Identification of Gifted Students in the United States Today: A Look at State Definitions, Policies, and Practices

Abstract

Definitions of what constitute students who are gifted and talented as well as policies and procedures to identify these high-ability students play a critical role in determining which individuals actually receive gifted services. This article reports on a national survey of how state policies and practices define giftedness, identify gifted students, and accommodate for gifted minority group students. Results indicate substantial changes in definitions and categories of giftedness over the past decade. Results also reveal variability in identification methods, with a majority of states using a 3–5% cutscore for demarcating giftedness while endorsing a multiple cutoff or averaging approach to gifted decision making. Most noteworthy is the fact that at present, no state advocates using a single-score decision-making model for gifted classification. The authors discuss the implications for school psychology.

Full text

This article was downloaded by: [Florida State University]
On: 11 January 2014, At: 14:25
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Journal of Applied School Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/wapp20
Identification of Gifted Students in the
United States Today: A Look at State
Definitions, Policies, and Practices
Mary-Catherine Mcclain a & Steven Pfeiffer a
a Florida State University , Tallahassee , Florida , USA
Published online: 08 Feb 2012.
To cite this article: Mary-Catherine Mcclain & Steven Pfeiffer (2012) Identification of Gifted Students
in the United States Today: A Look at State Definitions, Policies, and Practices, Journal of Applied
School Psychology, 28:1, 59-88, DOI: 10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.
This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions

Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28:59–88, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1537-7903 print / 1537-7911 online
DOI: 10.1080/15377903.2012.643757
Identification of Gifted Students in the United
States Today: A Look at State Definitions,
Policies, and Practices
MARY-CATHERINE McCLAIN and STEVEN PFEIFFER
Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, USA
Definitions of what constitute students who are gifted and talented
as well as policies and procedures to identify these high-ability stu-
dents play a critical role in determining which individuals actually
receive gifted services. This article reports on a national survey of
how state policies and practices define giftedness, identify gifted stu-
dents, and accommodate for gifted minority group students. Results
indicate substantial changes in definitions and categories of gift-
edness over the past decade. Results also reveal variability in iden-
tification methods, with a majority of states using a 3–5% cutscore
for demarcating giftedness while endorsing a multiple cutoff or
averaging approach to gifted decision making. Most noteworthy
is the fact that at present, no state advocates using a single-score
decision-making model for gifted classification. The authors discuss
the implications for school psychology.
KEYWORDS gifted, gifted identification, gifted policy, alternative
assessment
Students who are gifted and talented are by definition a statistically uncom-
mon and, many would argue, uniquely valuable human resource. Gifted and
talented students exhibit outstanding intellectual ability, or promise, and are
capable of extraordinary performance and accomplishment. These individu-
als are also highly creative, innovative, and motivated thinkers who repre-
sent great intellectual capital (Gallagher, 2008; Pfeiffer, in press-a; Sternberg,
2004).
Received 05/16/2011; revised 07/30/2011; accepted 08/03/2011.
Address correspondence to Mary-Catherine McClain, Florida State University Career Cen-
ter, 100 South Woodward Ave., Tallahassee, FL 32306, USA. E-mail: mcmcclain@gmail.com
59
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

60 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
Since the beginning of the 20th century, the concept of giftedness
has been associated with high intelligence and exceptional performance
(Gottfredson, 1997; A. Robinson & Clinkenbeard, 2008). Largely in response
to the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet Union in 1957, the federal
government directed funds to identify and counsel bright students in fields
related to math and science. This unfortunately short-lived but nonethe-
less significant attention to and infusion of financial resources for the gifted
helped create gifted education practices and beliefs.
Almost 40 years ago, a seminal report authored by Sydney Marland,
then Commissioner of Education, profoundly influenced how giftedness was
conceptualized and defined. Included in what became known as the Marland
Report (1972) was the statement encouraging states to identify a minimum of
3–5% of the school population as gifted. Some experts have suggested that
the 3–5% estimate was proposed as a minimum upper limit and not a specific
threshold, thus preventing any superintendent from claiming that their district
had no gifted students (Borland, 2003). However, the 3–5% upper limit
for defining gifted students became, in the minds of many, including state
education policymakers, something real (Pfeiffer, 2003, in press-b).
Toward the end of the 20th century, and into the first decade of the 21st
century, gifted authorities recognized serious limitations in utilizing only an
IQ test score to identify gifted students. Authorities have advocated for a
more comprehensive, conceptually sophisticated, and diagnostically defen-
sible approach that includes multiple criteria (Borland, 2003; Pfeiffer, 2003;
VanTassel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, 2007). Concerns over best practices in gifted
diagnosis or classification have been accompanied by recommendations for
increased, expanded, and differentiated programming services for the gifted
(Feldman, 2003; Tomlinson, 2003, 2009).
How giftedness is defined and conceptualized has undergone significant
change over the past two decades, particularly in the professional literature
(Horowitz, Subotnik, & Matthews, 2009; Moon & Dixon, 2006). However,
all too often, and as observed in school systems today, giftedness contin-
ues to be viewed as something identified primarily by a score on an IQ test
(Borland, 2009; Edwards, 2009; Ford, 2010; Worrell, 2009). This IQ score con-
tinues to reflect a 3–5% cutscore suggested 40 years ago by Marland (1972).
The Education Amendments of 1969 (U.S. Congress, 1970) published
one of the first federal definitions of giftedness. Three years later, and again
in 1978, Superintendent Marland modified the federal definition. After several
revisions, the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research
and Improvement (1993) published a definition that reflects contemporary
understanding of gifted students:
Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the poten-
tial for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when
compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 61
children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual,
creative, and/or artistic areas, possess an unusual leadership capacity, or
excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not
ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in
children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata,
and in all areas of human endeavor (p. 26).
Originally, educators defined gifted or talented more narrowly and only
considered the constructs of achievement and/or intelligence—which in-
creased the probability that certain youth with nonacademic gifts would be
excluded from gifted consideration. However, over the past two decades,
definitions of giftedness have broadened to include abilities related to lead-
ership, creativity, and the arts. The term gifted has been removed from many
current definitions, reflecting a more contextual, developmental, and tal-
ent development perspective (Cramond, 2004; Stephens, 2008; Stephens &
Karnes, 2000).
Procedures used for identifying gifted students have largely been based
on individual scores on standardized IQ tests (N. M. Robinson, 2005; Wor-
rel, 2009). For example, a student is typically labeled as gifted and talented
upon obtaining a score of 120, 125, or 130 on the Stanford-Binet or Wech-
sler Intelligence Scales. A student referred for gifted identification who does
not obtain a preestablished cut score on an IQ test is often deemed “not
gifted” or ineligible for gifted programming and services (Brown, Renzulli,
Gubbins, Zhag, & Chen, 2005; Pfeiffer, 2008, in press-a). There is an ex-
tensive research literature supporting the validity of IQ scores predicting
academic achievement, as well as job performance, social-economic status,
and other important life outcomes (Duckworth, Matthews, Kelly, & Peterson,
2007; Neisser et al., 1996; Rushton & Jensen, 2010). Consequently, the belief
remains in the minds of many educators, psychologists, and policymakers
that an IQ score provides the metric to define giftedness (Borland, 2009;
Cramond, 2004; Pfeiffer, in press-a, in press-b).
On the other hand, there is a growing consensus in the gifted field that
advocates using multiple and alternative approaches to identifying gifted
students. Authorities in the gifted field report, however, that school dis-
tricts nationwide have been slow to adopt new and alternative identification
procedures (Callahan, 2009; Reis & Renzulli, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stam-
baugh, 2005). One goal of the present study was determining whether the
perception of gifted authorities is valid. In particular, we were interested in
learning whether change in adopting new definitions for and ways of con-
ceptualizing giftedness at the state level have been slow or faster than gifted
authorities suspect.
Cassidy and Hossler (1992) conducted a nationwide survey of state
definitions of giftedness, in part to determine whether definitions changed
since an earlier report published in 1985. Surveys were sent to each state
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

