75–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220969393
8.
BermanK. M.SchultzR. A.WeberC. L. (2012). A lack of awareness and emphasis in preservice teacher training. Gifted Child Today, 35(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217511428307
BishofbergerS. D. (2012). Elementary teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: An examination of the relationship between teacher background and gifted identification. University of Tennessee. http://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_graddiss/1270
BorghansL.SchilsT.de WolfI. (2016). Experimentalism in Dutch education policy—Governing education in a complex world. Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. https://doi.org/10.1787/9789264255364-en
BusseT. V.DahmeG.WagnerH.WieczerkowskiW. (1986). Teacher perceptions of highly gifted students in the United States and West Germany. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 55–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628603000202
15.
CarmanC. A. (2011). Stereotypes of giftedness in current and future educators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(5), 790–812. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353211417340
16.
CarmanC. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472602
17.
CarringtonN.BaileyS. B. (2000). How do preservice teachers view gifted students? Evidence from a NSW Study. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 9(1), 18–22.
18.
Centraal Instituut voor Toets Ontwikkeling [CITO]. (2011–2015) Terugblik Eindtoets Basisonderwijs 2011-2015 [Overview exit test primary education 2011-2015]. CITO.
19.
DahmeG.EggersR. (1988). Lehrerkriterien zur Identifikation hochbegabter Schüler [Teachers’ criteria for identifying gifted students]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 35(1), 188–201.
20.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: In search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
21.
DhamiM. K.MumpowerJ. L. (2018). Kenneth R. Hammond’s contributions to the study of human judgment and decision making. Judgment and Decision Making, 13(1), 1–22.
22.
Endepohls-UlpeM.RufH. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140
23.
European Commission. (2011). Grade retention during compulsory education in Europe: Regulations and statistics. Education, Audiovisual and Culture Executive Agency (EACEA P9 Eurydice). Education. http://www.eurydice.org
24.
ForemanJ. L.GubbinsE. J. (2015). Teachers see what ability scores cannot: Predicting student performance with challenging mathematics. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26(1), 5–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X14552279
25.
FreemanJ. (2006). Giftedness in the long term, professor. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29(4), 384–403. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-246
26.
GagnéF. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors—Comments on Pegnato and Birch (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800305
27.
GagnéF. (2013). The DMGT: Changes within, beneath, and beyond. Talent Development & Excellence, 5(1), 5–19.
28.
Garcia-CeperoM. C.McCoachD. B. (2009). Educators’ implicit theories of intelligence and beliefs about the identification of gifted students. Universitas Psychologica, 8(2), 295–310.
29.
Glöckner-RistA.HoijtinkH. (2003). The best of both worlds: Factor analysis of dichotomous data using item response theory and structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(4), 544–565. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1004_4
30.
GolleJ.ZettlerI.RoseN.TrautweinU.HasselhornM.NagengastB. (2018). Effectiveness of a “grass roots” statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school children. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(3), 375–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1402396
31.
GöllnerR.RobertsB. W.DamianR. I.LüdtkeO.JonkmannK.TrautweinU. (2017). Whose “storm and stress” is it? Parent and child reports of personality development in the transition to early adolescence. Journal of Personality, 85(3), 376–387. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12246
32.
GuskinS. L.PengC. Y. J.SimonM. (1992). Do teachers react to multiple intelligences—Effects of teachers stereotypes on judgments and expectancies for students with diverse patterns of giftedness talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600108
33.
HansesP.RostD. H. (1998). Das “Drama” der hochbegabten Underachiever—“Gewöhnliche” oder “außergewöhnliche” Underachiever? [The “drama” of the gifted underachievers—“ordinary” or “extraordinary” underachievers?]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie, 12, 53–71.
34.
HanyE. A. (1993). How teachers identify gifted students: Feature processing or concept based classification. European Journal for High Ability, 4(2), 196–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445930040208
35.
