This study explores the use of second nomination strategies for selecting gifted students to participate in advanced educational activities after their initial identification. We proposed a strategy that combines multiple data sources to nominate gifted students for national or international activities. To evaluate its effectiveness, we compared this approach with teachers’ ordinary strategy regarding the characteristics of nominated students. Specifically, the study examined whether students selected through different second nomination strategies differed in their desires and suitability in practice. The study group consisted of third and fourth grade gifted students (n = 43) and their teachers (n = 28) from Science and Arts Centers in Türkiye. Results showed that students nominated by teachers’ subjective opinions differed from those nominated by the multiple-data-based strategy. Compared with the proposed strategy, the one commonly used by teachers has disadvantages in practice and in ensuring consistency between student characteristics and program goals. These findings highlight the importance of second nomination strategies.
AbidinZ.SutamaHermanT.JupriA.FarokhahL.ApuanorSonediS. (2021). Gifted children’s mathematical reasoning abilities on problem-based learning and project-based learning literacy. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1720(1), Article 012018. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1720/1/012018
2.
AdejoO. W.ConnollyT. (2018). Predicting student academic performance using multi-model heterogeneous ensemble approach. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 10(1), 61–75. https://doi.org/10.1108/JARHE-09-2017-0113
3.
Akarİ. (2019). Öğretmen adaylarının özel yetenekli öğrenciyi aday gösterme tercihlerini etkileyen faktörler [factors that influence prospective teachers’ gifted referral decisions]. YYU Journal of Education Faculty, 16(1), 729–1758. https://doi.org/10.23891/efdyyu.2019.178
4.
AubryA.GonthierC.BourdinB. (2021). Explaining the high working memory capacity of gifted children: Contributions of processing skills and executive control. Acta Psychologica, 218(2), Article 103358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2021.103358
5.
AvcuY. E.AyverdiL. (2022). Application of design thinking as a differentiation strategy for the education of gifted students: “City X”. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 10(4), 573–590. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.1183220
6.
AyaydınY.Usta GezerS.Acar SesenB. (2023). A study on sustainable living awareness of gifted secondary school students. Research on Education and Psychology, 7(Special Issue 2), 602–624. https://doi.org/10.54535/rep.1363669
7.
Aydın-KaracaŞ.KılınçŞ. (2024). Development of a teacher rating scale for giftedness (TRSG). Acta Educationis Generalis, 14(2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.2478/atd-2024-0014
8.
AyıkZ.ÇetinG.UstaM. (2025). Sustained primary teacher provision for the gifted: The influence of gifted conceptions on nomination and differentiation. BMC Psychology, 13(1), 901. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-025-03249-z
9.
BaddeleyA. (2003). Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 4(10), 829–839. https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn1201
Baykoç-DönmezN. (2018). Üstün yetenekli çocuklar [Gifted and talented childrens]. In MetinN. (Ed.), Özel gereksinimli çocuklar (pp. 419–438). Anı Publishing.
12.
BeilockS. L.DeCaroM. S. (2007). From poor performance to success under stress: Working memory, strategy selection, and mathematical problem solving under pressure. Journal of experimental psychology. Learning, memory, and cognition, 33(6), 983–998. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.33.6.983
13.
BergD. H.McDonaldP. A. (2018). Differences in mathematical reasoning between typically achieving and gifted children. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 30(3), 281–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2018.1457034
14.
BiberM.BiberS. K.OzyaprakM.KartalE.CanT.SimsekI. (2021). Teacher nomination in identifying gifted and talented students: Evidence from Turkey. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39(14), Article 100751. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100751
15.
BildirenA.Bıkmaz BilgenÖ.KorkmazM. (2021). National non-verbal cognitive ability test (BNV) development study. Sage Open, 11(3), 21582440211046945. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211046945
16.
BildirenA.KirişçiN.KavrukS. Z.YıldırımY.Bıkmaz-BilgenÖ.DildeğmezB. (2024). Developing the nomination scale for gifted children in primary school period (İDABÖ) [İlkokul dönemi üstün yetenekli çocuklar için aday bildirim ölçeği (İDABÖ) geliştirme çalışması]. Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education, 25(3), 297–311. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1359061
17.
BorlandJ. H. (2021). The trouble with conceptions of giftedness. In SternbergR. J.AmbroseD. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness and talent (pp. 37–49). Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-56869-6_3
18.