62 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
department of education and findings showed that the majority of states
defined giftedness using a one-dimensional model and single criterion (e.g.,
the IQ score). It was also reported that states continued to rely heavily on the
1978 federal definition. Furthermore, 30 states had made no revisions to their
respective definitions in more than a decade. Almost 10 years later, Stephens
and Karnes (2000) also conducted a survey to analyze state definitions. Sim-
ilar to Cassidy and Hossler (1992), the 2000 national survey was distributed
to each state department of education to collect state definitions for gifted
and talented. State definitions were compared with categories found within
the federal definition of giftedness as well as compared with those defini-
tions reported by Cassidy and Hossler (1992). Stephens and Karnes (2000)
also presented each state’s 1990 and 1998 gifted definitions as a means of
comparing specific changes. The reported findings illustrated a wide discrep-
ancy among statewide definitions for gifted and talented students, with some
states adopting definitions from the Jacob K. Javits Act (1988), others using
Renzulli’s (1978) three-ring model of giftedness, and some states providing
no definition of giftedness. Furthermore, although states acknowledged the
existence of more than one type of giftedness, the 1978 federal definition
continued to be represented in a majority of state definitions. Stephens and
Karnes (2000) concluded that more recent definitions and conceptual mod-
els (e.g., Gardner, 1993; Sternberg, 2005) were often overlooked by states
and were not adequately reflected in state definitions. They also concluded
that eligibility for gifted services continued to be heavily influenced by the
federal definition.
PRESENT RESEARCH STUDY
This article reports on a national survey which examined each of the 50
states’ specific policies and procedures specific to gifted identification. The
survey examined state definitions for the gifted, screening procedures and
identification practices—specifically addressing whether states established
or recommended specific test cutscores for identifying gifted students. The
study also explored whether states advocate the use of one or more different
gifted decision-making models and whether they have policy or procedures
designed to increase racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity among their gifted
student population. Findings from the present national survey are further
compared with the study conducted by Stephens and Karnes (2000). One of
our goals was to determine the extent of change that has occurred in gifted
policies and practices over the past decade, particularly focusing on the state
level.
We developed a seven-item, open-ended survey (Appendix A) to specif-
ically answer five research questions:
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 63
1. Which definitions and categories of giftedness are promulgated by each
state?
2. What specific screening and gifted identification practices are used to
identify gifted students? 3. Do any states endorse specific decision-making
models for gifted eligibility determination?
3. Do states recommend test scores and specific cutscores when determining
eligibility for gifted services?
4. Do states provide flexibility for students from typically underrepresented
racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistically diverse gifted populations?
METHOD
Participants
We visited each state’s Department of Education website, accessing publically
available information to help answer the seven survey items and address our
five research questions. Contact information, including phone numbers and
e-mail addresses, was also obtained for each state’s gifted coordinator. All
50 state gifted coordinators were contacted and invited to participate in the
study. Specifically, the coordinators were encouraged to clarify and elaborate
upon any state information that helped the researchers create a more com-
plete and accurate national picture on state policy and practices pertaining
to the gifted. At the time of the study, the state gifted coordinator position
for two states, Rhode Island and Arkansas, was vacant. Consequently, we
collected information from these two states by contacting members of the
respective state associations and/or department of education. A total of 48
state gifted coordinators participated in the study (100% participation). Each
state gifted coordinator was individually interviewed to corroborate, clarify,
or expand upon information on the website concerning each state’s gifted
practices and policies. Telephone interviews generally lasted from 20 to
40 min.
Procedure
To develop the questionnaire for determining how states define, identify, and
select gifted students, we searched published literature for studies which dis-
cussed definitions and categories of giftedness. Specifically, searching ERIC,
MEDLINE, PsycINFO, and Google Scholar using the following keywords:
gifted,academically talented,intellectually superior,gifted definitions,gifted
identification,gifted assessment,andgifted and talented. We also examined
the reference lists of these publications to identify other relevant resources.
On the basis of a review of the extant literature, a survey questionnaire was
created that included the following sections: state definitions, required types
of gifted assessment, cutoff criterion scores, implementation of teacher rating
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

