1

SCREENING FOR THE IDENTIFICATION OF GIFTED STUDENTS: REQUIREMENTS, CONSIDERATIONS AND TOOLS

Timothy J. Runge, Ph.D., NCSPAssistant ProfessorDirector, IUP Center for Gifted Education

2 When to Screen

3

PA Definition of Giftedness

Pennsylvania regulations state that a child is mentally gifted if the child:

1. Has an IQ of 130 or higher (and other commensurate skills commensurate)

OR

2. Has an IQ below 130 when multiple criteria strongly indicate gifted ability.

So what are these MULTIPLE CRITERIA? :(PDE, Chapter 16; Santoro, 2011)

4

Multiple Criteria Pennsylvania’s multiple criteria include the following:

The student is a year or more above grade achievement level for the normal age group in one or more academic subjects as measured by nationally-normed and validated achievement tests able to accurately reflect gifted performance.

The student has an observed or measured rate of acquisition/retention of new academic content or skills that reflect gifted ability

The student has demonstrated achievement, performance or expertise in one or more academic areas as evidenced by excellence of products, portfolio or research, as well as criterion-referenced team judgment.

The student has demonstrated early and measured use of high level thinking skills, academic creativity, leadership skills, intense academic interest areas, communication skills, foreign language aptitude or technology expertise.

There are not intervening factors such as English as a second language, disabilities, gender or race bias, or socio/cultural deprivation masking gifted abilities.(PDE, Chapter 16; Santoro,

2011)

5

Remember Two-Pronged Eligibility To be declared eligible for gifted

education services:

Child must be IDENTIFIED as mentally gifted IQ of 130 or multiple criteria

AND Child must NEED gifted support services

6

At What Age Can Eligibility Testing Be Requested?

Early elementary school – Preschool/Kindergarten

Whenever the child is suspected of being gifted by a teacher or parent

As with special education, request must be informed and in writing

7

Time of Year (§16.21(a)) Each school district is required to develop and

implement a system to locate and identify all students within the district who are thought to be gifted and in need of specially designed instruction.

(§16.22(b)) Referral for gifted multidisciplinary evaluation shall be made when the student is suspected by teachers or parents of being gifted and not receiving an appropriate education under Chapter 4 (relating to academic standards and assessment) and one or more of the following apply:

1) A request for evaluation has been made by the student’s parents under subsection (c).

2) The student is thought to be gifted because the school district’s screening of the student indicates high potential consistent with the definition of mentally gifted or a performance level which exceeds that of other students in the regular classroom.

3) A hearing officer or judicial decision orders a gifted multidisciplinary evaluation.

8

Referral Sources

Teachers Parents Peers Self

IQ tests Achievement tests Creativity tests Product and

performance assessments

9

Districts should have an evaluation request form readily available (must be provided within 10 days of an oral request)

Evaluation must be completed within 60 calendar days after written parent consent received (summer doesn’t count)

“Deficits in memory or processing speed cannot be the sole basis for determining that a student is ineligible for gifted education services.”

“…a person who has an IQ of 130 or higher or when multiple criteria as set forth in this chapter and in Department Guidelines indicate gifted ability.”

Identification Procedures

10

But Before We Conduct an Eligibility Evaluation…..

Remember, §16.21(a) requires LEAs to establish a method by which to screen and identify students for gifted education

So, what screening options are available?

Before we look at screening options….

11Psychometric Considerations for Screening and Diagnostic Measures

12

Reliability Accuracy or consistency of a test, rating

scale, inventory, or other selection procedure

4 kinds: Internal Test-retest Alternate forms Inter-rater

If test reliability is low, then test results and decisions based on test results will not be valid

13

Validity Degree to which an inventory or test

actually measures what it is supposed to measure

Using several identification criteria will help compensate for a rating scale measure or test which has borderline validity

Always consider both reliability and validity of a procedure or test

14

Huge Caveat Don’t assume a screener (or a diagnostic

tool) is RELIABLE or VALID

Critically evaluate the technical manual Theoretical framework for development Representativeness in standardization

sample? Ceiling / Floor effects? (Screeners) False positives / False negatives (Diagnostic tools) Diagnostic sensitivity?

