The Impact of Race and Ethnicity on the Identification Process for Giftedness in Utah

Abstract

Many gifted education experts have found that Black, Hispanic, and Native American students are less likely to be identified for gifted programs than Asian American and White students. A study was conducted to ascertain the degree of underrepresentation of these groups in gifted programs in Utah. Using state-collected data from 14,781 students in six representative school districts in Utah, it was found through multiple logistic regression analysis that there was no statistically significant difference in the likelihoods that Black, Hispanic, or Native American students and White students would be identified as gifted; Asian American and Pacific Islander students were more likely to be identified as gifted than White students. After controlling for academic achievement and SES, it was found that all diverse demographic groups of students were more likely to be identified as gifted than White students, although the differences did not reach statistical significance for multiracial or Native American students. Further research into the nature and causes of disproportionate representation in gifted programs is suggested.

Keywords

gifted identification racial and ethnic groups multiple regression multicultural education Utah

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agresti

(2007). An introduction to categorical data analysis (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.

Camara

W. J.

(2009). College admission testing: Myths and realities in an age of admissions hype. In Phelps

R. P.

(Ed.), Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 147-180). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Camilli

(2006). Test fairness. In Brennan

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221-256). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Carman

C. A.

Taylor

D. K.

(2010). Socioeconomic status effects on using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 75-84. doi:10.1177/0016986209355976

Carpenter

D. M.

II Ramirez

(2007). More than one gap: Dropout rate gaps between and among Black, Hispanic, and White students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 32-64. doi:10.4219/jaa-2007-705

Crocker

Algina

(2008). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Mason, OH: Cengage Learning.

Dai

D. Y.

(2010). The nature and nurture of giftedness. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Dai

D. Y.

Swanson

J. A.

Cheng

(2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998–2010. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138. doi:10.1177/0016986210397831

10.

Embretson

S. E.

Reise

S. P.

(2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

11.

Ford

D. Y.

(1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education: Problems and promises in recruitment and retention. Journal of Special Education, 32, 4-14. doi:10.1177/002246699803200102

12.

Ford

D. Y.

(2003). Equity and excellence: Culturally diverse students in gifted education. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 506-520). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

13.

Forsyth

R. A.

Ansley

T. N.

Feldt

L. S.

Alnot

S. D.

(2003). Iowa Tests of Educational Development guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

14.

Frye

B. J.

Vogt

H. A.

(2010). The causes of underrepresentation of African American children in gifted programs and the need to address this problem through more culturally responsive teaching practices in teacher education programs. Black History Bulletin, 73(1), 11-17.

15.

Gasper

DeLuca

Estacion

(2012). Switching schools: Revisiting the relationship between school mobility and high school dropout. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 487-519. doi:10.3102/0002831211415250

16.

Geisinger

K. F.

(2005). The testing industry, ethnic minorities, and individuals with disabilities. In Phelps

R. P.

(Ed.), Defending standardized testing (pp. 187-203). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

17.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(1997). Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence, 24, 13-23. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8

18.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2000). Skill gaps, not tests, make racial proportionality impossible. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 129-143. doi:10.101317//1076-8971.6.1.129

19.

Gottfredson

L. S.

(2009). Logical fallacies used to dismiss the evidence on intelligence testing. In Phelps

R. P.

(Ed.), Correcting fallacies about educational and psychological testing (pp. 11-65). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

20.

Haworth

C. M. A.

Wright

M. J.

Martin

N. W.

Martin

N. G.

Boomsma

D. I.

Bartels

. . . Plomin

(2009). A twin study of the genetics of high cognitive ability selected from 11,000 twin pairs in six studies from four countries. Behavior Genetics, 39, 359-370. doi:10.1007/s10519-009-9262-3

21.

Hodge

K. A.

Kemp

C. R.

(2006). Recognition of giftedness in the early years of school: Perspectives of teachers, parents, and children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 164-204.

22.

Hoover

H. D.

Dunbar

S. B.

Frisbie

D. A.

Oberley

K. R.

Ordman

V. L.

Naylor

R. J.

. . . Shannon

G. P.

(2003). Iowa Tests of Basic Skills guide to research and development. Itasca, IL: Riverside.

23.

Hopkins

Garrett

(2010). Separate and unequal: The underrepresentation of African American students in gifted and talented programs. Black History Bulletin, 73(1), 24-30.

24.

Hunsaker

S. L.

(1994). Adjustments to traditional procedures for identifying underserved students: Successes and failures. Exceptional Children, 61, 71-76.

25.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2000). Racial and gender bias in ability and achievement tests: Resolving the apparent paradox. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 151-158. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.151

26.

Jensen

A. R.

(1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

27.

Johnsen

S. K.

Corn

A. L.

(2001). Screening Assessment for Gifted Elementary and Middle School Students examiner’s manual. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.