64 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
scales, and the identification of underrepresented gifted and talented pop-
ulations. The questionnaire included forced-choice and open-ended items,
all of which focused primarily on gifted definitions and identification prac-
tices. Domains related to gifted funding, accountability, programming, and
professional development were intentionally not examined. The data were
collected using the following three-step procedure:
STEP 1
Information was gathered by navigating through each state’s Department of
Education website. From each website, information was collected on cur-
rent gifted education policies and procedures, specifically data on defining
giftedness, identification criteria, and assessment techniques. The National
Association for Gifted Children (2009) website (http://www.nagc.org) pro-
vided sufficient information for answering the first survey item for all 50
states. For example, the National Association for Gifted Children website in-
dicated whether the state mandated gifted identification, noted the presence
or absence of a state definition, and also provided a description of the areas
addressed within each state’s definition. Information obtained from the as-
sociation’s website and each state’s department website were subsequently
clarified, if needed, when the researchers implemented Step 2—ultimately
providing direct correspondence with state gifted coordinators to ensure
accurate and up-to-date information on the seven questionnaire items.
STEP 2
We followed-up with any state in which there was no posted policy or proce-
dure for gifted education on the website or if the information on the website
was insufficient in providing enough information to answer any of the five
research questions. Interviews with gifted coordinators were conducted to
obtain information on specific identification methods, use of specific test
scores for determining eligibility, whether prespecified cutscores qualified
students for services, whether the state recommended the use of teacher
rating scales, and if the state included exceptions to identifying gifted stu-
dents to increase the number of racial, ethnic, and culturally diverse gifted
students. Follow-up interviews with the gifted coordinators were required
because much of the information that was sought was not publically ac-
cessible. For example, information on the use of teacher rating scales to
help identify gifted students was rarely available on the state’s Department
of Education website. If gifted coordinators reported that their state did not
require or mandate the use of teacher rating scales, we asked them whether
teacher rating scales were recommended by their state as part of the gifted
assessment process. During Step 2, gifted coordinators were given the option
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 65
of answering the seven survey questions through e-mail or by telephone in-
terview. In addition, each gifted coordinator was asked to submit electronic
documents and Internet website links relevant to their state’s gifted policies
and procedures for identifying gifted and talented students. Last, all gifted
coordinators were asked to confirm data collected during Step 1—mainly
information regarding state definitions, assessment procedures, and identifi-
cation criteria.
During Step 3, a follow-up question (Appendix B) was developed after
initial findings were collected. Specifically, all 50 gifted coordinators and/or
department of education employees were sent an e-mail asking for infor-
mation on whether their state advocated the use of one or more of five
gifted identification decision-making models. We decided to include this ad-
ditional research question at the suggestion of a colleague who felt that this
was an important yet underresearched topic in gifted assessment practice.
Last, the authors established thresholds for evaluating level of change: neg-
ligible change if 4 or fewer states (less than 10%) made modifications over
the past decade; small change if 5–7 states made changes (11–15%); mod-
erate change if 8–10 states (16–20%) implemented changes; and large or
substantial change evidenced by 11 or more states (20% or greater). These
thresholds are consistent with estimates of significant or meaningful change
in the social sciences (Glass & Hopkins, 1996).
RESULTS
Gifted Definitions
TERMINOLOGY
Of the 50 states, 48 (96%) have established definitions of giftedness. Mas-
sachusetts and South Dakota represent the two states that have no current
definition for gifted and talented students. However, significant variation in
how states identify or categorize what constitutes gifted and talented was
found; the terminology gifted and talented is used in 27 state definitions
(54%), whereas 18 states (36%) use only the term gifted. The remaining
three states (Indiana, Nebraska, and Washington; 6%) use the term high-
ability student in their state definition.
Several states have made definitional changes when compared with the
results reported by Stephens and Karnes (2000). For example, Kentucky,
Minnesota, New Hampshire, and New Jersey added and/or changed their
terminology to state gifted and talented; Indiana’s definition changed from
gifted and talented to high-ability student; and at present, Kansas uses gifted
instead of exceptional when referring to gifted and talented children. A total
of 24 states have changed or modified their definition of giftedness over
the past decade. On the basis of the thresholds that were set a priori for
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