15 Screening Approaches

17

Screening Approaches1. Traditional

2. Renzulli Talent Pool Strategy

18

Traditional Screening Measures Top 3-5% of students are selected as

gifted Committee reviews data from many

sources (e.g., ability and achievement scores, nominations) for candidates

Use of point systems and cutoffs – Example matrix (next slide)

Identification process ends at beginning of school year

19

Example – Screening Matrix

20

Screening Approaches1. Traditional

2. Renzulli Talent Pool Strategy

21

Renzulli's Talent Pool Strategy Most popular programming model Liberal approach 15-20% of school population is identified as

being gifted according to ability, achievement, or rating or nomination information In professional communities with a large number

of high-ability students, Talent Pool may consist 25% of school population or even 100%

Intent is to be inclusive

22

Renzulli's Talent Pool Strategy

5 Main identification related attractions:1. Students identified by multiple criteria – test and

non-test2. More students have access to opportunities,

resources, and encouragement 3. Teachers are continuously identifying students

for independent projects, not just at the beginning of the school year.

4. Reduced charges of elitism5. Problem of deciding who should be admitted and

who should not be is eliminated. When in doubt, admit the student into the gifted program.

23

Renzulli’s Strategy

Step 5

Action Information Nominations (Safety Valve #2)

Step 4

Special Nominations (Safety Valve #1)

Step 3

Alternate PathwaysStep 2

Teacher Nominations

Step 1

Test Score Nominations

24

Renzulli's Talent Pool 5 Step Identification Plan

Step 1 – Test Score Nominations Selected through standardized IQ tests

and/or achievement tests Students who score above the 92nd

percentile are automatically admitted Will select about 50% via this Step

Step 2 – Teacher Nominations Teachers nominate other students who

display characteristics of high motivation, high creativity, unusual interests or talents, or special areas of potential or superior performance.

25

Renzulli's Talent Pool 5 Step Identification Plan (continued)

Step 3 – Alternate Pathways For those students not nominated in Steps

1 or 2… Includes: self-nominations, parent

nominations, peer nominations, creativity test results, product evaluations, etc.

Admission decided by screening committee which interviews the students, teachers, and parents as well as previous school records

Students can be admitted for a trial bases

26

Renzulli's Talent Pool 5 Step Identification Plan (continued) Step 4 – Special Nominations (safety valve #1)

List of students nominated circulates to all teachers Allows previous-year teachers to nominate students

who are not on the list Allows resource teachers to make recommendations

Step 5 – Action Information Nominations (safety valve #2) Students can pursue a topic, idea, or area of study

which they are extremely interested in or excited about

May be used to nominate non-Talent Pool students for projects

Nominations reviewed by screening committee

27

Advantages of Renzulli's Talent Pool Approach More students have opportunity to participate Identification flexible and multidimensional Identification is year around Motivated students self-select Reduced charges of elitism Need for hard-and-fast decisions eliminated Altered identification criteria can not eliminate

a student from being considered gifted No need for IQ or multiple criteria

28

Gifted Identification in PA Gifted education is regulated by Chapter

16 of the PA Code, not federal regulation Chapter 16 requires:

Full assessment of those suspected of being gifted which includes a school psychologist

Time limits from date of permission to date of assessment & date of writing of GIEP (Gifted Individual Education Plan)

29

So, what does a teacher look for? Some characteristics of students likely to be found eligible in PA:

Quality of work (not amount of work) Enthusiasm for learning (maybe just

some things) Intensity of special interest Reasoning ability Sensitivity to current events &

moral/social issues Signs of leadership ability (even if not

appropriately applied)

30

Some Characteristics of Giftedness Sense of humor Wide interests Ability to interact with adults Attraction to older children Better attention to intellectually

challenging rather than rote activity Strength in verbal or written expression Knows or can do what has not been taught

(technique or approach may be uncommon)

Uneven development

31

Students may not be excluded because of:

Grades (although they may be considered)

Failure to perform Disciplinary issues Presence of a disability Scores on a screening instrument

32

Reminder about GIEP services GIEP carries force of requirement Includes PLEP (present levels of

educational performance) GIEP is NOT limited to any one educational

location such as a resource room GIEP must be individualized for child & can

not be a generic program Acceleration must be one of the options

considered by the district

33 Appropriate Diagnostic Measures

34

Areas of Individual Assessment Intellectual Academic Personal Characteristics Parent/Teacher Impressions Degree of Need

35

Initial assessment must include: Individual test of intellectual ability Assessment of academic achievement Multiple sources of information

