This study aimed to develop a talent screener scale in the form of a questionnaire. Parents of primary school students in the academic year 2020-2022 were recruited from five provinces, namely Alborz, Azarbayjan, Shiraz, Qazvin, and Tehran in Iran. The scale was developed and refined through three stages: a pre-preliminary (n = 187), preliminary (n = 304), and final version that underwent an exploratory factor analysis (n = 308) and confirmatory factor analysis (n = 322). The scale initially included 143 questions, but items that did not meet the psychometric criteria were removed, resulting eventually in a final version with 88 items. EFA and CFA were conducted on the final version, indicating that the scale with eleven factors is a reliable tool regarding talent identification in Iranian primary schools. This study emphasizes the importance of identifying culturally valued talent domains and developing appropriate assessment tools to ensure comprehensive talent identification.
AbdolmalekiH. (2014). Resistive economy: An introduction to fundamentals, policies and action plans. Sadid.
2.
AbediA. (2012). Construction and preliminary validation of Shahab project tools (identification and guidance of superior talents) for elementary, middle and high school students. National Elite Foundation. [in Persian].
3.
Akbari ZardkhanehSPoursharifiHRajabiMYaghoubiH (2021). Mental Health of Iranian College Students in a Nationally Representative Sample of over 74,500 Individuals: Scale Development and Standardization. Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 37(2), 106–126. https://doi.org/10.1080/87568225.2021.1911527
4.
AsadiS.IntezariA. (2020). The wisdom of good thought and deed: The Persian perspective. In Practical wisdom and leadership in a poly-cultural world: Asian, indigenous and middle-eastern perspectives (pp. 189–206). Routledge.
5.
AvolioB. J.YammarinoF. J. (2013). Introduction to, and overview of, transformational and charismatic leadership. In YammarinoF. J.AvolioB. J. (Eds.), Transformational and charismatic leadership: The road ahead (10th anniversary ed., pp. xxvii–xxxiii). Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
BensonN. F.KranzlerJ. H. (2018). Another look at the construct validity of the gifted rating scales: Preschool/Kindergarten and school forms. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 36(8), 782–797. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282917710377
ButtonA. (2011). Aims, principles and methodologies in talent identification and development. In Performance psychology: A practitioner’s guide (pp. 9–29). Elsevier Health Sciences.
13.
CamilliG.VargasS.RyanS.BarnettW. (2010). Meta-analysis of the effects of early education interventions on cognitive and social development. Teachers College Record: The Voice of Scholarship in Education, 112(3), 579–620. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811011200303
14.
CampbellJ. A.IdsøeE.StørksenI. (2023). Screening for potential, assessing for achievement: A study of instrument validity for early identification of high academic potential in Norway. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 67(4), 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/00313831.2022.2042735
DaiD. Y. (2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness: A new framework for understanding gifted education. Teachers College Press.
17.
Den Heuvel-PanhuizenV.SangariA. A.VeldhuisM. (2021). Teachers’ use of descriptive assessment in primary school mathematics education in Iran. Education Sciences, 11(3), 100. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci11030100
18.
DeVellisR. F. (2012). Scale development: Theory and applications (3rd ed.). Sage.
19.
Dizon-RossR. (2019). Parents’ beliefs about their children’s academic ability: Implications for educational investments. The American Economic Review, 109(8), 2728–2765. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20171172
20.
DowdyE.RitcheyK.KamphausR. W. (2010). School-based screening: A population-based approach to inform and monitor children’s mental health needs. School Mental Health, 2(3), 166–176. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-010-9036-3
21.
FabrigarL. R.WegenerD. T.MacCallumR. C.StrahanE. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 4(3), 272–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
22.
Fernandez-MendozaJ.Rodriguez-MuñozA.Vela-BuenoA.Olavarrieta-BernardinoS.CalhounS. L.BixlerE. O.VgontzasA. N. (2012). The Spanish version of the insomnia severity index: A confirmatory factor analysis. Sleep Medicine, 13(2), 207–210. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sleep.2011.06.019
GilliamJ.JermanO. (2015). Gifted and talented evaluation scales: A norm-referenced procedure for identifying gifted and talented students (2nd ed.). Pro-Ed.
27.