66 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
FIGURE 1 Required identification methods and domains.
judging the amount of change over time, we concluded that states have
demonstrated a substantial level of change over the past 10 years in terms
of gifted terminology. A substantial level of change represents 11 or more
of the 50 states (20% or greater) evidencing change. To address our second
research question, we examined state definitions in terms of which specific
areas or categories of giftedness were included in the definition.
CATEGORIES/TYPES OF GIFTEDNESS
As seen in Figure 1, 45 of the state definitions (90%) include intelligence
as an area or category of giftedness. Thirty nine state definitions include
high achievement (78%), and 27 state definitions include creativity (54%).
In addition, 28 states (56%) include a specific category of giftedness (e.g.,
artistic talent), 15 states (30%) include the category leadership or leadership
ability in their definition, and 3 states list motivation (6%).
In comparison with the gifted categories reported by Stephens and
Karnes (2000), eight states have either added or eliminated specific categories
within their definitions. On the basis of our a priori thresholds for level of
change, this indicates moderate change as 8–10 states (16–20%) have imple-
mented changes over the past decade. For example, Alabama and Kansas
now include academic domains in their state definitions; Georgia and Indi-
ana’s definitions now include the category of motivation when determining
individual classification for giftedness. Maryland has incorporated leadership
as a gifted category, and South Carolina has added intellectual and artistic
ability.
Overall, 24 states (48%) modified their definition of gifted and/or al-
tered specific terminology within the definition. Applying our study’s same
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 67
decision rule for judging amount of change, the present findings indicate
that states nationwide have implemented substantial change over the past
decade in modifying their definitions of gifted and talented. For example,
Indiana uses high ability rather than gifted and talented to describe its gifted
students; Kansas recently replaced exceptional children with gifted [National
Association for Gifted Children, 2005, 2009b, p. 143]. Furthermore, more
than 10 years ago, Stephens and Karnes (2000) reported that five states did
not have a state definition for the gifted. Since 2000, three of these five
states—New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Minnesota—have developed state
definitions for giftedness.
Figure 1 illustrates the shifts that have occurred over the past decade
in gifted definitions and specific terminology. Specifically, 24 states revised
their definitions (48%), 11 states (22%) added other gifted areas or cate-
gories in their state definition, and 15 states (30%) narrowed gifted areas
or deleted terminology in their respective state definitions. For example,
Maryland added the category of leadership, whereas Georgia removed the
areas of leadership and artistic from their state definition. Five states (10%)
modified their gifted definition with minor changes in wording. Since the
Stephens and Karnes (2000) survey, Mississippi narrowed its definition by
removing the full descriptions of intellect, academic, creative, and artistic
abilities; Colorado removed any mention of specific categories of giftedness
(at present, it states “outstanding in particular areas”).
Additional changes in state definitions include referencing identification
criteria, mentioning student age ranges, and including information on chil-
dren from diverse social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. For example,
Illinois’ current gifted definition explicitly states that students identified as
gifted must score in the top 5% in a specific area of aptitude. Over the past
two decades, Hawaii, Michigan, Delaware, and West Virginia have revised
their state definitions to include age ranges (i.e., 4–20 years old). Oklahoma
and Colorado removed specific age ranges from their state definitions. Last,
Alabama, Illinois, and Maryland added specific mention of socioeconomic
status and cultural background over the past 10 years.
We next report on findings for the second research question: what
specific screening and gifted identification practices are used to identify
gifted students? Stephens and Karnes (2000), did not report information on
this specific question, precluding any evaluation on the degree of change
over the past 10 years in terms of screening and gifted identification practices.
Gifted Screening and Identification Practices
STATE MANDATES
At present, 32 states (66%) have specific legislative policy mandating the
identification of students who are gifted. In 12 states (24%) there are no
state-level mandates for the identification of gifted students, relying on
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

68 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
local school districts and local educational agencies to set gifted policy and
procedures. Six states (12%) do not have an established state or local level
identification policy or procedure, although the state’s gifted coordinators
indicated that the majority of schools in their unregulated states are encour-
aged to provide services for gifted youth. A total of 44 states (88%) use some
type of legislation mandating gifted identification. However, a wide range
of gifted identification methods and domains exist that vary in categories
considered and comprehensiveness.
Although Stephens and Karnes (2000) did not examine the question of
gifted screening and identification practices, a report published by the Coun-
cil of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (1999) provides information
on state policy mandates for the gifted. On the basis of data from 43 states
in 1999, 12 states (28%) did not mandate the identification of gifted and tal-
ented students. In comparison, only 6 states (12%) at present do not require
schools in their jurisdiction to identify gifted students, whereas 12 (24%) al-
low local educational agencies or districts to decide on specific identification
criteria and requirements.
GIFTED IDENTIFICATION METHODS AND DOMAINS
On the basis of responses provided by each state’s gifted coordinator,
methods and domains used for identifying gifted students were grouped
into the following seven categories: intellectual domain (IQ), performance,
achievement, creativity, nominations/referrals, behavioral checklists, and rat-
ing scales. Figure 2 shows that 16 states (32%) mandate that schools use
intelligence tests when identifying gifted students, whereas 17 states (34%)
mandate the use of achievement tests, the two most widely required gifted
FIGURE 2 Required assessment methods for identifying gifted students.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 69
identification methods/domains. In addition, 13 states (26%) require the use
of nominations and teacher and/or parent referrals. Nine states (18%) require
the use of a teacher-completed behavior rating scale, whereas seven states
(14%) require the use of a behavioral checklist. However, it is likely that
there is overlap in terms of these two categories of identification methods.
Last, nine states (18%) require the use of creativity tests, whereas eight states
(16%) stipulate the inclusion of performance measures to identify giftedness.
Over the past decade, a growing number of states have expanded their
identification methods and domains. Since the publication of the Council of
State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (1999), one state added intelli-
gence/aptitude assessment, five states mandated achievement tests, and six
states incorporated nominations into their identification policy requirements.
There has been no change, however, in the total number of states using
behavioral checklists.
We also compared the present findings to recent publications dissem-
inated by the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (2007)
and National Association for Gifted Children (2005, 2009b). Four states have
added requirements for the utilization of intelligence tests and 3 states have
added achievement measures in the gifted identification process. Two states
have included nomination and referral procedures as part of the required
identification methods. The 2007 publication by the Council of State Direc-
tors of Programs for the Gifted did not specify use of behavioral checklists; it
is likely that the authors included this identification method under their cat-
egory of multiple criteria or other in the 2007 report. Our findings indicate,
when compared with previous reports, a small overall change nationwide
with respect to mandated identification methods and domains for gifted stu-
dents. Recall that a small change represents five to seven states (11–15%)
having made changes over time, and a negligible change is when four or
fewer states (less than 10%) have made changes. We next examined the
results of the third research question: Do states endorse specific decision-
making models when making gifted eligibility determinations?
Decision-Making Models
We were interested in determining whether states require, endorse, or rec-
ommend a particular decision-making model to identify gifted students in
their jurisdiction. This question was not examined by Stephens and Karnes
(2000), and to our knowledge, has not been investigated in any published re-
search. We felt that it would be informative to examine this question, which
gets to the heart of how practitioners determine whether a student is gifted.
It is particularly germane to school psychology practice.
Specifically, we examined five gifted decision-making models proposed
by Sternberg and Subotnik (2000): (a) single cutoff—when a school dis-
trict uses a single score (e.g., IQ score of 130) to guide decision making
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