28.

Kaplan

R. M.

Saccuzzo

D. P.

(2009). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (7th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

29.

Karnes

F. A.

Marquardt

R. G.

(1991). Gifted children and the law. Dayton: Ohio Psychology Press.

30.

Karnes

F. A.

Marquardt

R. G.

(2000). Gifted children and legal issues: An update. Scottsdale, AZ: Gifted Psychology Press.

31.

Karnes

F. A.

Marquardt

R. G.

(2003). Gifted education and legal issues. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 590-603). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

32.

Keating

D. P.

(1976). Discovering quantitative precocity. In Keating

D. P.

(Ed.), Intellectual talent: Research and development (pp. 23-31). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

33.

Konstantopoulos

Modi

Hedges

L. V.

(2001). Who are America’s gifted? American Journal of Education, 109, 344-382. doi:10.1086/444275

34.

Lara-Alecio

Irby

Walker

M. V.

(2008). Identification of Hispanic, bilingual, gifted students. Tempo, 28(1), 23-28.

35.

Lee

(2002). Racial and ethnic achievement gap trends: Reversing the progress toward equity? Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-12. doi:10.3102/0013189X031001003

36.

Lewis

J. D.

DeCamp-Fritson

S. S.

Ramage

J. C.

McFarland

M. A.

Archwamety

(2007). Selecting for ethnically diverse children who may be gifted using Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices and Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test. Multicultural Education, 15(1), 38-42.

37.

Lee

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Kamata

Kumtepe

A. T.

Rosado

(2009). Measurement invariance of the Gifted Rating Scales—School form across five cultural groups. School Psychology Quarterly, 24, 186-198. doi:10.1037/a0017382

38.

Lohman

D. F.

(2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 111-138. doi:10.1177/001698620504900203

39.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

K. A.

(2006). Gifted today but not tomorrow? Longitudinal changes in ability and achievement during elementary school. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 29, 451-484. doi:10.4219/jeg-2006-245

40.

Lohman

D. F.

Korb

K. A.

Lakin

J. M.

(2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests: A comparison of the Raven, NNAT, and CogAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 275-296. doi:10.1177/0016986208321808

41.

Lubinski

(2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.” Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405-444. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405

42.

Lupkowski-Shoplik

A. E.

Assouline

S. G.

(1993). Identifying mathematically talented elementary students: Using the lower level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 118-123. doi:10.1177/001698629303700304

43.

McBee

(2010). Examining the probability of identification for gifted programs for students in Georgia elementary schools: A multilevel path analysis study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 283-297. doi:10.1177/0016986210377927

44.

McBee

M. T.

(2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening by race and socioeconomic status. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 103-111. doi:10.4219/jsge-2006-686

45.

McClain

M. C.

Pfeiffer

(2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59-88. doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757

46.

Measured Progress. (2010a). 2009–10 Utah mathematics core criterion referenced test technical report. Dover, NH: Author.

47.

Measured Progress. (2010b). 2009–10 Utah ELA core criterion referenced test technical report. Dover, NH: Author.

48.

Mills

C. J.

Ablard

K. E.

(1993). The Raven’s Progressive Matrices: Its usefulness for identifying gifted/talented students. Roeper Review, 15, 183-186.

49.

Mills

C. J.

Barnett

L. B.

(1992). The use of the Secondary School Admission Test (SSAT) to identify academically talented elementary school students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 155-159. doi:10.1177/001698629203600306

50.

Mills

C. J.

Tissot

S. L.

(1995). Identifying academic potential in students from under-represented populations: Is using the Ravens Progressive Matrices a good idea? Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 209-217. doi:10.1177/001698629503900404

51.

Millsap

R. E.

Everson

H. T.

(1993). Methodology review: Statistical approaches for assessing measurement bias. Applied Psychological Measurement, 17, 297-334. doi:10.1177/014662169301700401

52.

Moore

J. L.

III Ford

D. Y.

Milner

H. R.

(2005). Recruitment is not enough: Retaining African American students in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 51-67. doi:10.1177/001698620504900106

53.

Naglieri

J. A.

Ford

D. Y.

(2003). Addressing underrepresentation of gifted minority children using the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT). Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 155-160. doi:10.1177/001698620304700206

54.

National Association for Gifted Children. (2008). The role of assessments in identification of gifted students. Washington, DC: Author.

55.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 Teacher Follow-Up Survey. (NCES Publication No. 2010-353). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010353.pdf

56.

National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). Findings in brief: Reading and mathematics 2011. National Assessment of Educational Progress. (NCES Publication No. 2012-459). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012459.pdf

57.

National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innovators: Identifying and developing our nation’s human capital (NSB Publication No. 10-33). Retrieved from http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf

58.

