Debates over identification procedures for gifted and talented students dominate the field and serve as the topic of many of its internal and external debates. We believe this is due to a lack of commonly accepted criteria for how to evaluate identification procedures. In this article, we present the Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access (CASA) criteria, a framework to evaluate identification systems according to their cost, alignment to services, sensitivity, and access. We believe these criteria would facilitate more productive conversations over identification and continued growth and improvement for the field as a whole.
AdelsonJ. L.PittardC. M.LittleC. A.KearneyK. L.O’BrienR. L. (2019, April). Summer program effects on geometry achievement. Roundtable presentation at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
AndersonB. N. (2020). See me, see us: Understanding the intersections and continued marginalization of adolescent gifted Black girls in US classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 43(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519898216
BuiS. A.CraigS. G.ImbermanS. A. (2014). Is gifted education a bright idea? Assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on achievement. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 30–62. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.3.30
6.
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 United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
7.
CarmanC. A.WaltherC. A. P.BartschR. A. (2020). Differences in using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 nonverbal battery versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921164
8.
CavendishW.SamsonJ. (Eds.). (2021). Intersectionality in education: Toward more equitable policy, research, and practice. Teachers College.
9.
CornoL.CronbachL. J.KupermintzH.LohmanD. F.MandinachE. B.PorteusA. W.TalbertJ. E. (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Lawrence Erlbaum.
CrossT. L.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (Eds.). (2020). Conceptual frameworks for giftedness and talent development. Routledge.
12.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2014). Paradigms of gifted education: A guide to theory-based practice-focused research. Prufrock Press.
13.
DavisJ. L.RobinsonS. A. (2018). Being 3e, a new look at culturally diverse gifted learners with exceptional conditions: An examination of the issues and solutions for educators and families. In KaufmanS. B. (Ed.), Twice exceptional (pp. 278–289). Oxford Press.
14.
DixsonD. D. (2020). Intersections of culture, context, and race within poverty: Implications of services for gifted learners from low income backgrounds. In StambaughT.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (Eds.), Unlocking potential: Identifying and serving gifted students from low income households (pp. 27–46). Taylor & Francis.
15.
DixsonD. D.PetersS. J.MakelM. C.JollyJ. L.MatthewsM. S.MillerE. M.Rambo-HernandezK. E.RinnA. N.RobinsJ. H.WilsonH. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057
16.
ErwinJ. O.WorrellF. C. (2012). Assessment practices and the underrepresentation of minority students in gifted and talented education. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 74–87. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428197
17.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Into Practice, 42(3), 217–225. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/45871
18.
GavinM. K.CasaT. M.FirmenderJ. M.CarrollS. R. (2013). The impact of advanced geometry and measurement curriculum units on the mathematics achievement of first-grade students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 71–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213479564
GoingsB. R.FordD. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15 year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25–36. http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217737618
21.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: Explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
22.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.Ottone-CrossK.McCoachD. B.LangleyS. D.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.CaugheyM. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted and talented students: Are identification and services connected?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
23.
HattieJ. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.
24.
HemeltS. W.LenardM. A. (2020). Math acceleration in elementary school: Access and effects on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 74(101920), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2019.101921
25.
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
26.
HonigM. I.VenkateswaranN.McNeilP.TwitchellJ. M. (2014). Leaders’ use of research for fundamental change in school district central offices: Processes and challenges. In FinniganK. S.DalyA. J. (Eds.), Using research evidence in education: From the schoolhouse door to Capitol Hill (pp. 33–52). Springer.
27.
HornC. V. (2015). Young Scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532
28.
HornC. V.LittleC. A.MaloneyK.McCulloughC. (2021). Young scholars model: A comprehensive approach for developing talent and pursuing equity in gifted education. Routledge.
29.
HymanJ. (2017). ACT for all: The effect of mandatory college entrance exams on postsecondary attainment and choice. Education Finance and Policy, 12(3), 281–311. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00206
30.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2020). Cost analysis: A toolkit (IES 2020-001). U.S. Department of Education.
31.
JonsonJ. L.GeisingerK. (2022). Fairness in educational and psychological testing: Examining theoretical, research, practice, and policy implications of the 2014 standards. American Educational Research Association.
32.
KearneyK. L.AdelsonJ. L.RobertsA. M.PittardC. M.O’BrienR. L.LittleC. A. (2019, April). Access and identification: Gifted program identification following early referral for high-potential behaviors [Paper presentation]. The annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
KortelaE.KirjavainenV.AhavaM. J.JokirantaS. T.ButA.LindahlA.JääskeläinenA. E.JääskeläinenA. J.JärvinenA.JokelaP.Kallio-KokkoH.LoginovR.MannonenL.RuotsalainenE.SironenT.VapalahtiO.LappalainenM.KreiviH. R.JarvaH.. . .KekäläinenE. (2021). Real-life clinical sensitivity of SARS-CoV-2 RT-PCR test in symptomatic patients. PLOS ONE, 16(5), Article e0251661. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0251661
35.
