This meta-analysis aimed to examine the relations between nominations and traditional measures to identify gifted students and between four forms of nominations. The article also identified potential moderators of the effect, including nomination form, school level, and type of traditional measure. A total of 29 studies were included, 26 of which analysed the association between nominations and traditional measures and 8 studies analysed the association between the forms of nomination. The results indicated a positive medium Pearson's correlation between nominations and traditional measures (ESr = .32) and between the forms of nominations (ESr = .29). Type of traditional measure and school level affected the association between nominations and traditional measures. This relation was stronger when identification happened in primary school compared to secondary school (p < .09). The effect size was larger for achievement compared to ability (p < .05). Further research is required to determine the strength of associations between four forms of nomination.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438.
BiberM.BiberS. K.OzyaprakM.KartalE.CanT.SimsekI. (2021). Teacher nomination in identifying gifted and talented students: Evidence from Turkey. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100751.
4.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. John Wiley & Sons.
5.
BorlandJ. H. (2005). Gifted education without gifted children: The case for no conception of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 1–19). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.002.
6.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS. (2013). Status of elementary gifted programs: 2013. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, The University of Virginia, Curry School of Education.
7.
CarmanC. A.TaylorD. K. (2010). Socioeconomic status effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 75–84. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355976.
8.
DaiD. Y. (2018). A history of giftedness: Paradigms and paradoxes. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 1–14). Springer Science & Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_1.
9.
GagnéF. (1989). Peer nominations as a psychometric instrument: Many questions asked but few answered. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33(2), 53–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628903300201.
HedgesL. V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 39–65. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.5.
12.
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.
13.
HogeR. D.ColadarciT. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of literature. Review of Educational Research, 59(3), 297–313. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543059003297.
14.
JarosewichT.PfeifferS. I.MorrisJ. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20(4), 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290202000401.
15.
KayaF. (2013). The role of peer nomination forms in the identification of lower elementary gifted and talented students. Educational Research and Reviews, 8(24), 2260–2269. http://www.academicjournals.org/ERR
16.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Sage publications, Inc.
17.
MachtsN.KaiserJ.SchmidtF. T.MoellerJ. (2016). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ cognitive abilities: A meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 85–103. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2016.06.003.
McBeeM. T. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic Status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17(2), 103–111. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-686.
20.
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.
21.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794.
MilicS.SimeunovicV. (2020). Concordance between giftedness assessments by teachers, parents, peers and the self-assessment using multiple intelligences. High Ability Studies, 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1832445.
24.
MilnerH. R.FordD. Y. (2007). Cultural considerations in the underrepresentation of culturally diverse elementary students in gifted education. Roeper Review, 29(3), 166–173. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190709554405.
25.
MoherD.ShamseerL.ClarkeM.GhersiD.LiberatiA.PetticrewM., …StewartL. A. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1
26.
MönksF. J.PflügerR., & Radboud Universiteit Nijmegen. (2005). Gifted education in 21 European countries: inventory and perspective. Radboud University Nijmegen.
27.
MunR. U.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.HamiltonR. (2016). Effective practices for identifying and serving English language learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature. National Center for Research on Gifted Education. University of Connecticut.
28.
PetersenJ. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38(4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002.
29.
PfeifferS. I. (2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. Routledge.
30.
PustejovskyJ. (2020). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections (R package version 0.4.1)[Computer software]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clubSandwich
31.
R Core Team (2020). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
32.
SilvermanL. K. (2018). Assessment of giftedness. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 183–207). Springer Science & Business Media.
33.
SmithL. M. (2014). Giftedness and globalisation: The challenge of cultural diversity for gifted education programmes in a neoliberal educational marketplace. Gifted Education International, 30(3), 197–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413486572.
34.
SternbergR. J.KaramiS. (2021). Gifted for whom? Individualism, dyadism, and collectivism in the definition of giftedness. Gifted Education International, 026142942110523. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294211052393
35.
SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. (2000). A multidimensional framework for synthesizing disparate issues in identifying, selecting, and serving gifted students. In HellerK. A.MonksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 271–282). Pergamon Press.
36.
SüdkampA.KaiserJ.MöllerJ. (2012). Accuracy of teachers’ judgments of students’ academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104(3), 743–762. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027627.
37.
TreffingerD. J.RenzulliJ. S. (1986). Giftedness as potential for creative productivity: Transcending IQ scores. Roeper Review, 8(3), 150–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783198609552960.
38.
Van De SchootR.de BruinJ.SchramR., et al. (2021). An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews. Nature Machine Intelligence, 3(2), 125–133. https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-020-00287-7.
39.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metaphor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3). Article 3. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
40.
WorrellF. C.ErwinJ. O. (2011). Best practices in identifying students for gifted and talented education programs. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.615817.
Zavala BerbenaM. A.de la Torre GarcíaG. (2021). Self-Nomination in the identification process of gifted and talented students in Mexico. In SmithS. R. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