Neisser

Boodoo

Bouchard

T. J.

Boykin

A. W.

Brody

Ceci

S. J.

. . . Urbina

(1996). Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns. American Psychologist, 51, 77-101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.2.77

59.

Nichols

J. D.

(2003). Prediction indicators for students failing the State of Indiana high school graduation exam. Preventing School Failure, 47, 112-120. doi:10.1080/10459880309604439

60.

Niederer

Irwin

R. J.

Irwin

K. C.

Reilly

I. L.

(2003). Identification of mathematically gifted children in New Zealand. High Ability Studies, 14, 71-84. doi:10.1080/13598130304088

61.

Nisbett

R. E.

Aronson

Blair

Dickens

Flynn

Halpern

D. F.

Turkheimer

(2012). Group differences in IQ are best understood as environmental in origin. American Psychologist, 67, 503-504. doi:10.1037/a0029772

62.

Oakes

(1995). Two cities’ tracking and within-school segregation. Teachers College Record, 96, 681-690.

63.

Olszewski-Kubilius

Lee

S. Y.

(2011). Gender and other group differences in performance on off-level tests: Changes in the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 54-73. doi:10.1177/0016986210382574

64.

Peters

S. J.

Gentry

(2010). Multigroup construct validity evidence of the HOPE Scale: Instrumentation to identify low-income elementary students for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 298-313. doi:10.1177/0016986210378332

65.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19, 31-50. doi:10.1300/J008v19n01_03

66.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Petscher

(2008). Identifying young gifted children using the Gifted Rating Scales preschool/kindergarten form. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 19-29. doi:10.1177/0016986207311055

67.

Phillips

S. E.

Camara

W. J.

(2006). Legal and ethical issues. In Brennan

R. L.

(Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 733-755). Westport, CT: Praeger.

68.

Popham

W. J.

(1997). Consequential validity: Right concern—Wrong concept. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 16(2), 9-13. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.1997.tb00586.x

69.

Popham

W. J.

(2005). Assessment for educational leaders. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

70.

Reynolds

C. R.

(2000). Why is psychometric research on bias in mental testing so often ignored? Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 144-150. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.144

71.

Reynolds

C. R.

Lowe

P. A.

(2009). The problem of bias in psychological assessment. In Reynolds

C. R.

Gutkin

T. B.

(Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (pp. 332-374). New York, NY: Wiley.

72.

Richert

E. S.

(2003). Excellence with justice in identification and programming. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146-158). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

73.

Sarouphim

K. M.

(1999). DISCOVER: A promising alternative assessment for the identification of gifted minorities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 244-251. doi:10.1177/001698629904300403

74.

Stanley

J. C.

(1954). Identification of superior learners in grades ten through fourteen.In Robinson

H. M.

(Ed.), Promotingmaximal reading growth among able learners (pp. 31-34). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

75.

Stanley

J. C.

(1977). Rationale of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) during its first five years of promoting educational acceleration. In Stanley

J. C.

George

W. C.

Solano

C. H.

(Eds.), The gifted and the creative: A fifty-year perspective (pp. 75-112). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.

76.

Stevens

J. P.

(2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

77.

Swanson

J. D.

(2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 11-25. doi:10.1177/001698620605000103

78.

Texas Education Agency. (2009). Texas state plan for the education of gifted/talented students. Austin, TX: Author.

79.

United States Census Bureau. (n.d.). 2010 census interactive population search. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/2010census/popmap/ipmtext.php.

80.

United States Department of Education. (2010). Characteristics of the 100 largest public elementary and secondary school districts in the United States: 2008–09 (NCES Publication No. 2011-301). Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011301.pdf

81.

Utah State Office of Education. (n.d.). Utah gifted & talented handbook. Salt Lake City, UT: Author.

82.

VanTassel-Baska

(1984). The talent search as an identification model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 172-176. doi:10.1177/001698628402800406

83.

VanTassel-Baska

(1986). The use of aptitude tests for identifying the gifted: The talent search concept. Roeper Review, 8, 185-189. doi:10.1080/02783198609552970

84.

VanTassel-Baska

Johnson

Avery

(2002). Using performance tasks in identification of economically disadvantaged and minority gifted learners: Findings from Project STAR. Gifted Child Quarterly, 46, 110-123. doi:10.1177/001698620204600204

85.

Warne

R. T.

(2009). Comparing tests used to identify ethnically diverse gifted children: A critical response to Lewis, DeCamp-Fritson, Ramage, McFarland, & Archwamety. Multicultural Education, 17(1), 48-53.

86.

(2010). How do we go about investigating test fairness? Language Testing, 27, 147-170. doi:10.1177/0265532209349465

87.

Yoon

S. Y.

Gentry

(2009). Racial and ethnic representation in gifted programs: Current status of and implications for gifted Asian American students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 121-136. doi:10.1177/0016986208330564