Underrepresentation of students from low-income families and/or certain ethnic groups has been a persistent worldwide problem in the field of gifted education. Because teachers frequently serve as gatekeepers for students’ participation in gifted programming, their roles in the identification process are critical. In this study, 55 elementary school teachers in South Korea completed a teacher-rating scale (HOPE Scale; Peters & Gentry, 2012a) for all students (n = 1,157) in their classrooms, including their evaluation of each students’ reading and mathematics talents. Their ratings and talent evaluations were then compared to students’ reading and mathematics achievement scores to determine whether teachers’ ratings promoted more equitable identification of students from underrepresented groups. In addition, we explored the effects of combining various cut-off scores for each assessment for the identification of students from low-income and/or culturally diverse families.
AdelsonJ. L. (2012). Examining relationships and effects in gifted education research: an introduction to structural equation modeling. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(1), 47–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211424132
2.
BartonP. E.ColeyR. J. (2009). Measuring the achievement elephant. Educational Leadership, 66(4), 30–34.
3.
BaudsonT. G.ZiemesJ. F. (2016). The importance of being gifted: stages of gifted identity development, their correlates and predictors. Gifted and Talented International, 31(1), 19–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2016.1194675
4.
BorlandJ. H. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
5.
BorlandJ. H.SchnurR.WrightL. (2000). Economically disadvantaged students in a school for the academically gifted: A postpositivist inquiry into individual and family adjustment. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(1), 13–32. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400103
BorlandJ. H.WrightL. (2000). Identifying and educating poor and under-represented gifted students. In HellerK. A.MönksF. J.SternbergR. J.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 587–594). Pergamon.
8.
BrowneM. W.CudeckR. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In BollenK. A.LongJ. S. (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Sage.
CardD.GiulianoL. (2015). Can universal screening increase the representation of low income and minority students in gifted education? Retrieved from https://www.pnas.org/content/113/48/13678.
11.
DaiD. Y.ChenF. (2013). Three paradigms of gifted education: in search of conceptual clarity in research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(3), 151–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213490020
12.
FordD. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300308
13.
GagnéF. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on pegnato and birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38(3), 124–126. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629403800305
14.
GarverM. S.MentzerJ. T. (1999). Logistics research methods: Employing structural equation modeling to test for construct validity. Journal of Business Logistics, 20(1), 33–57.
GrissomJ. A.ReddingC. (2016). Discretion and disproportionality: explaining the underrepresentation of high-achieving students of color in gifted programs. AERA Open, 2(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858415622175
18.
HarradineC. C.ColemanM. R. B.WinnD. C. (2014). Recognizing academic potential in students of color: findings of U-STARS∼PLUS. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 24–34. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213506040
19.
HodgeR. D.CudmoreL. (1986). The use of teacher-judgment measures in the identification of gifted pupils. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20(1), 181–196. https://doi.org/10.1016/0742-051X(86)90016-8
KennyD. A.McCoachD. B. (2003). Effect of the number of variables on measures of fit in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 10(3), 333–351. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM1003_1
KleinB.FodorS. (2019). Talenttiles: A new descriptive talent identification instrument based on teachers’ ratings. In SubotnikR. F.AssoulineS. G.Olszewski-KubiliusP.StoegerH.ZieglerA. (Eds.), The future of research in talent development: promising trends, evidence, and implications of innovative scholarship for policy and practice (pp. 11–25). New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 168.
24.
KlineR. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. The Guilford Press.
25.
Korean Educational Development Institute. (2016). Gifted education statistical yearbook 2016. Retrieved from https://ged.kedi.re.kr/stss/main.do.
26.
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
27.
LeeH.GentryM. (2019, July). Validation study of the Hope Scale: Identifying gifted students from low-income and multicultural families. Session presented at the 23rd World Council for Gifted and Talented Children (WCGTC) Conference, Nashville, TN.
28.
LeeH.GentryM.MaedaY. (2022a). Validity evidence of the HOPE scale in korea: identifying gifted students from low-income and multicultural families. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(1), 23–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211024590
29.
LeeH.YeoS.HanJ. (2022b). Challenges and efforts of achieving equity beyond gifted education: implications from mathematics education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 139–141. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211037951
30.
LeeS.LeeK. (2016). Multicultural gifted education in korea: current issues. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 15(3), 103–129. https://doi.org/10.17839/jksgt.2016.15.3.103
LohmanD. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: some general principles, two specific procedures. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971-997). Springer.