BreitM.BrunnerM.PreckelF. (2021). Temporal stability of specific ability scores and intelligence profiles in high ability students. Intelligence, 86(2), Article 101538. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2021.101538
19.
ByingtonE.FelpsW. (2010). Why do IQ scores predict job performance? An alternative, sociological explanation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30(1), 175–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.riob.2010.08.003
20.
ÇalışkanK.BaloğluM. (2023). BİLSEM’e öğrenci aday gösteren ve göstermeyen öğretmenlerin üstün yetenekliler eğitimine ilişkin özyeterliliklerinin incelenmesi [An examination of the self-efficacy levels for gifted education among teachers who nominated students to BILSEM versus who did not]. The Journal of Buca Faculty of Education, (55), 210–230.
21.
CallahanC. M. (2017). Evaluating services offered to gifted and talented students: A planning guide. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 439–447). Routledge.
22.
CampbellJ. R.WagnerH.WalbergH. J. (2000). Academic competitions and programs designed to challenge the exceptionally talented. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 523–535). Elsevier.
23.
CanivezG. L.McGillR. J. (2016). Factor structure of the differential ability scales–second edition: Exploratory and hierarchical factor analyses with the core subtests. Psychological Assessment, 28(11), 1475–1488. https://doi.org/10.1037/pas0000279
24.
CaoY.KimY.ChoM. (2022). Are observed classroom practices related to student language/literacy achievement?Review of Educational Research, 93(5), 679–717. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543221130687
25.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2016). Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 113(48), 13678–13683. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1605043113
26.
CarpenterP.JustM.ShellP. (1990). What one intelligence test measures: a theoretical account of the processing in the raven progressive matrices test. Psychological Review, 97(3), 404–431. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.97.3.404
27.
Casino-GarcíaA. M.Llopis-BuenoM. J.Gómez-VivoM. G.Juan-GrauA.Shuali-TrachtenbergT.Llinares-InsaL. I. (2021). “Developing capabilities”: Inclusive extracurricular enrichment programs to improve the well-being of gifted adolescents. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 731591. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.731591
28.
CattellR. B. (1943). The measurement of adult intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 40(3), 153–193. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0059973
29.
CattellR. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0046743
30.
ÇevikM.BarışN.ŞirinM.Ortak KılınçÖ.KaplanY.Atabey ÖzdemirB.YalçınH.ŞerefG.TopalS.DeliceT. (2021). The effect of digital activities on the technology awareness and computational thinking skills of gifted students (eTwinning project example). International Journal of Modern Education Studies, 5(1), 205–244.
31.
ChiM. T. H.GlaserR.ReesE. (1982). Expertise in problem solving. In SternbergR. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (pp. 7–75): Erlbaum.
32.
CottonS. M.KielyP. M.CrewtherD. P.ThomsonB.LaycockR.CrewtherS. G. (2005). A normative and reliability study for the Raven’s coloured progressive matrices for primary school aged children from Victoria, Australia. Personality and Individual Differences, 39(3), 647–659. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.015
CreswellJ. W.CreswellJ. D. (2021). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th ed.). Sage Publications.
35.
DagieneV.SkupieneJ. (2004). Learning by competitions: Olympiads in informatics as a tool for training high-grade skills in programming. In ITRE 2004, 2nd international conference information technology: Research and education (pp. 79–83). IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ITRE.2004.1393650
36.
de Vreeze-WestgeestM. G. J.VogelaarB. (2022). Cognitive training in the domain of mathematics for potentially gifted children in primary school. Education Sciences, 12(2), 127. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci12020127
37.
DoğanM. (2011). Çocuklarda çalışma belleği, akademik öğrenme ve öğrenme yetersizlikleri [Working memory, academic learning and learning disabilities in children]. Turkish Psychological Articles, 14(27), 48–65.
38.
DomoshnitskyA.YavichR.BugaenkoV.Kannel-BelovA. (2012). International mathematical internet olympiad. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics, USA ISSN, 10(5), 1690–4524.
39.
Endepohls‐UlpeM.RufH. (2006). Primary school teachers' criteria for the identification of gifted pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130600618140
40.
ErgülC.Özgür YılmazÇ.DemirE. (2018). 5-10 yaş grubu çocuklara yönelik geliştirilmiş çalışma belleği ölçeğinin geçerlik ve güvenirliği [Validity and reliability of the working memory scale for children aged 5-10 years]. Journal of Theory and Practice in Education, 14(2), 187–214. https://doi.org/10.17244/eku.427280
41.
