The ability to effectively identify students for advanced learning opportunities has been an ongoing issue within the field of gifted education. Common criteria to guide the design and evaluation of identification systems has been essentially non-existent. In this article we provide a practical guide for evaluating and reflecting on the effectiveness of identification criteria, namely: CASA (Cost, Alignment, Sensitivity, and Access). To demonstrate their use, the CASA criteria are described and the criteria are applied to a hypothetical district with discussion about decisions and changes to support more equitable identification and services alignment. A checklist is also provided to guide district leaders with applying the CASA criteria to their own identification systems. This article builds upon previous descriptions of CASA that have been published.
BandalosD. L. (2017). Measurement theory and applications for the social sciences. Guilford Press.
2.
CallahanC. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition?Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 148–163. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900203
3.
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
HornC. V. (2015). Young scholars: A talent development model for finding and nurturing potential in underserved populations. Gifted Child Today, 38(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217514556532
6.
LakinJ. M. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099
7.
LeeL. E.OttweinJ. K.PetersS. J. (2020). Eight universal truths of identifying students for advanced academic interventions. In JollyJ. L.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Methods & materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 61–79). Prufrock Press.
8.
LeeL. E.PetersS. J. (2022). Universal screening: A process to promote equity. In JohnsenS. K.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), Handbook on assessments for gifted learners (pp. 29–43). Prufrock Press.
9.
LongD. A.McCoachD. B.PetersS. J.PetersP. M. (2022, November). Implications of multiple measures on the size, ability, and diversity of gifted populations. Conference presentation at the National Association for Gifted Children Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
10.
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
11.
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
12.
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
PetersS. J.MakelM. C.LeeL. E.StambaughT.McBeeM.McCoachD. B.JohnsonK. (2023a). What makes for an effective gifted and talented screener?Gifted Child Today, 47(2), 98–107. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231222301
15.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019). The effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
16.
PetersS. J.StambaughT.MakelM. C.LeeL. E.McBeeM.McCoachD. B.JohnsonK. (2023b). The CASA criteria for evaluating gifted and talented identification systems: Cost, alignment, sensitivity, and access. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221124887
17.
SwetsJ.DawesR. M.MonahanJ. (2000). Psychological science can improve diagnostic decisions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest: A Journal of the American Psychological Society, 1(1), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.001
18.
TrevethanR. (2017). Sensitivity, specificity, and predictive values: Foundations, pliabilities, and pitfalls in research and practice. Frontiers in Public Health, 5(307), 307. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2017.00307