Does not have to include: Artistic or music ability “Multiple intelligences” approach

36

Intellectual Ability

Wechsler Scales (WISC-IV; WAIS-IV) See Technical Report #4 on use of GAI over FSIQ See Technical Report #7 on extended norms

Stanford-Binet Scales (SB 5) Woodcock-Johnson Cognitive (WJ-III: Cog) Ravens Progressive Matrices Comprehensive Test of Non-Verbal Intelligence

(CTONI-2) Naglieri Nonverabl Abilities Test (NNAT) Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (BVAT) LATER

37

Woodcock-Johnson Achievement (WJ-III: Ach)

Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WIAT – III)

Curriculum Based Measures

Academic Achievement

38

The Role of IQ Very relevant to eligibility in PA Tells how different a child is from others Can point to general strengths Can be part of the decision to accelerate or enrich Does not provide PLEP Does not relate directly to curriculum

A Standard Score of 131 or higher on the Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive Abilities is equivalent to a Percentile Rank Range of 98 to 99.9

39

Role of Standardized Achievement Tests

Relevant to eligibility in PA Compare children to national sample Results fairly easily understood and

applied Include only a few items at each

academic level (small sample of student behavior)

May have little relation to your school’s curriculum

40

Curriculum-Based Achievement Measures

Provide more items at any one level Relate to your school’s curriculum Are PLEP Are easily translated into next steps in a

GIEP

41

Basic Rules of Assessment At least annually Specific enough to inform decision making Valid/reliable Curriculum based In keeping with legal requirements Understood by all parties Results available to those who need them

42

Less Traditional Assessment Tools Scales for Identifying Gifted Students

(SIGS) Gifted Evaluation Scale Gifted Rating Scale IOWA Acceleration Scales – 2 SAGES 2: K-3 & 4-8 TOMAGS

43

Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS) Ages: 5-18 Raters: School rating scale form and home

rating scale form Length: 7 scales; 12 items per scale Domains assessed: general intellectual

ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership

Product information link: http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=170

44

Gifted Evaluation Scale Ages: 5-18 Raters: anyone familiar with the student (e.g.

classroom teacher, clinical personnel, other school personnel)

Length: 48 items; 20 minutes Domains assessed: intellectual, creativity,

specific academic aptitude, leadership ability, performing and visual arts

Product information link: http://www.hawthorne-ed.com/images/gifted/samples/swf_files/h04150sb.pdf

45

Gifted Rating Scale Ages: 4:0- 6:11 & 6:0-13:11 Raters: teachers Length: 5-10 minutes

GRS-P: 60 items GRS-S: 72 items

Domains assessed GRS-P: intellectual, academic readiness, motivation, creativity

and artistic talent GRS-S: intellectual, academic, motivation, creativity,

leadership and artistic talent Product information link: http://

www.pearsonassessments.com/HAIWEB/Cultures/en-us/Productdetail.htm?Pid=015-8130-502&Mode=summary

46

IOWA Acceleration Scales – 2

Grades: K-8 Raters: Child study team consisting of child’s

parents, teachers, counselor or school psychologist, an administrator, and a gifted teacher or coordinator

Length: 1.5 - 2 hours Domains assessed: assesses whether a child

should be accelerated Product information link: http://

www.giftedbooks.com/productdetails.asp?id=92

47

SAGES 2: K-3 & 4-8 Ages: 7-12 Length: 30-45 minutes Domains assessed: aptitude and

achievement in mathematics, science, language arts, social studies, and non-verbal reasoning

Product information link: http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=128

48

TOMAGS Grades: K-6 Length:30-60 minutes Domains assessed: mathematical

reasoning and mathematical problem solving

Product information link: http://www.prufrock.com/productdetails.cfm?PC=84

49

Recent Developments – Eligibility Matrices

To objectively assess IQ and multiple criteria, LEAs are increasingly developing eligibility matrices

50

Example Eligibility Matrix

51 Multicultural Issues

52

Diverse Students

Identification of gifted students further complicated by language and cultural differences

“The LEP [Limited English Proficient] student population is increasing at a faster rate than the general student population.” (Rhodes, Ochoa, & Ortiz, 2005)

According to 2010 Census data, the population of minorities in the United States is continuing to increase.

Need to reexamine procedures for identification

(Santoro, 2011)

53

Underrepresentation of Minority Students in Gifted Education

Research on underrepresentation began with Jenkins’ 1936 study Found that African American students were

not being identified as gifted although they had earned high cognitive test scores.

