Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article reanalyses Pegnato and Birch's data in their often cited 1959 article, especially their measures of effectiveness and efficiency. The author shows that these two concepts are not independent, as usually assumed in studies examining the criterion-related validity of various identification techniques for the gifted and talented. Rather, both are related to the number of subjects singled out as a result of the cutoff value chosen to implement the method. Consequently, most comparisons made between and within methods become invalid. A simple alternative is presented: compare the correla tion coefficients of the predictors with the criterion. It is concluded that this methodological flaw, as well as some other technical limitations, invalidates the most often cited observation from that study, namely, that teacher nominations should not be relied upon as an identification technique for the gifted and talented.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Ashman, S.S. , & Vukelich, C. (1983). The effect of different types of nomination forms on teachers' identification of gifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 518-527.

Baldwin, L.J. , & Gargiulo, D.A. (1983). A model program for elementary-age learning-disabled /gifted youngsters. In L. H. Fox , L. Brody , & D. Tobin (Eds.), Learning-disabled/gifted children: Identification and programming (pp. 207-221). Baltimore, MD: University Parks Press.

Clark, B. , (1983). Growing up gifted (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Ferguson, G.A. (1976). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Freeman, J. (1985). A pedagogy for the gifted. In J. Freeman (Ed.), The psychology of gifted children (pp. 1-20). New York: Wiley .

Gear, G.H. (1976). Accuracy of teacher judgment in identifying intellectually gifted children: A review of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 20, 478-489.

Gowan, J.C. (1977). Background and history of the gifted-child movement . In J. C. Stanley , W. C. George , & C. H. Solano (Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspectiue (pp. 5-27). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Hoge, R.D. , & Cudmore, L. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identificaton of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 2, 181-196.

Jacobs, J.C. (1971). Effectiveness of teacher and parent identification of gifted children as a function of school level. Psychology in the Schools, 8, 140-142.

10.

Pegnato, C.W. , & Birch, J.W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300-304.

11.

Robinson, A. (1990). Cooperation or exploitation? The argument against cooperative learning for talented students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 9-27.

12.

Waters, T.J. , & Clausen, S. (1983). Effectiveness of parent versus teacher nomination of gifted children. The Southern Psychologist, 1, 189-191.

Are Teachers Really Poor Talent Detectors? Comments On Pegnato and Birch's (1959) Study of the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Various Identification Techniques

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References