FloydR. G.ClarkM. H.ShadishW. R. (2008). The exchangeability of IQs: Implications for professional psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 39(4), 414–423. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7028.39.4.414
42.
GagnéF. (2020). About talents and gifts. In Differentiating giftedness from talent: The DMGT perspective on talent development (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003088790
43.
GentryM.DesmetO. A.KaramiS.LeeH.GreenC.CressA.ChowkaseA.GrayA. (2021). Gifted education’s legacy of high stakes ability testing: Using measures for identification that perpetuate inequity. Roeper Review, 43(4), 242–255. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2021.1967545
44.
GentryM.MannR. L. (2008). Total school cluster grouping & differentiation: A comprehensive, research-based plan for raising student achievement & improving teacher practices. Creative Learning Press.
45.
GentryM.WhitingG.GrayA. M. (2022). Systemic inequities in identification and representation of Black youth with gifts and talents: Access, equity, and missingness in urban and other school locales. Urban Education, 59(6), 1730–1773. https://doi.org/10.1177/00420859221095000
46.
GöksuS.ModukH.GöksuD. Y. (2024). An effectiveness evaluation of a TUBITAK project programme about stem education for gifted students. International Journal of Education, Technology and Science, 4(3), 2162–2174.
47.
GolleJ.SchilsT.BorghansL.RoseN. (2023). Who is considered gifted from a teacher's perspective? A representative large-scale study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(1), 64–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221104026
48.
GolleJ.ZettlerI.RoseN.TrautweinU.HasselhornM.NagengastB. (2018). Effectiveness of a “grass roots” statewide enrichment program for gifted elementary school children. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 11(3), 375–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2017.1402396
49.
GonthierC.ThomassinN. (2015). Strategy use fully mediates the relationship between working memory capacity and performance on Raven’s matrices. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 144(5), 916–924. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000101
50.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.Ottone-CrossK.McCoachD. B.LangleyS. D.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.CaugheyM. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted and talented students: Are identification and services connected?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
HarrisB.RappK. E.MartínezR. S.PluckerJ. A. (2007). Identifying English language learners for gifted and talented programs: Current practices and recommendations for improvement. Roeper Review, 29(5), 26–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2007.11869221
53.
HavaK.GuyerT.CakirH. (2020). Gifted students’ learning experiences in systematic game development process in after-school activities. Educational Technology Research & Development, 68(3), 1439–1459. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11423-020-09750-z
54.
Hernández-TorranoD.TursunbayevaX. (2016). Are teachers biased when nominating students for gifted services? Evidence from Kazakhstan. High Ability Studies, 27(2), 165–177. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1108187
55.
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
56.
HornJ. L. (1968). Organization of abilities and the development of intelligence. Psychological Review, 75(3), 242–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025662
57.
HornJ. L. (1985). Remodeling old models of intelligence. In WolmanB. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 267–300). Wiley.
58.
HowardJ.BureauJ.GuayF.ChongJ.RyanR. M. (2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789
59.
HylandW. E.HoffK. A.RoundsJ. (2022). Interest–ability profiles: An integrative approach to knowledge acquisition. Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 43. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030043
60.
JabůrekM.CíglerH.ValešováT.PortešováŠ. (2022). What is the basis of teacher judgment of student cognitive abilities and academic achievement and what affects its accuracy?Contemporary Educational Psychology, 69(2), Article 102068. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2022.102068
61.
JohnsenS. K. (2009). Identification. In KerrB. (Ed.), Encyclopedia of giftedness, creativity, and talent (pp. 515–516). Sage Publications.
62.
JohnsenS. K. (2017). Test of nonverbal intelligence: A language-free measure of cognitive ability. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (2nd ed., pp. 185–206). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50669-7_9
63.
JohnsenS. K.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2022). Introduction to part I on assessments for identification. In Handbook on assessments for gifted learners (pp. 21–28). Routledge.
KanevskyL. (2011). Deferential differentiation: What types of differentiation do students want?Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(4), 279–299. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211422098
66.
KarahanE.ÜnalA. (2019). Gifted students designing eco-friendly STEM projects. Egitimde Nitel Araştırmalar Dergisi – Journal of Qualitative Research in Education, 7(4), 1553–1570. https://doi.org/10.14689/issn.2148-2624.1.7c.4s.11m
67.
