How Well Do Peers Agree Among Themselves When Nominating the Gifted or Talented?

Abstract

To validate a set of peer nomination forms, 40 different prototypical descriptions were written to represent four aptitude domains (intellectual, creative, socio-affective, physical) and four talent fields (academic, technical, artistic, interpersonal). They were distributed among six experimental forms, which were paired and administered in counterbalanced oreder at a 3-week interval to a sample of 2350 pupils about equally divided between both sexes and three grades (4, 5, 6), and to the teachers of their 88 groups. Indices of reliability —interpeer agreement— were computed for each prototype in every group. A majority of the prototypes maintained acceptable interpeer agreement levels; important variations were observed associated with a small age effect, a significant group effect, and a very large prototype effect, confirming that interpeer agreement depends first and foremost on the specific aptitude or talent assessed. Consensus among peers was best for intellectual and physical aptitudes, and academic and artistic talents; it was worst for socio-affective aptitudes and interpersonal talents.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anastasi. A. (1988). Psychological testing (6th ed.). New York: Macmillan.

Cohn. S.J. (1981). What is giftedness? A multidimensional approach to finding and solving problems concerning educating gifted youngsters. In A. H. Kramer (Ed.). Gifted children: Challenging their potential (pp 33-45). Monroe. NY: Trillium Press.

Cox, J. , Daniel. N. & Boston. B.O. (1985). Educating able learners: Programs and promising practices. Austin. TX: University of Texas Press.

Dove. M.K. (1986). Peer identification of third and fourth grade gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 47, 2882A-2883A. (University Microfilms No. 8626306)

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.

Friedman, P.G. , Friedman, R.J. , & Dyke, M.V. (1984). Identifying the leadership gifted: Self, peer, or teacher nominations? Hoeper Review, 7. 91 94.

Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.

Gagné, F. (1989). Peer nominations as a psychometric instrument: Many questions asked. but only few answered. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 53-58.

Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

10.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences . New York: Basic Books.

11.

Kane, J.S. , & Lawler, E.E. (1978). Methods of peer assessment. Psychological Bulletin. 85, 555-586.

12.

Kranz, B. (1982). Kranz talent identification manual. Jersey City, NJ: Author.

13.

Platow, J.A. (1984). A handbook for identifying the gifted /talented . Ventura. CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.

14.

Renzulli. J.S. , Reis, S.M. , & Smith, L.H. (1981). The revolving door identification model. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

15.

Rice, J.P. (1985). The gifted: Developing total talent (2nd ed.), Spring-field, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

16.

Taylor, C.W. (1986). Cultivating simultaneous student growth in both creative talents and knowledge. In J. S. Renzulli (Ed.). Systems and models for developing programs for the gifted and talented (pp-306-352). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.