Identifying gifted children for placement in special educational programs is challenging for Brazilian teachers, as they are unprepared or insecure to make nominations. Therefore, this study aims to verify if the Battery of Intelligence and Creativity (BAICI) could be used to complement the teachers’ nominations to identify gifted children. The sample consisted of 328 Brazilian children (141 F, 187 M), aged from 8 to 12 years (M = 10.17; Sd = 1.37), attending private (32%) and public schools (68%). The total number of children previously nominated by their teachers as gifted was 164 (53 F, 111 M). The ANCOVA results indicated that BAICI scores could discriminate gifted from regular children regarding intelligence and creativity, except for memory and figural creativity. The intelligence tests significantly correlated with creativity scores (r = .361 to r = .381). Therefore, it is possible to use this battery to substitute for or complement teachers’ nominations of gifted children.
AlencarE. M. S.FleithD. S.BlumenS. (2002). Trends in gifted education in South America: The Brazilian and Peruvian scenario. Gifted and Talented International, 17(1), 7–12. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2002.11672980
2.
BarbosaR. M.Marinho-AraujoC. M. (2010). Psicologia escolar no Brasil: considerações e reflexões históricas [School psychology in Brazil: considerations and historical reflections]. Estudos de Psicologia, 27(3), 393–402. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-166X2010000300011
ChattopadhayT. (2014). School as a site of student social capital: An exploratory study from Brazil. International Journal of Educational Development, 34(2), 67–76. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijedudev.2012.05.001
CupertinoC. (2000). The limits of traditional assessment and identification of gifted children in a Brazilian “favela”. Gifted Education International, 15(1), 71–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940001500108
10.
DelouC. M.CardosoF. S.MarianiR.PaixãoI. C. P.CastroH. C. (2014). Gifted children and adolescents: Exploring the perspective of a group that still needs educational attention in Brazil. Creative Education, 5(13), 1224–1234. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.513138
11.
DelouC. M. C. (2014). O Funcionamento do Programa de Atendimento a Alunos com Altas Habilidades/Superdotação [The operation of the attendance program for high abilities/gifted children]. Revista Educação Especial, 27(50), 675–688. https://doi.org/10.5902/1984686X14323
12.
DelouC. M. C. (2015). Lista Básica de Indicadores de Superdotação: Parâmetros de observação de alunos em sala de aula [Basic list of giftedness indicators: Baseline for observing students in the classrooms]. In LehmannL. M. S.CoutinhoL. G. C. (Eds.), Psicologia e Educação: Interfaces (pp. 71–93). EDUFF.
FaberJ. A.AlvesA. G. (2023). Altas habilidades/superdotação no Brasil. Uma revisão da literatura no período de 2012 a 2022 [High abilities/giftedness in Brazil. A literature review during 2012-2022]. Dialógos e Perspectivas em Educação Especial, 10(1), 11–26. https://doi.org/10.36311/2358-8845.2023.v10n1.p11-26
15.
FleithD.AlencarE. M. L. S. (2010). Implementing the schoolwide enrichment model in Brazil. Gifted Education International, 26(2–3), 169–176. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142941002600305
16.
GerwigA.MiroshnikD.ForthmannB.BenedeckM.KarwowskiM.HollingH. (2021). The relationship between intelligence and divergent thinking: A meta-analytic update. Journal of Intelligence, 9(2), Article 23. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence9020023
17.
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
JaukE.BenedekM.DunstB.NeubauerA. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
20.
JosephL. M.FordD. Y. (2006). Nondiscriminatory assessment: Considerations for gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50(1), 42–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620605000105
21.
KaufmanJ. C. (2015). Why creativity isn’t in IQ tests, why it matters and why it won’t change anytime soon probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3(3), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence3030059
22.
KaufmanJ. C.KaufmanS. B.LichtenbergerE. O. (2011). Finding creative potential on intelligence tests via divergent production. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26(2), 83–106. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573511406511
23.
KimK. E. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, XVI(3), 57–66. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2005-473
24.
LuriaS. R.O’BrienR. L.KaufmanJ. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13136
25.
Maia-PintoR. (2006). Educational practices on a Brazilian gifted and talented program. Gifted Education International, 21(1), 32–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940602100106
26.
Maia-PintoR.FleithD. (2002). Percepçao de professores sobre alunos superdotados [Teachers’perceptions of gifted students]. Estudos de Psicologia, 19(1), 78–90. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0103-166X2002000100007
27.
MartinsB. A.Mayra-PedroK.OgedaC. M. M.KogaF. O.ChaconM. C. M. (2016). Altas habilidades/superdotação: Estudos no Brasil [High abilities/giftedness: Brazilian studies]. Journal of Research in Special Educational Needs, 16(1), 135–139. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-3802.12275
28.