70 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
whether a student qualifies for gifted classification and programming; (b)
single cutoff: flexible criterion—similar to the single cutoff; only one piece
of diagnostic information is considered, but school districts can be flexible
in terms of which test is acceptable and decide using one criterion from two
or more options (e.g., 90th percentile on a creativity scale or 2 SD above
themeanonanIQtest);(c)multiple cutoff—this model requires that a
student score above a preselected cut score on two or more different mea-
sures (e.g., 95th percentile on IQ and 85th percentile on a creativity test);
(d) averaging—unlike the previous models, this approach assumes that a
student can demonstrate giftedness in different domains and that the student
does not have to demonstrate the same level or threshold of giftedness across
different domains; and (e) dynamic—giftedness is measured by the amount
of change (e.g., growth/improvement) over time; the student’s score(s) at ini-
tial testing are compared with their score(s) at a second testing, and amount
of change determines giftedness. For the purpose of this research, we col-
lapsed the multiple cutoff and averaging decision-making models into one
category—yielding four models—because the state gifted coordinators found
it difficult and confusing distinguishing among these two decision-making
models.
Table 1 indicates that more than half of the states (54%) endorse se-
lection of gifted students using a multiple cutoff or averaging approach, 7
states (14%) endorse selection of gifted students using a single cutoff: flexible
model, and no state reported using the single cutoff decision-making model
or the dynamic decision-making model for identifying gifted students. Six-
teen states (32%) indicated that they do not require, recommend, or adhere
to any one specific decision-making model.
The interviews with the state gifted consultants revealed that states ex-
hibit a wide variety of approaches and great latitude in terms of application
of different decision-making models. For example, Hawaii reported that they
“recommend a matrix with at least 5 criteria ... we suggest that the criteria
match the area being identified. If the school is screening for math (gifted-
ness), for example, then only math instruments should be used” (A. Viggiano,
personal communication, 2009). North Carolina reported:
Each local educational agency in our state establishes its own identifica-
tion procedures, and these can vary fairly significantly ... most school
districts identify using both an achievement measure and an aptitude
measure ... some school system also include informal measures ... par-
ent checklists, classroom grades, end-of-grade tests, and portfolios (J.
Brooks, personal communication, 2009).
Similarly, Virginia commented that they don’t endorse any one specified
decision-making model. On the other hand, “most schools in Virginia oper-
ate on the multiple criteria model but there is often a range of acceptable
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 71
TABLE 1 State’s Decision-Making Model for Identifying Gifted Children
Multiple cutoff or
Single cutoff: multiple scores: No
State Single cutoff Flexible Averaging Dynamic model
Alabama ×
Alaska ×
Arizona ×
Arkansas ×
California ×
Colorado ×
Connecticut ×
Delaware ×
Florida ×
Georgia ×
Hawaii ×
Idaho ×
Illinois ×
Indiana ×
Iowa ×
Kansas ×
Kentucky ×
Louisiana ×
Maine ×
Maryland ×
Massachusetts ×
Michigan ×
Minnesota ×
Mississippi ×
Missouri ×
Montana ×
Nebraska ×
Nevada ×
New Hampshire ×
New Jersey ×
New Mexico ×
North Dakota ×
Ohio ×
Oklahoma ×
Oregon ×
Pennsylvania ×
Rhode Island ×
South Carolina ×
South Dakota ×
Tennessee ×
Texas ×
Utah ×
Vermont ×
Virginia ×
Washington ×
West Virginia ×
Wisconsin ×
Wyoming ×
Total 0 7 27 0 16
% 0% 14% 54% 0% 32%
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