HanyE. A. (1995). Teachers’ cognitive process of identifying gifted students. In KatzkoM. W. (Ed.), Nurturing talent: Individual needs and social ability (pp. 184–198). Assen.
36.
HanyE. A. (1997). Modeling teachers’ judgment of giftedness: A methodological inquiry of biased judgment. High Ability Studies, 8(2), 159–178. http://doi.org/10.1080/1359813970080203
37.
HellerK. A. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness and its impact on identification and programming. Gifted and Talented International, 20(1), 30–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2005.11673055
38.
Hernández-TorranoD.PrietoM. a. D.FerrándizC.BermejoR.SáinzM. (2013). Characteristics leading teachers to nominate secondary students as gifted in Spain. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490197
39.
Hernandez-TorranoD.TursunbayevaX. (2016). Are teachers biased when nominating students for gifted services? Evidence from Kazakhstan. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108187
40.
HeyderA.BergoldS.SteinmayrR. (2018). Teachers’ knowledge about intellectual giftedness: A first look at levels and correlates. Psychology Learning & Teaching, 17(1), 27–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/1475725717725493
41.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
42.
HogeR. D.CudmoreL. (1986). The use of teacher judgment measure in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(86)90016-8
43.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1998). Fit indices in covariance structure modeling: Sensitivity to underparameterized model misspecification. Psychological Methods, 3(4), 424–453. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.3.4.424
44.
HuL. T.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
45.
HunsakerS. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of giftedness: Teachers see it, then they don’t. Roeper Review, 17(1), 11–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199409553610
46.
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
47.
KennyD. A.KaniskanB.McCoachD. B. (2014). The performance of RMSEA in models with small degrees of freedom. Sociological Methods and Research, 44(3), 486–507. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124114543236
48.
KimK. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
49.
KornmannJ.ZettlerI.KammererY.GerjetsP.TrautweinU. (2015). What characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of working memory and intelligence. High Abilities Studies, 26, 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1033513
50.
LassigC. J. (2009). Teachers’ attitudes towards the gifted: The importance of professional development and school culture. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 18(2), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.21505/ajge.2015.0012
LubinskiD. (2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
53.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
54.
MachtsN.KaiserJ.SchmidtF. T. C.MoellerJ. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003
55.
MakelM. C.SnyderK. E.ThomasC.MaloneP. S.PutallazM. (2015). Gifted students’ implicit beliefs about intelligence and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59(4), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215599057
56.
MatheisS.KellerL. K.KronborgL.SchmittM.PreckelF. (2019). Do stereotypes strike twice? Giftedness and gender stereotypes in pre-service teachers’ beliefs about student characteristics in Australia. Asian-Pacific Journal of Teacher Education, 48(2), 213–232. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359866X.2019.1576029
57.
MatheisS.KronborgL.SchmittM.PreckelF. (2017). Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation. Gifted and Talented International, 32(2), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685
58.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686
59.
McBeeM. T. (2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 283–297. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210377927
60.
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
61.
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
62.
McCraeR. R.CostaP. T. (1996). Toward a new generation of personality theories: Theoretical contexts for the five-factor model. In WigginsJ. S. (Ed.), The five-factor model of personality: Theoretical perspectives (pp. 51–87). Guilford Press.
63.
McKelveyR. D.ZavoinaW. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4(1), 103–120. https://doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1975.9989847
64.
McNeishD.StapletonL. M.SilvermanR. D. (2017). On the unnecessary ubiquity of hierarchical linear modeling. Psychological Methods, 22(1), 114–140. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000078
65.
MeierE.VoglK.PreckelF. (2014). Motivational characteristics of students in gifted classes: The pivotal role of need for cognition. Learning and Individual Differences, 33, 39–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.04.006
66.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. 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
NeihartM. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological wellbeing: What does the empirical literature say?Roeper Review, 22(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553991
69.
NeumeisterK. L. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. 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
70.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x
71.
PegnatoC. V.BirchJ. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440295902500702
72.