MilanQ. G.WechslerS. M. (2018). Avaliação integrada da inteligência e criatividade [Integrated assessment of intelligence and creativity]. Fractal Revista de Psicologia, 36(2), Article 525. https://doi.org/10.8800/psico.201802.005
NakanoT. C.NegreirosJ. R.FussaroL. H. (2024). Práticas na identificação das altas habilidades/superdotação segundo o relato de profissionais que atuam na área. Ensaio: Avaliação Politicas Publicas Educacionais, 33(126), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-40362025003304246
32.
OaklandT.WechslerS. M.MareeK. (2013). Test use with children across cultures: A view from three countries. In GeisingerK. F.BrackenB. A.CarlsonJ. F.HansenJ.-I. C.KuncelN. R.ReiseS. P.RodriguezM. C. (Eds.), APA handbook of testing and assessment in psychology, Vol. 3. Testing and assessment in school psychology and education (pp. 231–257). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/14049-011
PetersS. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
35.
PetersenJ. (2013). Gender differences in identification of gifted youth and in gifted program participation: A meta-analysis. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 34(4), 342–348. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2013.07.002
36.
PiskeF.StoltzT.MachadoJ. (2014). Creative educational practices for inclusion of gifted children. Creative Education, 5(10), 803–808. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2014.510093
RenzulliJ. S. (1990). A practical system for identifying gifted and talented students. Early Child Development and Care, 63(1), 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443900630103
39.
RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Scale for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237808
40.
RenzulliJ. S. (2021). Assessment for learning: The missing element for identifying high potential in low-income and minority groups. Gifted Education International, 37(2), 199–208. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429421998304
41.
RichardsonsJ. T. E. (2011). Eta squared and partial eta squared as measures of effect size in educational research. Educational Research Review, 6(2), 135–147. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2010.12.001
42.
RitchieS. J.Tucker-DrobE. M. (2018). How much does education improve intelligence? A meta-analysis. Psychological Science, 29(8), 1358–1369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797618774253
43.
RizziniI.BarkerG.CassanigaN. (2002). From street children to all children: Improving the opportunities of low-income urban children and youth in Brazil. In TiendaM.WilsonW. J. (Eds.), Youth in cities: A cross-national perspective (pp. 113–137). Cambridge University Press.
44.
SiegleD.PowellT. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48(1), 21–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620404800103
45.
SilviaP. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educational Psychology Review, 27(4), 599–606. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
46.
SoutoK.CastroH.DelouC. M. C. (2021). Da formação básica à prática docente: qual a percepção do professor sobre a superdotação? [From basic education to teachers practice: what is the teachers’ perception about giftedness?]. Travessia, 15(2), 369–388. https://doi.org/10.48075/rt.v15i2.26215
47.
Stanton-SalazarR. D. (2011). A social capital framework for the study of institutional agents and their role in the empowerment of low-status students and youth. Youth & Society, 43(3), 1066–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0044118X10382877
48.
WechslerS. M.BlumenS.BendelmanK. (2018). Challenges on the identification and development of giftedness in South America. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 97–112). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000038-007
49.
WechslerS. M.NunesC.ScheliniP. W.PasianS. R.MorettiL.AnacheA. (2010). Brazilian adaptation of the Woodcock-III tests. School Psychology International, 31(4), 409–421. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F0143034310377165
50.
WechslerS. M.PeixotoE. M.GibimQ. G. M. T.Bruno MundimM. C.RibeiroR. K. S. M.SouzaA. F. (2022). Assessment of intelligence with creativity: The need for a comprehensive approach. Creativity Research Journal, 34(1), 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2021.1996750
51.
WechslerS. M.PereiraP. V.DelouC. M. C. (2024). Educating the gifted in Brazil: Analysis from a learning-resource perspective. Cogent Education, 11(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/2331186X.2024.232776
52.
WechslerS. M.SuarezJ. T. (2016). La percepción de maestros en cursos de formación sobre talentos/superdotación. Revista de Psicología, 34(1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.18800/psico.201601.002
53.
WechslerS. M.VendraminiC. M. M.ScheliniP. W.LourençoniM. A.SouzaA.MundimM. C. (2014). Factorial structure of the Brazilian adult battery. Psychology & Neuroscience, 7(4), 559–566. https://doi.org/10.3922/j.psns.2014.4.15
54.
WeissS.StegerD.SchroedersU.WilhelmO. (2020). A reappraisal of the threshold hypothesis of creativity and intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 8(4), Article 38. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence8040038
55.
WoodcockR. W.McGrewK. S.MatterN. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III. Riverside Publishing.
56.
ZieglerA.BalestriniD. P.StoegerH. (2018). An international view on gifted education: Incorporating the macro-systemic perspective. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 15–28). Springer.