Hassan Hemdan MohamedA.Mahdi KazemA.PfeifferS.AlzubaidiA.-Q.Abu ElwanR.AmbosaidiAl-KharosiA. T. (2017). Identification of gifted students in Oman: Gender and grade differences on the gifted rating scales–school form. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40(3), 289–301. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217718277
28.
HertzogN. (2014). Critical issues in early childhood education. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: What the research says (2nd ed., pp. 195–206). Prufrock Press.
29.
HodgeK.KempC. (2006). Recognition of giftedness in the early years of school: Perspectives of teachers, parents, and children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(2), 164–204. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2006-259
30.
HoeS. L. (2008). Issues and procedures in adopting structural equation modelling technique. Journal of Quantitative Methods, 3(1), 76–83.
31.
HuL.BentlerP. (1995). Evaluating model fit. In HoyleR. H. (Ed.), Structural equation modeling: Concepts, issues, and applications (pp. 76–99). Sage.
32.
JabůrekM.ŤápalA.PortešováŠ.PfeifferS. I. (2021). Validity and reliability of gifted rating scales–school form in sample of teachers and parents: A Czech contribution. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 39(3), 361–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920970718
33.
JainV.RajT. (2013). Evaluating the variables affecting flexibility in FMS by exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis. Global Journal of Flexible Systems Management, 14(2), 181–193. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40171-013-0042-9
KlineR. B. (1998). Structural equation modeling. Guilford Press.
36.
LaneK. L.WalkerH. M. (2015). The connection between assessment and intervention: How can screening lead to better intervention? In Enduring issues in special education: Personal perspectives (pp. 285–302). Routledge.
37.
LeeD.PfeifferS. (2006). The reliability and validity of a Korean-translated version of the Gifted Rating Scales. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24(3), 210–224. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282906287829
38.
LiH.LeeD.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). Parent ratings using the Chinese version of the parent gifted rating scales–school form: Reliability and validity for Chinese students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68(4), 659–675. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308477
MaralaniF. (2022). Universal Talent Screener for primary school students (UTSI): Development of conceptual and categorization framework [Doctoral dissertation. Shahid Beheshti University].
41.
MardanshahiM. M.DovalitA. (2014). Comparison of entrepreneurship ability of students in mazandaran University of Medical sciences. Iranian Journal of Education in Medical Sciences, 15(48), 380–390. [Persian].
42.
MarlandS. P.Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of Education and background papers submitted to the U.S. Office of Education (Vols. I & II). U.S. Government Printing Office.
43.
McBeeM.PetersS.MillerE. (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
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008). Primary teachers' conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 31(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793
47.
MoreanM. E.CorbinW. R.TreatT. A. (2012). The Anticipated Effects of Alcohol Scale: Development and psychometric evaluation of a novel assessment tool for measuring alcohol expectancies. Psychological Assessment, 24(4), 1008–1023. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028982
48.
MostafaviM.AkbarzadehM.AskarianS. (2013). A guide to implementing and interpreting the list of academic-occupational interests and abilities [Persian]. The Ministry of Education, Research and Cultural Vice-Chancellor, General Directorate of Educational Affairs and Counselling.
49.
NeberH. (2004). Teacher identification of students for gifted programs: Nominations to a summer school for highly gifted students. Psychology Science, 46(3), 348–362.
50.
NunnallyJ. C.BernsteinI. (1978). Psychometric theory (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill.
51.
PfeifferS.PetscherY. (2008). Identifying young gifted children using the Gifted Rating Scales—Preschool/Kindergarten form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311055
PfeifferS. I.JarosewichT. (2023). Gifted rating Scales™ Second edition (GRS™ 2). MHS Assessment Centre.
56.
PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE. E.Foley-NicponM. E. (2018). APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. xxi–691). American Psychological Association.
57.
PiirtoJ. (2021). Talented children and adults: Their development and education. Routledge.
58.
PooyaA.BarfoeiH. R.KargozarN.MalekiF. (2013). Relationship between emotional intelligence and conflict management strategies. Research Journal of Recent Sciences, 2(ISSN 2277-2502), 37–42.
59.
ReisS.RenzulliJ. (2010). Is there still a need for gifted education? An examination of current research. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(4), 308–317. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2009.10.012
60.