PenuelW. R.GallagherD. J. (2017). Creating research-practice partnerships in education. Harvard Education Press.
73.
PerssonR. S. (1998). Paragons of virtue: Teachers’ conceptual understanding of high ability in an egalitarian school system. High Ability Studies, 9(2), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1080/1359813980090204
74.
PetersenJ. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002
75.
PetersonJ. S. (1999). Gifted—Through whose cultural 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
76.
PreckelF.BaudsonT. G.Krolak-SchwerdtS.GlockS. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Research Journal, 52(6), 1160–1184. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413
77.
PreckelF.GolleJ.GrabnerR.JarvinL.KozbeltA.MüllensiefenD.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SchneiderW.SubotnikR.VockM.WorrellF. C. (2020). Talent development in achievement domains: A psychological framework for within- and cross-domain research. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 691–722. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619895030
78.
RaykovT. (2012). Scale construction and development using structural equation modeling. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 472–492). The Guilford Press.
79.
ReezigtG.SwanbornM.VreeburgB. (2013). Differences between schools with regard to grade retention. PEDAGOGISCHE STUDIEN, 90(5), 31–44.
RenzulliJ. S.DelcourtM. A. B. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(1), 20–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628603000104
82.
RicciardiC.Haag-WolfA.WinslerA. (2020). Factors associated with gifted identification for ethnically diverse children in poverty. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 243–258. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220937685
83.
RoeleveldJ.van der VeenI. (2007). Kleuterbouwverlenging in Nederland: Omvang, kenmerken en effecten [Preschool extension in the Netherlands: Extent, characteristics and effects]. PEDAGOGISCHE STUDIEN, 84(6), 448–462.
84.
RothenbuschS.VossT.GolleJ.ZettlerI. (2018). Linking teacher and parent ratings of teacher-nominated gifted elementary school students to each other and to school grades. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 230–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752100
85.
RothenbuschS.ZettlerI.VossT.LöschT.TrautweinU. (2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000085
86.
ŞahinN.DüzenN. E. (1994). The gifted child stereotype among university students and elementary school teachers. In HellerK. A.HanyE. A. (Eds.), Competence and responsibility: Proceedings of the 3rd ECHA conference (Vol. 2, pp. 367–376). Hogrefe & Huber.
87.
SatorraA.BentlerP. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference chi-square test statistic. Psychometrika, 75(2), 243–248. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11336-009-9135-y
88.
SiegleD.PowellT. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
89.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). SAGE.
90.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology Public Policy and Law, 6(1), 216–222. https://doi.org/10.1037//1076-8971.6.1.216
SternbergR. J.ConwayB. E.KetronJ. L.BernsteinM. (1981). People’s conceptions of intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.41.1.37
93.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
94.
SternbergR. J.ZhangL. F. (1995). What do we mean by giftedness—A pentagonal implicit theory. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39(2), 88–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629503900205
95.
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(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
96.
SubotnikR. F.StoegerH.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2017). Talent development research, policy, and practice in Europe and the United States: Outcomes from a summit of international researchers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 262–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701839
97.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
98.
TermanL. M. (1954). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9(6), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060516
99.
TibkenC.RichterT.von Der LindenN.SchmiedelerS.SchneiderW. (2022). The role of metacognitive competences in the development of school achievement among gifted adolescents. Child Development, 93(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13640
van BoxtelH.EngelenR.de WijsA. (2011) Wetenschappelijke verantwoording van de Eindtoets 2010 [Scientific justification of the 2010 End Test]. CITO.
102.
VandenbergR. J.LanceC. 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. http://doi.org/10.1177/109442810031002
103.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 484–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484
104.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 860–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019454
105.
WirthweinL.BeckerC. V.LoehrE.-V.RostD. H. (2011). Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex matter?High Abilities Studies, 22(2), 145–153. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.622944
106.
WorrellF. C. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 242–244. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346828
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.