72 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
scores for some measures” (D. Poland, personal communication, 2009). Last,
Iowa reported that they consider “portfolios of work, intake interviews, and
evidence of gifted characteristics” given that some students may be poor test
takers or not perform well on the day that they are tested. Iowa reported that
it would adjust test scores and other measures for “students of poverty and
minority group students” (G. Kenkel, personal communication, 2009). We
now turn to the fourth research question: Do states recommend test scores
and specific cutscores when determining eligibility for gifted services?
Test Scores
As mentioned earlier, our national survey found that specific criteria and pro-
cedures for how students come to be identified vary considerably by state. A
majority of states use intelligence and achievement test scores in identifying
gifted students, which is consistent with the data reported by Cassidy and
Hossler (1992) and by Stephens and Karnes (2000). However, few states
mandate or even recommend the use of specific cutscores to identify gifted
students. Table 2 indicates that only 18 states (36%) stipulate specific test
scores for students to qualify as gifted in their state. Of the states that have
established cutscores to classify gifted students, all 18 states (100%) provide
specific cutscores on IQ tests; 15 of the 18 states (83%) provide specific
cutscores on achievement measures and 10 of the 18 states (56%) provide
specific cutscores in one or more specific domains (e.g., leadership, moti-
vation, creativity). For example, Alabama requires that students score at the
95th percentile or above on an IQ test, whereas Arizona requires that students
obtain a cutscore at the 97th percentile on an IQ test. Mississippi requires
that students score at or above the 90th percentile on a test of achievement,
whereas students in New Mexico must score at or higher than the 95th per-
centile on a measure of creativity to be eligible for gifted services in their
state. It is important to note that the majority of states (64%) do not stipulate
specific test or cutscores for gifted eligibility in their state. The final research
question examined was whether states provide flexibility for students from
typically underrepresented racial/ethnic, cultural, and linguistically diverse
gifted populations?
Gifted Exceptions
State gifted coordinators were asked if their state provided any special ac-
commodations or flexibility for special populations who might otherwise
not meet state-specified gifted criteria. Slightly more than half of the states
(n=26) mandate specific policies for identifying culturally diverse students,
whereas the remaining 24 states (48%) have no current mandate or policy
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

TABLE 2 States Using Specific Scores for the Selection and Identification of Gifted Students
Use of
State specific score IQ Achievement Other area
Alabama Yes 95th percentile 17 in matrix Behavioral characteristics
Alaska No
Arizona Yes 97th percentile 97th percentile
Arkansas No
California No
Colorado Yes 95th percentile 95th percentile 95th percentile (leadership,
creativity)
Connecticut No
Delaware No
Florida Yes 95th percentile Behavioral characteristics
Georgia Yes K–2: 99th; Grades
3–12: 96th
90th percentile
Hawaii No
Idaho No
Illinois No
Indiana No
Iowa No
Kansas No
Kentucky Yes 96th percentile 96th percentile
Louisiana Yes Pre-K: 99th; Grades
1–12: 95th
Pre-K: 99th; Grades
1–12: 95th
Maine No
Maryland No
Massachusetts No
Michigan No
Minnesota No
Mississippi Yes 90th percentile 90th percentile Superior range (leadership,
creativity)
Missouri Yes 95th percentile 95th percentile 95th percentile (creativity)
Montana No
Nebraska No
Nevada No
New Hampshire No
New Jersey No
(Continued on next page)
73
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

TABLE 2 States Using Specific Scores for the Selection and Identification of Gifted Students (Continued)
Use of
State specific score IQ Achievement Other area
New Mexico Yes 95th percentile 95th percentile 95th percentile (creativity)
New York No
North Carolina No
North Dakota No
Ohio Yes 95th percentile 95th percentile 68th percentile (creativity)
Oklahoma Yes 97th percentile
Oregon Yes 97th percentile 97th percentile
Georgia Yes K–2: 99th; Grades
3–12: 96th
90th percentile
Hawaii No
Idaho No
Pennsylvania Yes 98th percentile
Rhode Island No
South Carolina Yes 93rd percentile 94th percentile State exam
State Use of specific
score
IQ Achievement Other area
South Dakota No
Tennessee No
Texas No
Utah No
Vermont No
Virginia No
Washington Yes 90th percentile 95th percentile Evidence of creativity
West Virginia Yes 97th percentile 90th percentile
Wisconsin No
Wyoming Yes 95th percentile 95th percentile Approved score
Total 18 18 15 10
% 36% 36% 30% 20%
Note. Kansas, Minnesota, Nevada, and New Jersey require multiple criteria for identification but have not established or specified cutoff scores. New Mexico,
Ohio, and Washington are the only three states to incorporate standard error of measurement into a child’s cutoff score. South Carolina has adopted a flexible,
multiple-criteria model. In essence, students who meet the criteria on any two dimensions are qualified for gifted services (VanTasseel-Baska, Feng, & Evans, 2007).
Dimension A refers to an aptitude measure, Dimension B is based on a South Carolina State Assessment or nationally normed test, and Dimension C relies on
performance tasks. Students must demonstrate high aptitude (93rd percentile) in one or more of the following areas: verbal, mathematical, nonverbal, and/or a
composite of all three. However, students who meet or exceed the 96thhnational age percentile composite score on an ability test are not required to meet any
other criteria. In terms of achievement, a student must score at the 94th percentile in reading comprehension and/or at or above the 94th percentile in mathematical
concepts.
74
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 75
for identifying typically underrepresented gifted students. During the phone
interviews, state gifted consultants reported a variety of approved modifica-
tions when testing students from economically disadvantaged homes and/or
students of color. For example, Georgia reported:
Rule 160-4-2.38 allows you to utilize a second measure in all areas when
there is compelling evidence such as culture, language development,
disabling condition, or economic disadvantage, and the initial score is
within one standard error of measurement or standard deviation of the
qualifying score” (L. Andrews, personal communication, 2009).
Alabama uses a matrix that “was designed and implemented specifically
to better enable the identification and services of students from culturally
diverse and low [socioeconomic status] backgrounds” (E. Romey, personal
communication, 2009). The regulations for South Carolina have also been
changed to incorporate more nonverbal and performance-based assessments
to “not penalize students for having too few resources or exposure because of
low socioeconomic status—ultimately increasing efforts to identify minority
students” (R. Blanchard, personal communication, 2009).
Several states noted that twice-exceptional students, individuals who
have gifts and a comorbid disability (Foley Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stin-
son, 2011; Pfeiffer, 2009), were an underserved group that requires flexible
identification procedures. Although most states acknowledge the difficulty
in addressing the educational needs of these special students, few states
have established specific guidelines or policies for identifying such twice-
exceptional students. Virginia encourages the identification of gifted stu-
dents suspected of having a coexisting disability to incorporate a variety of
assessments, including student portfolios, work products, teacher checklists,
interviews, and standardized test scores. Similarly, Idaho suggests that mul-
tiple data sources be examined when identifying twice-exceptional students
and that screenings include formal (e.g., standardized tests) and informal
(e.g., course work) assessments.
The Stephens and Karnes (2000) study and the report of the Council
of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (2007) did not examine the
question of whether states recommend flexibility and accommodations to
increase diversity in gifted programs. As a result, we are unable to make
comparisons with any earlier published nationwide dataset or comment on
possible trends over time. However, at present, approximately half of the
states recognize that some groups of students in U.S. schools are less likely
to do as well on traditional gifted identification methods and benefit from
flexible and nontraditional gifted identification procedures.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