KartalE.ÖzyaprakM.ÖzenZ.Şimşekİ.Köse BiberS.BiberM.CanT. (2020). Asking the right questions to nominate a student as gifted and talented: A machine learning approach. Journal of Information Technologies, 13(4), 385–400. https://doi.org/10.17671/gazibtd.591158
68.
KavakliM.GeroJ. S. (2003). Strategic knowledge differences between an expert and a novice designer. In LindemannU. (Ed.), Human behaviour in design. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-07811-2_5
69.
KimM. (2016). A meta-analysis of the effects of enrichment programs on gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216630607
70.
KoçS.YılmazA.KırımoğluH. (2024). Examining the motivations of specially gifted children to participate in physical activity and play digital games. International Journal of Education Technology and Scientific Researches, 9(26), 207–223.
71.
KöksalM. S. (2020). Üstün zekâlıların (Özel yeteneklilerin) eğitimi: Sistematik ve bilimsel dayanaklı eğitim. Nobel Yayıncılık.
72.
KonkusÖ. C.TopsakalÜ. U. (2022). The effects of steam-based activities on gifted students' steam attitudes, cooperative working skills and career choices. Journal of Science Learning, 5(3), 398–410.
73.
KornmannJ.ZettlerI.KammererY.GerjetsP.TrautweinU. (2015). What characterizes children nominated as gifted by teachers? A closer consideration of working memory and intelligence. High Ability Studies, 26(1), 75–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.10335133
74.
KurnazA.EkiciS. G. (2020). BİLSEM tanılama sürecinde kullanılan zekâ testlerinin psikolojik danışmanların ve BİLSEM öğretmenlerinin görüşlerine göre değerlendirilmesi [Evaluation of intelligence tests used in the SAC identification process according to the opinions of psychological counselors and SAC teachers]. Çocuk ve Medeniyet Dergisi, 5(10), 365–399. https://doi.org/10.47646/CMD.2020.177
75.
LaFranceM. (1989). The quality of expertise: Implications of expert-novice differences for knowledge acquisition. ACM SIGART Bulletin, 108, 6–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/63266.63267
76.
Lage-GómezC.RosG. (2023). How transdisciplinary integration, creativity and student motivation interact in three STEAM projects for gifted education?Gifted Education International, 39(2), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294231167744
77.
LakinJ. M.KellH. J. (2020). Intelligence and reasoning. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (2nd ed., pp. 528–552). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108770422.023
78.
LeikinM.Paz-BaruchN.LeikinR. (2013). Memory abilities in generally gifted and excelling-in-mathematics adolescents. Intelligence, 41(5), 566–578. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.07.018
79.
LeikinR.Paz-BaruchN.LeikinM. (2014). Cognitive characteristics of students with superior performance in mathematics. Journal of Individual Differences, 35(3), 119–129. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-0001/a000140
80.
LiashenkoA. K.KhalezovE. A.ArsalidouM. (2017). Methods for identifying cognitively gifted children. Psychology. Journal of Higher School of Economics, 14(2), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.17323/1813-8918-2017-2-207-218
81.
LoC. O.FengL.-C. (2020). Teaching higher order thinking skills to gifted students: A meta-analysis. Gifted Education International, 36(2), 196–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420917854
82.
MakelM. C.PetersS. J.LeeL. E.StambaughT.McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B.JohnsonK. R. (2024). Effective identification through multiple criteria. Gifted Child Today, 47(2), 108–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231222300
83.
McBeeM. T. (2016). What you don’t look for, you won’t find: A commentary on Card and Giuliano’s examination of universal screening. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27(2), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X16634141
84.
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
85.
McCoachD. B.PetersS.GambinoA. J.LongD.SiegleD. (2024). Who are we measuring? Teacher effects in gifted and talented teacher rating scales. Exceptional Children, 90(4), 422–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029241247035
86.
McGillR. J.DombrowskiS. C.CanivezG. L. (2018). Cognitive profile analysis in school psychology: History, issues, and continued concerns. Journal of School Psychology, 71, 108–121. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2018.10.007
87.
McGrewK. S. (2009). CHC theory and the human cognitive abilities project: Standing on the shoulders of the giants of psychometric intelligence research. Intelligence, 37(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2008.08.004
88.
MekikC. S.SunR.DaiD. Y. (2018). Similarity-based reasoning, Raven's matrices, and general intelligence. IJCAI, 1576–1582.
89.
MillerE. M. (2006). Characteristic centrality in the perceptions of giftedness as a predictor of the pattern of nomination of students for placement in gifted programming (pilot study) [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Virginia.
