This annotated bibliography summarizes research on identifying gifted students. It discusses the limitations of solely using IQ testing and the benefits of a multiple criteria approach. Several articles are summarized that look at issues identifying twice-exceptional, young gifted children, students from minority groups, and the use of peer nominations and parent checklists in the identification process. The conclusion is that teachers should reflect on whether their school's identification system aligns with current research on giftedness.

1. Identifying GiftedIdentifying Gifted
StudentsStudents
Annotated Bibliography
Donna Wallis

2. IntroductionIntroduction
 Whilst objective testing measures such as IQ testing are often utilised for identifying
gifted students, many students have gifts which could not be measured accurately in
this way.
 A multiple criteria system provides a method of identifying many different types of
gifted students.
 The selected readings should make you aware of some of the contemporary issues in
identification and may confirm or even challenge your perceptions about identifying
gifted students and the use of different tools for identification.

3. identifying Twice Exceptionalidentifying Twice Exceptional
StudentsStudents
Bianco, M & Leech, N.L., (2010). Twice-exceptional learners: effects of teacher
preparation and disability labels on gifted referrals. Teacher Education and Special
Education, 33 (4), 319-334.
In this study, the authors investigate whether disability labels affect student referrals for
gifted programs by teachers with special education, gifted or general teaching
qualifications. The study concludes that special education teachers are the least likely
to put forward students who have disability labels for gifted programs, but that all
teachers are less willing to refer students with disability labels for gifted programs.
Factors that may impact the results of this study include the limited socio economic
background (middle to high) of the schools participating and that teacher referral
decisions were based on limited information. This research has serious implications
for twice exceptional learners who may not be included in gifted programs because
of their disability. This study also clearly indicates that all teachers need to have some
professional development, preferably at the teacher training level, in catering for
giftedness and twice exceptionalities.

4. Are Identification systems basedAre Identification systems based
on our beliefs and practices?on our beliefs and practices?
Brown, S.W., Renzulli, J.S., Gubbins, E.J., Siegle, D., Zhang, W., Chen, C.H., (2005).
Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 49 (1), 68-79.
The authors conducted a national survey to determine whether identification
systems for gifted students are based on current beliefs and practices about
giftedness. The survey items were designed based on a review of literature and the
work of Marshall Sanborn, all of which see identification procedures as requiring
more than just objective intelligence tests. The authors conclude that assumptions
about gifted and talented students influence the way we screen for them and that
more flexible identification systems need to be developed to identify the many
different types of gifted and talented students.
Whilst Renzulli as one of the authors is well established in the field of gifted
education, this study has some limitations with an approximate 50% response rate to
the survey and the 5 factors surveyed having quite low reliability estimates. This
article should make teachers question whether the identification system currently
being used in their school is in line with current beliefs and practices about gifted
students.

5. Identifying young gifted childrenIdentifying young gifted children
Gross, M., (1999). Small poppies: Highly gifted children in the early years. Roeper
Review, 21(3), 207-214.
The author examines a range of research on gifted children in the early years but
also clearly sets out ways in which highly gifted young children are not being catered
for or identified because of their age and a lack of teacher understanding of which
identification processes should be utilised.
This is an excellent summary of how the identification and needs of highly gifted
young children differ from those of the moderately gifted, outlined in a sample of
case studies. It is written by Professor Miraca Gross, Emeritus Professor of Gifted
Education at the University of NSW. It is intended for both American and Australian
audiences and would be useful in helping to establish an identification process for
younger students who can often be overlooked on the assumption that their gifts are
hard to diagnose at an early age.

6. Non Verbal Testing forNon Verbal Testing for
Identification of studentsIdentification of students
Lohman, D.F. & Gambrell, J.L., (2012). Using nonverbal tests to help identify
academically talented children. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30 (1), 25-
44.
In this article, the authors explore the use of a range of nonverbal tests for
identification of students particularly those who are ELL (English Language Learners),
from low socio economic backgrounds and minority students. The authors discuss a
range of tests and identify that single format figural reasoning tests may be less
effective in identifying gifted students than picture based formats.
Whilst this paper is quite complex, it does indicate important issues with regard to
nonverbal tests and their usage. Caution should be exercised as the author of this
paper, David Lohman, identifies himself as the author of the Cog AT test, sections of
which are discussed in this report. The report provides an interesting table of
advantages and disadvantages of nonverbal testing and makes inferences about
taking into account a student’s opportunity to learn when identifying giftedness in
students from other cultural backgrounds and minorities.

7. Peer Nomination formsPeer Nomination forms
Masse, L. & Gagne, F., (1996). Should self nominations be allowed in peer nomination
forms?. Gifted Child Quarterly, 40 (1), 24-31.
Report of a study conducted by Masse and Gagne into the impact of allowing
students to self nominate on peer nomination forms. Mixed ability students from
both primary and high schools were asked to complete a peer nomination form (in
which they could self nominate) identifying students in a range of abilities based on
Gagne’s differentiated model of giftedness and talent. The results showed a high
frequency of self nomination, more so in primary students than high school students,
however, this self nomination did not show any significant impact on the
identification process.
There have been relatively few studies on this topic in terms of giftedness so
comparisons are difficult. This is a useful but limited source, however, as the authors
themselves note this study was completed in an artificial environment where these
nominations did not lead to inclusion in any gifted programs. The study was also
done in only one cultural context and would require confirmation from other cultural
contexts to enhance its reliability, however, it does indicate that self nomination does
not impact identification of gifted students when using peer nomination forms.

8. Parent checklistsParent checklists
Silverman, L.K., Chitwood, D.G. & Waters, J.L., (1986). Young gifted children: can parents
identify giftedness? Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 6 (1), 23-38.
In this study, the authors published a checklist in a newspaper and tested the IQ of
young children whose parents responded to the checklist and identified many of the
gifted characteristics in their own children. They found that over 90% of the children
tested on the basis of the checklist were in the gifted range. Of particular interest
was that those children who were tested and found not to be gifted had suffered
from some type of ear infections early in their lives.
Whilst the study is somewhat dated, particularly some of the language used eg
gifted/handicapped, the results demonstrate that given a framework of
characteristics to select from, parents’ knowledge of their children’s capabilities
should form part of the identification process.

9. ConclusionConclusion
It is hoped that these articles have raised awareness of some contemporary
identification issues and given cause for thinking about personal perceptions of
some of these methods.

10. ConclusionConclusion
It is hoped that these articles have raised awareness of some contemporary
identification issues and given cause for thinking about personal perceptions of
some of these methods.