76 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
DISCUSSION
The purpose of this research study was to obtain updated information on
gifted state policies nationwide. We were interested in determining which
definitions and categories of giftedness are promulgated by each state,
whether specific types of tests are endorsed to identify gifted students, if
states establish specific cutscores or advocate for specific gifted decision-
making models, and whether states allow flexibility when identifying typi-
cally underrepresented groups of gifted and talented students. A final interest
was determining the amount of change that has taken place in state gifted
policies and procedures nationwide over the past decade.
Contrary to the perception of some authorities in the gifted field that
the adoption of new ideas is slow to gain traction (Callahan, 2009; Reis &
Renzulli, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2005), our findings indicate
that all 50 states have moved beyond the policy of permitting a single IQ
score to, alone, determine whether a student is gifted. At present, no state
endorses or recommends using the single cutoff decision-making model for
gifted identification, which is a marked change from gifted identification
practices in the schools only 20 years ago (Pfeiffer, 2002). Our findings
further indicate that a substantial number of states have modified or changed
their definitions of giftedness as well as altered specific terminology since
the Stephens and Karnes (2000) survey.
Decision-Making Models
Our research study examined decision-making models, specifically whether
any states endorsed or recommended any one gifted decision-making model
(Sternberg & Subotnik, 2000). This represents a relatively new concept in
educational research, as evidenced by Sternberg and Subotnik (2000) being
unable to locate even one published article on the topic in the gifted field.
However, the concept is not new to medicine, where investigators have
empirically shown how physicians make clinical decisions (Norcross, Hogan,
& Koocher, 2008). On the basis of this practice, we felt that it would be
useful to look at whether states recognized or considered utilizing one or
more gifted identification decision-making models.
More than half of the states endorse a multiple cutoff or averaging ap-
proach. The multiple cutoff approach considers a set of prespecified test
scores (e.g., an IQ score, a creativity test score, and a teacher rating on mo-
tivation); to qualify as gifted, a student must score above a certain threshold
on all of the measures. The advantages of this model are that it incorporates
the interactive nature of giftedness and ensures that selected students are at a
relatively high level of competence in all domains measured (and hopefully
these domains reflect constructs that represent what is important to succeed
in the local gifted program). The relative disadvantages of this model are that
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 77
it is complex, time-consuming, relatively expensive, and may result in the
school district selecting some students who are proficient in multiple areas
but not necessarily extraordinary or exceptional in any one.
The averaging approach is similar to the multiple cutoff approach and
also considers scores on multiple tests or measures. It differs from the mul-
tiple cutoff model in permitting differential weighting of test scores. For
example, the New York City Department of Education recently used this
decision-making approach for their gifted programs (Pearson Assessment,
personal communication, 2008). New York City students’ standard scores on
two tests were averaged, creating a total score for each gifted candidate as
follows: student’s total score on the teacher-rated gifted rating scales (Pfeiffer
& Jarosewich, 2003) are combined with two times their score on the Otis
Lennon Scholastic Achievement Test (Otis & Lennon, 1993). Advantages of
this model are that a very high score on one test can compensate for a less
impressive score on a second measure, and the model can increase student
diversity. Disadvantages of this approach are that students could be selected
without being truly outstanding in any one domain and a truly exceptional
student could be eliminated because of one low score.
Seven states reported that they use the single cutoff: flexible model
for gifted identification, which only considers a single piece of diagnostic
information. However, this model is flexible in that a student can demonstrate
his or her gifts by obtaining a high score on one of a number of alternative
tests or measures, selected to represent different attributes of giftedness (e.g.,
intelligence, achievement, leadership, artistic talent). Last, it should be noted
that our research did not attempt to verify whether the decision-making
models reported by each state are standard practice at the local school
district level.
We reiterate that no one decision-making model is correct, or best, and
each model has advantages and disadvantages. For example, the single cut-
off: targeted criterion approach (e.g., a prespecified IQ score as the criterion
for giftedness) has enjoyed a long history in the field and is simple, uncom-
plicated for teachers and parents to understand, and relatively inexpensive.
However, a clear disadvantage of this model is that the single criterion “may
not do justice to the full richness of the giftedness construct” (Sternberg &
Subotnik, 2000, p. 833). Although the single cutoff: targeted criterion ap-
proach to gifted identification has in the past been the predominant model
in the United States and around the world, the present study indicates that
this decision-making model is no longer advocated by any state and has
recently become a historical relic in the United States for gifted classification.
Underrepresented Gifted Populations
Our findings further indicate that at present, approximately half of the
states mandate specific policies and procedures for identifying typically
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