RenzulliJ. (Ed.), (2002). Gifted and talented behaviour and education: A special issue of exceptionality. Routledge.
61.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Re-Examining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184.
62.
RenzulliJ. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity through the pursuit of ideal acts of learning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36(4), 170–182. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629203600402
63.
RenzulliJ. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.015
64.
RenzulliJ. S.SmithL. H.WhiteA. J.CallahanC. M.HartmanR. K.WestbergK. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students: Technical and administration manual. Creative Learning Press, Inc.
65.
Rimm-KaufmanS. E.PiantaR. C. (2000). An ecological perspective on the transition to kindergarten: A theoretical framework to guide empirical research. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 21(5), 491–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(00)00051-4
66.
RosadoJ. I.PfeifferS.PetscherY. (2015). Identifying gifted students in Puerto Rico. Gifted Education International, 31(2), 162–175. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429413507178
67.
RosadoJ. I.PfeifferS. I.PetscherY. (2008). The reliability and validity of a Spanish translated version of the Gifted Rating Scales. Gifted and Talented International, 23(1), 105–114. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2008.11673517
68.
SharmaS.MukherjeeS.KumarA.DillonW. R. (2005). A simulation study to investigate the use of cutoff values for assessing model fit in covariance structure models. Journal of Business Research, 58(7), 935–943. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2003.10.007
69.
SnowC.van HemelS. (Eds.), (2008). Early childhood assessment: Why, what, and how. National Academies Press.
70.
SridharanB.DengH.KirkJ.CorbittB. (2010). Structural equation modeling for evaluating the user perceptions of E-learning effectiveness in higher education.
71.
SternbergR. J. (2005). The triarchic theory of successful intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 103–119). Guilford Press.
StreinerD. L. (2003). Starting at the beginning: An introduction to coefficient alpha and internal consistency. Journal of Personality Assessment, 80(1), 99–103. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327752JPA8001_18
74.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
75.
ThompsonT.DavisS. H.TakamatsuS.HowellS.TartagliaN. (2022). Exploring academic and character strengths in students with sex chromosome aneuploidies. Journal of Positive School Psychology, 6(1), 12–24. https://doi.org/10.47602/jpsp.v6i1.262
76.
TomlinsonC. A.DoubetK.CapperM. R. (2006). Aligning gifted education services with general education. In TomlinsonC. A.KaplanM. S. (Eds.), Designing services and programs for high-ability learners: A guidebook for gifted education (pp. 224–238). Prufrock Press.
77.
TsikriktsisN. (2005). A review of techniques for treating missing data in OM survey research. Journal of Operations Management, 24(1), 53–62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jom.2005.03.001
78.
WalkerH. M.SmallJ. W.SeversonH. H.SeeleyJ. R.FeilE. G. (2014). Multiple-gating approaches in universal screening within school and community settings. In KettlerR. J.GloverT. A.AlbersC. A.Feeney-KettlerK. A. (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidence-based decision making for schools (pp. 47–75). American Psychological Association.
79.
WangH.ChengZ.SmythR. (2022). Parental misbeliefs and household investment in children's education. Economics of Education Review, 89(1), Article 102284. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2022.102284
80.
WangM. T.EcclesJ. S. (2012). Social support matters: Longitudinal effects of social support on three dimensions of school engagement from middle to high school. Child Development, 83(3), 877–895. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2012.01745.x
81.
WangQ.HouH.LiZ. (2022). Participative leadership: A literature review and prospects for future research. Frontiers in Psychology, 13(1), 924357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.924357
82.
WarneR. T. (2023). Censorship in an educational society: A case study of the national association for gifted children. In Ideological and political bias in psychology: Nature, scope, and solutions (pp. 461–489). Springer International Publishing.
83.
WilliamsB.OnsmanA.BrownT. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93
84.
WoodA. M.LinleyP. A.MaltbyJ.BaliousisM.JosephS. (2008). The authentic personality: A theoretical and empirical conceptualization and the development of the authenticity scale. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 55(3), 385–399. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0167.55.3.385
85.
ZardkhanehS. A.MaralaniF. M.FathabadiJ.ShahsavariM. (2022). The culturally valued domains in talent studies in Iran: Experts’ views. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(1), 99–108. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1071484