33.
LohmanD. F.RenzulliJ. (2007). A simple procedure for combining ability test scores, achievement test scores, and teacher ratings to identify academically talented children. Unpublished manuscript.
34.
MatthewsM. S.PetersS. J. (2018). Methods to increase the identification rate of students from traditionally underrepresented populations for gifted services. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA Handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 317–331). American Psychological Association.
35.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: the impact of combination rules. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794
36.
Michael-ChadwellS. (2011). Examining the underrepresentation of underserved students in gifted programs from a transformational leadership vantage point. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(1), 99–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235321003400105
NaglieriJ. A.FordD. Y. (2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the naglieri nonverbal ability test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 155–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700206
NeumeisterK. L. S.AdamsC. M.PierceR. L.CassadyJ. C.DixonF. A. (2007). Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: implications for identifying and serving diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30(4), 479–499. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2007-503
42.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2007). Working with promising learners from poverty: lessons learned. In Van Tassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 43–46). National Association for Gifted Children.
43.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.ClarenbachJ. (2012). Unlocking emergent talent: supporting high achievement of low-income, high ability-students. National Association for Gifted Children.
44.
PegnatoC. W.BirchJ. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools. Exceptional Children, 25(7), 300–304. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029590
45.
PereiraN.GentryM. (2013). A qualitative inquiry into the experiences of high-potential hispanic English language learners in midwestern schools. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(3), 164–194. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13494204
46.
PetersS.GentryM. (2012a). Additional validity evidence and across-group equivalency of the HOPE teacher rating scale. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(2), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212469253
47.
PetersS.GentryM. (2012b). Group-specific norms and teacher-rating scales: implications for underrepresentation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 125–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438717
48.
PetersS.MatthewsM.McBeeM.McCoachD. B. (2014). Beyond gifted education: designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Prufrock Press.
49.
PetersS.McBeeM. (2019, April). The application of differential normative criteria to the gifted education screening phase: Implications for demographic representation. Paper presented at the American Education Research Association annual meeting, Toronto, Canada. https://osf.io/v5sdg/.
50.
PetersS.PereiraN. (2017). A replication of the internal validity structure of three major teaching rating scales. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28(2), 101–119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17701940
51.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
52.
PetersS. J.GentryM. (2010). Multi-group construct validity evidence of the HOPE scale: instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(4), 298–313. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210378332
53.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
54.
PetersonJ. S. (1999). Gifted—through whose cultural lens? An application of postpositivistic mode of inquiry. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(4), 354–383. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200403
55.
PfeifferS. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n01_03
PluckerJ. A.BurroughsN.SongR. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! the growing excellence gap in K–12 education. Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
58.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2018). Closing poverty-based excellence gaps: conceptual, measurement, and educational issues. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 56–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738566
59.
RaykovT.MarcoulidesG. A. (2000). A method for comparing completely standardized solutions in multiple groups. Structural Equation Modeling, 7(2), 292–308. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0702_9
60.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2020). 2018-2019 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://www.nagc.org/2018-2019-state-states-gifted-education.
61.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyD. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.LittleC. A.McCoachD. B.KnuppT.CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
62.
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
63.
SmithL. M.CampbellR. J. (2016). So-called giftedness and teacher education: issues of equity and inclusion. Teachers and Teaching: Theory and Practice, 22(2), 255–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/13540602.2015.1055448
64.
StambaughT. (2007). Next steps: an impetus for future directions in research, policy, and practice for low-income promising learners. In Van Tassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 83–88). National Association for Gifted Children.
65.
SungE. (2017). Identification and education for the multicultural gifted and talented students. The Journal of the Korean Society for the Gifted and Talented, 16(2), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.17839/jksgt.2017.16.2.5
WorrellF. C. (2007). Identifying and including low-income learners in programs for the gifted and talented: multiple complexities. In VanTassel-BaskaJ.StambaughT. (Eds.), Overlooked gems: A national perspective on low-income promising learners (pp. 47–51). National Association for Gifted Children.
71.
WynerJ. S.BridgelandJ. M.DiIulioJ. J. (2009). Achievementrap: How America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families. A Report of the Jack Kent Cooke Foundation and Civic Enterprises.
72.
YoonS. Y.GentryM. (2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: current status of and implications for gifted asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(2), 121–136. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208330564
73.
ZieglerA.RaulT. (2000). Myth and reality: A review of empirical studies on giftedness. High Ability Studies, 11(2), 113–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130020001188