90.
MingleM. A. (2016). The role of the teacher in gifted education nomination decisions [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Rutgers University.
MutawahM. A.ThomasR.EidA.MahmoudE. Y.FateelM. (2019). Conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge and problem-solving skills in mathematics: High school graduates work analysis and standpoints. International Journal of Education and Practice, 7(3), 258–273. https://doi.org/10.18488/journal.61.2019.73.258.273
94.
NaglieriJ. A. (2003). Naglieri nonverbal ability tests. In McCallumR. S. (Ed.), Handbook of nonverbal assessment (pp. 175–194). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-0153-4_9
95.
NelmsA. A.Segura-TottenM. (2019). Expert–novice comparison reveals pedagogical implications for students’ analysis of primary literature. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 18(4), ar56. https://doi.org/10.1187/cbe.18-05-0077
96.
NisbettR. E.AronsonJ.BlairC.DickensW.FlynnJ.HalpernD. F.TurkheimerE. (2012). Intelligence: New findings and theoretical developments. American Psychologist, 67(2), 130–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026699
97.
OlçayS. (2020). Türkiye’de üstün zekâlılara sağlanan destek eğitim hizmetleri [Support educational services provided to gifted children in Turkey]. In KöksalM. S. (Ed.), Üstün zekâlıların (Özel yeteneklilerin) eğitimi (pp. 217–234). Nobel Publishing.
98.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.LeeS. Y. (2004). The role of participation in in-school and outside-of-school activities in the talent development of gifted students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15(3), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2004-454
99.
OrtizS. O. (2015). CHC theory of intelligence. In GoldsteinS.PrinciottaD.NaglieriJ. A. (Eds.), Handbook of intelligence: Evolutionary theory, historical perspective, and current concepts (pp. 209–227). Springer Science + Business Media. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1562-0_15
100.
ÖzbekG.ChoS. (2023). Project productions with real-life problems in the STEM domain of gifted youths according to their program evaluations. Gifted Education International, 39(2), 183–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294221112345
101.
ÖztürkM. A.DebelakC. (2008). Affective benefits from academic competitions for middle school gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 31(2), 48–53. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2008-758
102.
PelletierS.ShoreB. M. (2003). The gifted learner, the novice, and the expert: Sharpening emerging views of giftedness. In AmbroseD.CohenL. M.TannenbaumA. J. (Eds.), Creative intelligence: Toward theoretic integration (pp. 237–281). Hampton Press.
103.
PereiraN.PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). My class activities instrument as used in Saturday enrichment program evaluation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(4), 568–593. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X1002100402
104.
PezzutiL.FareseM.DaweJ.LauriolaM. (2022). The cognitive profile of gifted children compared to those of their parents: A descriptive study using the Wechsler scales. Journal of Intelligence, 10(4), 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040091
105.
PilavcıN. (2021). Development of an identification model for gifted students at 4-5 ages: The case of Turkey [Unpublished master thesis]. Hacettepe University.
106.
PreckelF.GötzT.FrenzelA. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80(3), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
107.
PutriN. D.HandayantoS. K.HidayatA.SanisoE. (2020). Students’ scientific reasoning skills in a fluid and its correlation with project activity. Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 1567(3), Article 032083. https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1567/3/032083
108.
RavenJ. (2000). The Raven’s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1999.0735
109.
RebholzF.GolleJ.TibusM.Ruth-HerbeinE.MoellerK.TrautweinU. (2022). Getting fit for the mathematical Olympiad: Positive effects on achievement and motivation?Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft, 25(5), 1175–1198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-022-01106-y
110.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180–184.
111.
RenzulliJ. S.GaesserA. H. (2015). A multi criteria system for the identification of high achieving and creative/productive giftedness. Revista de Educación, 368, 96–131. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-290
112.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (2012). Defensible and doable: A practical, multiple-criteria gifted program identification system. In HunsakerS. L. (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 25–56). Creative Learning Press.
113.
RenzulliJ. S.SiegleD.ReisS. M.GavinM. K.ReedR. E. S. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21(1), 84–108. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X0902100105
RimmS. B.SiegleD.DavisG. A. (2021). Education of the gifted and talented (7th. Edition). Pearson.
116.
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
117.
RitterN.KilincE.NavruzB.BaeY. (2011). Test Review: L. Brown, R. J. Sherbenou, & S. K. Johnsen (2010). Test of nonverbal intelligence-4 (TONI-4). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 29(5), 484–488. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911400400
118.
