The present study addressed the problem of self-nomination in peer nomination forms (PNF) used with children to designate classroom peers who have superior abilities or talents. Its goal was to assess the incidence and worth of that information. The sample consisted of 391 students from 17 classes, almost evenly divided by gender and grade (4 to 8). The instrument was a 12-item frequent (41%). A repeated measures ANOVA showed that the incidence rate was mainly influenced by the type of ability assessed and the rank of the choices, and that both interacted with the following variables: group, grade level, and gender. Self-nominations had no perceptible impact on the reliability of the talent scores. Self and peer nominations were significantly correlated, r = 44. A much lower correlation was observed between self-and teacher nominations, r = 23, attributed mainly to the lower reliability of these two types of scores.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alexander, P.A. (1985). Gifted and non gifted student's perception of intelligence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24, 137-143.
2.
Bailey, K.G., & Lazar, J. (1976). Accuracy of self-ratings of intelligence as a function of sex and level of ability in college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 129, 279-290.
3.
Bailey, R.C., Zinser, O., & Edgar, R. (1975). Perceived intelligence, motivation and achievement in male and female college students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 27, 125-129.
4.
Banburry, M.M., & Wellington, B. (1989). Designing and using peer nominations forms. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 161-164.
5.
Callahan, C.M. (1979). The gifted and talented woman. In A.H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development (pp. 401-403). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Cox, D.R. (1970). The analysis of binary data. London: Chapman & Hall.
7.
Delisle, J.L., Gubbins, E.J., Ciabotti, P., Salvatore, L., & Rucker, S. (1984). The MUFFS: Peer identification instrument. New York: Trillium Press.
8.
Dove, M.K. (1986). Peer identification of third and fourth grade gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kent State University. (University Microfilms No. 8626306)
9.
Epstein, C.B. (1979). The gifted and talented: Prugrams that works. Arlington, VA: National School Public Relation Association .
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
12.
Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a differential model of giftedness and talent. In N. Colangelo & A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allvn & Bacon.
13.
Gagné, F., Bégin, J., & Talbot, L. (1993). How well do peers agree among themselves when nominating the gifted and talented?Gifted Child Quarterly , 37, 39-45.
14.
Gagné, F. (1993). Sex differences in the aptitudes and talents of children as judged by peers and teachers. Gifted Child Quarterly , 37, 69-77.
15.
Gagné, F. ( 1994). Tracking Talents Questionnaire: Users' manual . Montréal, Quebec: Université dn Québec à Montréal, Department of Psychology.
16.
Garamella, M., & Lang, H. (1980). An investigation of the relationship between the abilities of troubled youth and the degree to which the abilities could be termed gifted and talented. Portsmouth, NH: New England Teacher Corps Network. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 196 254)
17.
Harris, M.M., & Schaubroek. J. (1988). A meta-analysis of self-supervisor, self-peer and peer-supervisor ratings. Personnel Psychology , 41, 43-63.
18.
Karnes, EA, & D'llio, V. (1988). Assessment of the concurrent validity of the Leadership Skills Inventory with gifted and their teachers. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 66, 59-62.
19.
Karnes, F.A., & D'llio, V. (1989). Leadership positions and sex role stereotyping among gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 76-78.
20.
Leukhardt, J.C. (1981). A study of the difference by sex in self selection patterns of participation in activities of a program for high school gifted students. Pennsylviana. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED212121)
21.
Levine, E.L., Flory, A., & Ash, R.A. ( 1977). Self-assessment in personnel selection. Journal of Applied Psychology, 62, 428-435.
22.
Lowman, R.L., & Williams. R.E. ( 1987). Validity of self-ratings of abilities and competencies. Journal of Vocational Behavior , 31, 1-13.
23.
Mabe, P.A., & West, S.G. (1982). Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 67, 280-296.
24.
Maker, C.J., & Grossi, J. (1985). The gifted and talented handicapped: 1985 digest . Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262 522)
25.
Massé, L. (1992). Analyse psychométrique des auto-désignations dans le dépistage des talents par les pairs. [Psychometric analysis of self-nominations in relationship with the screening of talents by peers]. Unpublished master's thesis. Université du Quéhec à Montréal, Montréal, Québec, Canada.
26.
Mitchell, B. (1982). Identification of the gifted and talented: A screening process with special emphasis on the culturally different. In Irving Sato (Ed.), Identifying and educating the disadvantaged gifted/talented: Selected proceeding from the fifth national conference on disadvantaged gifted/talented (pp. 109-116). Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office, N/S-LTI-G/T.
27.
Nelson, H. (1982). The identification of black and hispanic talented and gifted students—grades kindergarten through six: In search of an educational standard. In Irving Sato (Ed.), Identifying and educating the disadvantaged gifted/talented: Selected proceeding from the fifth national conference on disadvantaged gifted/talented (pp. 51-62). Ventura, CA: Ventura County Superintendent of Schools Office, N/S-LTI-G/T.
28.
Philip, D.A., & Zimmerman, M. (1990). The developmental course of perceived competence and incompetence among competent children. In R.J. Sternberg & J. Kolligian, Jr. (Eds.), Competence considered (pp. 41-66). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
29.
Renzulli, J.S., & Smith, L.H. (1977). Two approaches to identification of gifted students . Exceptional Children, 44, 512-518.
30.
Reynolds, A.C. (1962). Early school admission for mentally advanced children: A review of research and practice. Washington, DC: Council for Exceptional Children.
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 Improvment Center-Youth.
32.
Ruble, D.M. (1988). Sex role development. In M.H. Borstein & M.E. Lamb (Eds.), Developmental psychology: An advanced textbook (2nd ed., pp. 411-460). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
33.
Stevens, J. (1986). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
34.
Thornton, G.C., III. (1978, August). Psychometric properties of self appraisals of job performance. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario , Canada.
35.
Tongue, C., & Sperling, C. (1976). Gifted and talented: An identification model. Raleigh, NJ: State Department of Public Instruction.