Literature continues to reflect growing concern about underrepresentation

Ford and Grantham (2003) argued that the negative and stereotypical views held by educators about culturally diverse students contribute to their continued underrepresentation in gifted education programs.

(Santoro, 2011)

54

Underrepresentation in Gifted Education

The goal is not to identify a certain quota of minority students or find the right test that will give you the score that is needed, but to identify gifted students who are underrepresented (Gresham, 2002).

Problems with identification process Reliance on test scores for placement Traditional intelligence tests appear more effective in

assessment and identification of white students but less effective with culturally and linguistically diverse students (Ford & Grantham, 2003).

Students from diverse backgrounds may have experiences that lead to different processing abilities in testing situations (Baldwin, 2005).

(Santoro, 2011)

55

Underrepresentation in Gifted Education – School Psychologists

SP’s need to be aware of the fact that students’ experiences can play a role in performance on assessments

Need to use valid and reliable tools that measure intended constructs with consistency

Need to select instruments with solid evidence base

Need to select culturally appropriate instruments that have performance tasks relevant to real world problems and allow students to demonstrate ability (Santoro,

2011)

56

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)

Intelligence test Used to identify gifted students from

diverse backgrounds who may be underachieving due to a language, cultural, or economic disadvantage.

57

NNAT Example

(Davis et al., 2011)

58

Research Supporting NNAT Naglieri and Ford (2003)

Results indicated that white and minority children perform similarly on this nonverbal assessment, and it provides empirical evidence that the NNAT could be useful as a component in the evaluation procedure to identify diverse students as gifted

Naglieri, Booth, and Winsler (2004) Results indicate that assessment of bilingual

students using a nonverbal measure, specifically the NNAT, is useful as an alternative to traditional tests of cognitive ability with verbal content

(Santoro, 2011)

59

Inconclusive Support for NNAT Naglieri and Ronning (2000)

Findings indicate that differences in performance between white and minority groups on the NNAT was lower than expected.

Results suggest that the NNAT can be used to fairly assess both white students and students from diverse cultures.

Lewis, DeCamp-Fritson, Ramage, McFarland, and Archwamety (2007) Findings demonstrate that the Raven’s identified

more culturally diverse students with the potential to succeed in gifted education programs than the NNAT

(Santoro, 2011)

60

Criticism of NNAT Lohman (2005)

“The belief that one can measure reasoning ability in a way that eliminates the effects of culture is a recurring fallacy in measurement.” Assessments not “culture free” or “culture fair”

Part of problem-solving is rooted in culture Students may recognize shapes and understand size relationships, but

labeling and discussing these concepts varies across cultures. Suggests that students who rely on nonverbal

strategies to answer these types of items on nonverbal assessments do not succeed on more difficult items because they are not able to label objects or verbally reason when problem solving.

Lohman claims that nonverbal reasoning tests should not be the principal measures used in the identification of students for gifted programs.

(Santoro, 2011)

61

More inconclusive results… Lohman, Korb, and Lakin (2008)

Results indicate that, due to errors in norming, the Raven’s and the NNAT both overestimate the number of high-scoring students and none of the nonverbal assessments proved to be a good indicator of achievement

(Santoro, 2011)

Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test (BVAT)

WJ III COG & ACH: Picture Vocab; Oral Vocab; Verbal Analogies

In English then gain scores in native language

No research, to date, on utility of BVAT for diverse populations

63 GMDT Role in Gifted Student Identification Process

64

Gifted Multidisciplinary Team Members

Student’s parents Certified school psychologist Persons familiar with the student’s educational

experience and performance One or more of the student’s current teachers Persons trained in the appropriate evaluation

techniques (When possible) persons familiar with the student’s

cultural background

A single member of the GMDT may meet two or more of the qualifications

65

Role of GMDT Conducts gifted multidisciplinary evaluation

Must complete evaluation within 60 calendar days after parental permission is received. (Time period in-between the end of the spring school term and the next fall term is not counted).

Prepares a Gifted Written Report (GWR) which includes: information and findings from the evaluation or

reevaluation concerning the student’s educational needs and strengths

recommendations Determines eligibility

Thank You!

Timothy J. Runge, Ph.D., NCSPtrunge@iup.edu

http://www.iup.edu/rural