RochaA.AlmeidaL. S.PeralesR. G. (2020). Comparison of gifted and non-gifted students’ executive functions and high capabilities. Journal for the Education of Gifted Young Scientists, 8(4), 1397–1409. https://doi.org/10.17478/jegys.808798
119.
RoidG. H. (2003). Stanford-binet intelligence scales (5th ed.). Riverside Publishing.
RothenbuschS.ZettlerI.VossT.LöschT.TrautweinU. (2016). Exploring reference group effects on teachers’ nominations of gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108(6), 883–897. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000085
122.
SackettP. R.ShewachO. R.DahlkeJ. A. (2019). 14 the predictive value of general intelligence. In SternbergR. J., (2019). Human intelligence: An introduction (pp. 381- 414). Cambridge University Press.
123.
ŞahinF.ÇetinkayaÇ. (2015). An investigation of the effectiveness and efficiency of classroom teachers in the identification of gifted students. Talent, 5(2), 133–146.
124.
SakU. (2020). Üstün zekâlılar: özellikleri, tanılanmaları, eğitimleri [Gifted and talented; traits, identification and education]. Vize Academic.
125.
SakU.SezerelB. B.DulgerE.SozelK.AyasM. B. (2019). Validity of the Anadolu-Sak intelligence scale in the identification of gifted students. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 61(3), 263–283.
126.
SchalkeD.BrunnerM.GeiserC.PreckelF.KellerU.SpenglerM.MartinR. (2013). Stability and change in intelligence from age 12 to age 52: Results from the Luxembourg MAGRIP study. Developmental Psychology, 49(8), 1529–1543. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030623
127.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 99–144). The Guilford Press.
128.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2018). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll theory of cognitive abilities. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (4th ed., pp. 73–163). Guilford Press.
ShipsteadZ.HarrisonT. L.EngleR. W. (2016). Working memory capacity and fluid intelligence: Maintenance and disengagement: maintenance and disengagement. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 11(6), 771–799. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691616650647
131.
SiegleD. (2001). Teacher bias in identifying gifted and talented students. In Paper presented at the 80th annual meeting of the council for exceptional children, Kansas City, MO.
132.
SoaresD. L.LemosG. C.PrimiR.AlmeidaL. S. (2015). The relationship between intelligence and academic achievement throughout middle school: The role of students’ prior academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 41, 73–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.02.005
133.
SpearmanC. (1904). 'General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured. American Journal of Psychology, 15(2), 201–293. https://doi.org/10.2307/1412107
SternbergR. J.ChowkaseA.Parra-MartinezF. A.LandyJ. (2022). Criterion-referenced assessment of intelligence as adaptation to the environment: Is it possible, plausible, or practical?Journal of Intelligence, 10(3), 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10030057
138.
Tallent-RunnelsM. K.Candler-LotvenA. C. (2007). Academic competitions for gifted students: A resource book for teachers and parents. Sage Publications.
139.
TomlinsonC. A. (2017). Differentiated instruction. In Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 279–292). Routledge.
140.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.HubbardG. F.RobbinsJ. I. (2021). Differentiation of instruction for gifted learners: Collated evaluative studies of teacher classroom practices. In SmithS. R. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness and talent development in the Asia-Pacific (pp. 909–922). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3041-4_45
141.
WarneR. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
142.
WassermanJ. D. (2023). Cognitive-intellectual assessment of school-age children. In TheodoreL. A.BrackenB. A.BrayM. A. (Eds.), Desk reference in school psychology (pp. 5–26). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
143.
WatkinsM. W. (2003). IQ subtest analysis: Clinical acumen or clinical illusion?Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice: Objective Investigations of Controversial and Unorthodox Claims in Clinical Psychology, Psychiatry, and Social Work, 2(2), 118–141.
144.
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). Pearson.
145.
WestbergK. L. (2012). Using teacher rating scales in the identification of students for gifted services. In HunsakerS. L. (Ed.), Identification: The theory and practice of identifying students for gifted and talented education services (pp. 363–379). Creative Learning Press.
146.
WigfieldA.CambriaJ. (2010). Students' achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30(1), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2009.12.001
YinR. K. (2018). Case study research and applications design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
149.
ZieglerA.StögerH. (2004). Identification based on enter within the conceptual frame of the actiotope model of giftedness. Psychology Science, 46(3), 324–341.
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.