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
36.
LeeH.KarakisN.Olcay AkceB.Azzam TuzgenA.KaramiS.GentryM.MaedaY. (2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring its validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800
37.
LeeL. E. (2021). Evaluating program diversity and the probability of gifted identification using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas]. UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1833574/m1/203/
38.
LeeL. E.PetersS. J. (2022). Universal screening: A process to promote equity. In JohnsenS.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), Handbook on assessments for gifted learners (pp. 29–43). Prufrock Press.
39.
LeeS.-Y.Olszewski-KubiliusP.PeternelG. (2009). Follow-up with students after 6 years of participation in project EXCITE. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 137–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330562
40.
LittleC. A.AdelsonJ. L.KearneyK. L.CashK.O’BrienR. (2018). Early opportunities to strengthen academic readiness: Effects of summer learning on mathematics achievement. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 83–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738052
41.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900203
42.
LongD.McCoachD. B.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2022). Inequality at the starting line: Under-representation in gifted identification and disparities in early achievement [Unpublished document].
43.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering the antecedents for math-science expertise. Association for Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
44.
MarlandS. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented—Volume 1: Report to Congress of the United States by the U. S. Commissioner of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED056243.pdf
45.
McBeeM. 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
46.
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
47.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rules. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794
48.
McBeeM. T.ShaunessyE.MatthewsM. S. (2012). Policy matters: An analysis of district-level efforts to increase the identification of underrepresented learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(4), 326–344. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12463511
49.
MillsapR. E. (2011). Statistical approaches to measurement invariance. Routledge.
50.
MunR. U.EzzaniM. D.LeeL. E. (2020). Culturally relevant leadership in gifted education: A systematic literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(2), 108–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220912009
51.
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
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015
55.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS.-Y.NgoiM.NgoiD. (2004). Addressing the achievement gap between minority and nonminority children by increasing access to gifted programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28(2), 127–158. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235320402800202
56.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.Steenbergen-HuS.ThomsonD.RosenR. (2017). Minority achievement gaps in STEM: Findings of a longitudinal study of Project Excite. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(1), 20–39. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216673449
ParkV.DatnowA. (2009). Co-constructing distributed leadership: District and school connections in data-driven decision-making. School Leadership and Management, 29(5), 477–494. https://doi.org/13632430903162541
59.
PetersS. J. (2021). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
60.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
61.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multi-group 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/10.1177/0016986212469253
62.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. T. (2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic proportionality and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
63.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.
64.
ReddingC.GrissomJ. A. (2021). Do students in gifted programs perform better? Linking gifted program participation to achievement and nonachievement outcomes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(3), 520–544. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737211008919
65.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappa, 60(3), 180–181. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ190430
66.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). Equity, excellence, and economy in a system for identifying students in gifted education: A guidebook (RM05208). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
67.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2020). 2018-2019 state of the states in gifted education. National Association of Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education
RobinsonA.AdelsonJ. L.KiddK. A.CunninghamC. M. (2018). A talent for tinkering: Developing talents in children from low-income households through engineering curriculum. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 130–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738049
ShrefflerJ.HueckerM. R. (2021). Diagnostic testing accuracy: Sensitivity, specificity, predictive values and likelihood ratios. In: StatPearls. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK557491/
72.
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
73.
SiegleD.MooreM.MannR. L.WilsonH. E. (2010). Factors that influence in-service and preservice teachers’ nominations of students for gifted and talented programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33(3), 337–360. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003300303
74.
SimonD.BoringJ. R. (1990). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive value. In WalkerH. K.HallW. D.HurstJ. W. (Eds.), Clinical methods: The history, physical, and laboratory examinations (3rd ed.). https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK383/
75.
StambaughT. (2018, December). What works: Identifying and serving gifted students from low-income households [Keynote]. Equitable practices in gifted education conference, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, United States.
76.
StanleyJ. C. (1977, April). The study and facilitation of talent for mathematics [Paper presentation]. American Educational Research Association annual meeting, New York. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED139659.pdf
77.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456079
78.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (2008). What works: 20 years of curriculum and instruction. Prufrock Press.
79.
WellsA. (2020). Achieving equity in gifted programming. Prufrock Press.
YehS. S. (2007). The cost-effectiveness of five policies for improving student achievement. American Journal of Evaluation, 28(4), 416–436. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098214007307928
