Peer nomination forms (PNFs) are growing in popularity as a screening technique for giftedness. This technique has been judged very favorably by experts in the field. Unfortunately, the research on which these judgments are based is fraught with important methodological weaknesses. A critical analysis of the 13 validation studies of PNFs is presented to justify this assertion. Since PNF's offer advantages that make them a potentially worthy technique, a 4-step blueprint for research on their psychometric qualities is also described: 1) developing a taxonomy of abilities or talents to be assessed by peers, 2) drafting experimental PNFs, 3) evaluating their reliabilities, especially interjudge agreement, 4) conducting rigorous validity studies.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
2.
Bachand, P. (1988). Analyse statistique et psychometrique de la procedure d'identification des enfants doues dans une commission scolaire quebecoise. (Statistical and psychometrical analysis of the identification procedure of gifted children in a Quebec schoolboard.) Unpublished master's thesis Montreal, QC: University of Quebec at Montreal.
3.
Blackshear, P.B. (1979). A comparison of peer nomination and teacher nomination in the identification of the academically gifted, black, primary level student . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland . Dissertation Abstracts International, 40, 2525A. (University Microfilms No. 8201560)
4.
Brown, K.E. (1983). Development and evaluation of a program for culturally diverse talented children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 44, 110A. (University Microfilms No. DA83110)
5.
Campbell, D.T. & Fiske, D.W. (1959). Convergent and discriminant validation by the multitrait-multimethod matrix. Psychological Bulletin,56, 81-105.
6.
Cohn, S.J. (1981). What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach to finding and solving problems concerning educating gifted younsters. In A.H. Kramer (Ed.), Gifted children: Challenging their potential (pp. 33-45). Monroe, NY: Trillium Press.
7.
Cox, J., Daniel, N. & Boston, B.O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
8.
Davis, G.A. & Rimm, S.B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
9.
Delisle, J., Gubbins, E.J., Ciabotti, P., Salvatore, L. and Brucker, S. (1984). The Muffs: Peer Identification Instrument. Monroe, NY: Trillium Press.
10.
Dove, M.K. (1986). Peer identification of third and fourth grade gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Kent State University. Dissertation Abstracts International , 47108-A2882. (University Microfilms No. 8626306).
11.
Epstein, C.B. (1979). The gifted and talented: Programs that work. Arlington, VA.: National School Public Relation Association .
12.
Ford, M.E. (1986). For all practical purposes: Criteria for defining and evaluating practical intelligence. In R.J. Sternberg & R.K. Wagner (Eds.), Practical intelligence: Nature and origins of competence in the everyday world (pp. 183-200). New York: Cambridge University Press.
13.
Friedman, P.G., Friedman, R.J. & Dyke, M.V. (1984). Identifying the leadership gifted: Self, peer, or teacher nominations?Roeper Review, 7, 91-94.
14.
Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
15.
Garamella, M. & Lang, H. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between the abilities of troubled youth and the degree to which these abilities could be termed gifted and talented. Portsmouth, NH: New England Teacher Corps Network. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 245)
16.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.
17.
Granzin, K.L. & Granzin. W.J. (1969). Peer group choice as a device for screening intellectually gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13, 189-194.
18.
Gregory, D.A. (1980). An investigation of a multiple criteria identification process for intellectually gifted elementary students in grades three through six. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Maryland. DissertationAbstracts International, 40, 5000A. (University Microfilms No. 8006766)
19.
Hops, H. & Lewin, L. (1984). Peer sociometric forms. In T.H. Ollendick & M. Hersen (Eds.) Child behavioral assessment: Principles and procedures (pp. 124-147). New York: Pergamon Press.
20.
Hsin-Tai, L. (1981). A comparison of alternate screening methods for identifying seventh grade students for academically gifted programs in Taiwan . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Georgia . Dissertation Abstracts International, 42, 3555A. (University Microfilms No. 8201560)
21.
Jarecky, R.K. (1959). Identification of the socially gifted. Exceptional Children, 25, 415-419.
22.
Jenkins, R.C. (1979). The identification of gifted and talented students through peer nomination. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Connecticut. Dissertation Abstracts International , 40, 167A. (University Microfilms No. 7914161)
23.
Kane, J.S. & Lawler,, E.E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin,85, 555-586.
24.
Kaplan, S.N., Madsen, S., Gould, B., Platow, J.A. & Renzulli, J.S. (1979). Inservice training manual, Activities for identification program planning for gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
25.
Maker, C.J. & Grossi, J. (1985). The gifted and talented handicapped: 1985 Digest . Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Doc. Reproduction Service No. ED 262 522).
26.
McBeath, M., Blackshear, P.B. & Smart, L. (1981). Identifying low income, minority, gifted and talented youngters. Washington, DC: District of Columbia Public Schools. ( ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 214328)
27.
Norwood, W.A. (1977). Peer nomination of gifted students: A comparison of students and teachers in recognizing traits of intellectually gifted children . Unpublished doctoral dissertation. University of Southern Mississippi. Dissertation Abstracts International, 38, 2346B. (University Microfilms No. 77-22, 885).
28.
Platow, J.A. (1984). A handbook for identifying the gifted/talentedVentura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.
29.
Renzulli, J.S., Reis, S.M. & Smith, L.H. (1981). The Revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
30.
Rice, J.P. (1985). The gifted: Developing total talent. (2nd ed.). Spring-field, IL: Charles C. Thomas.
31.
Richert, E.S., Alvino, J.J. & McDonnel, R.C. (1982). National report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
32.
Shipley, E.G. (1978). Screening for gifted children: The use of training and observation in the identification process. Unpublished doctoral dissertation . University of Sarasota. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 189787)
33.
Tongue, C. & Sperling, C. (1976). Gifted and talented: An identification model. Raleigh, NC: State Department of Public Instruction .
34.
Torrance, E.P. (1972). Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative high school students twelve years later. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 75-88.
35.
Tremblay, A. (1986). Rapport statistique sur la validation d'instruments d'identification d'eleves doues ou talentueux. (Statistical report on the validation of instruments for the indentification of gifted or talented pupils.)Cowansville, QC: Polyvalente Massey-Vanier .
36.
Willingham, W.W. (1959). On deriving standard scores for peer nominations with subgroups of unequal sizes. Psychological Reports, 5, 397-403.