78 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
underrepresented groups of minority gifted students. This is clearly a substan-
tial change in gifted identification policy over the past 10–15 years (Bernal,
2003; Ford, 2005; Pfeiffer, in press-b; Swanson, 2006). What we do not know
is which alternative assessment tests and/or procedures are being used at
the local level to help identify typically underrepresented high-ability mi-
nority group students and students of extraordinary potential (Brown et al.,
2006; Ford, 1998, 2010; Pfeiffer, in press-a; Worrell, 2009). A related issue
is the disquieting concern that few nontraditional and alternative gifted as-
sessment tests and procedures have yet passed muster in terms of evidence
of their scientific merit (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Morris, 2002; Lohman, 2005,
2009; Pfeiffer & Blei, 2008). It is clear, however, that there is a growing
commitment to greater diversity of gifted students at the state level.
Defining and Assessing Giftedness
Our findings indicate that there continues to be a lack of consensus among
policymakers and educators in how to define a gifted student. Significant
differences and inconsistencies continue to exist across states in terms of
definitions and categorizes of giftedness. Some authorities argue that it might
not be critical to reach consensus on one uniform definition of giftedness
(Cramond, 2004). We disagree. Recent authors recommend adopting a devel-
opmental model of eminence (Subotnik, 2003), or a tripartite model which
considers three alternative ways to view giftedness: high intelligence, out-
standing academic accomplishments, and/or potential to excel (Pfeiffer, in
press-b). Most authorities in the gifted field embrace the following points in
conceptualizing giftedness:
•IQ matters, and measures of intellectual ability are good predictors of later
academic success and outstanding performance in one or more academic
domains.
•However, IQ alone only partially explains a student’s ultimate long-term
academic and real-world success; other factors such as domain-specific
skills, high motivation, passion for a subject matter, commitment, persis-
tence, self-confidence, and opportunity are important contributing factors
if one hopes to attain adult excellence or eminence in a field.
•The promotion of talent among students identified as gifted is a long-term,
developmental process.
•Assessment should be ongoing, given that talent development is an on-
going process and that not every child identified as gifted at an early age
follows the same developmental trajectory.
On the basis of the findings of the present study, most states now
recognize at least two or more areas or types of giftedness in their state
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 79
definitions and acknowledge that the construct giftedness is multidimen-
sional. However, few states require that local school districts use multidi-
mensional measures when identifying gifted students (Worrell, 2009). Also,
no state has yet adopted a policy or procedures consistent with a devel-
opmental model of gifted and talented. Such a policy or procedures would
reflect recurring assessments and measures of gifted students over the course
of their schooling that go beyond general and specific ability to assess psy-
chosocial variables known to influence the ultimate attainment of high levels
of talent (Pfeiffer, in press-b).
It is noteworthy that at the present time only 18 states have established
specific test cutscores for gifted eligibility. We do not necessarily see this
as a policy weakness but do agree with the view that giftedness is a social
construction and not something real (Borland, 2009; Pfeiffer, in press-a). The
3–5% threshold, which continues to be the most frequent cutscore advocated
by states for identifying giftedness, is nothing more than a useful but clearly
inexact estimate for the number of intellectually precocious and highly capa-
ble students who might require or benefit from special gifted programs and
services not ordinarily provided in their classroom (Borland, 2003; Pfeiffer,
in press-b). In some school districts, the 3–5% estimate will grossly under-
estimate the number of very bright students who are bored in their regular
classroom and desperately need a more advanced, fast-paced, challenging
and/or differentiated curriculum (Johnson, Haensly, Ryser, & Ford, 2002: Ka-
plan, 2009; Tomlinson, 2003, 2009; VanTassel-Baska & Stambaugh, 2008). In
other districts, the opposite situation may exist.
Limitations and Implications
A limitation of the present study is that our focus and level of analysis is at the
state level. The results provide a comprehensive picture of state gifted poli-
cies and procedures related to gifted identification nationwide. As a result,
the focus was not directed toward collecting data on actual gifted identifica-
tion practices at the local school district level. Therefore, it is difficult to infer
with any degree of confidence whether the gifted identification practices at
the local level (in any state) mirror or reflect their state’s gifted identifica-
tion policies and procedures. Furthermore, this study did not collect data
on the fidelity or variability of local school district adherence to their state
gifted policy, procedures, and guidelines. Authorities in the gifted field sug-
gest noncohesive and inconsistent decisions at the district level (Shaunessy,
2003; VanTassel-Baska, 2009). This may be the case in the real world of
educational practice at the local school level. Therefore, the reader should
be cautious when drawing conclusions and inferences to local gifted identi-
fication practice on the basis of our research findings. A logical next research
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

80 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
study would follow up the present research with a more fine-grained, molec-
ular focus on local gifted identification practices.
On the basis of the overall findings, six implications for school psychol-
ogists serving gifted students are warranted:
•The identification of young students who are most likely to make significant
contributions to society remains a critically important goal in U.S. education
(Pfeiffer, in press-b).
•Gifted assessment should be a recurring phenomena, not a one-shot event;
some students who are not identified as gifted at an early age later develop
the gifts and talents to make major contributions in innumerable fields, and
some young students identified at an early age as gifted, for any number
of reasons, fall off of a trajectory of academic excellence.
•Gifted assessment should be multidimensional and multifaceted; school
psychologists can play a more central role in gifted identification by con-
ducting a comprehensive assessment that includes measuring not only
general ability but also specific abilities, motivation, interest, task commit-
ment, and psychosocial variables known to encourage academic success.
A recent report by the National Science Board (2010), Preparing the Next
Generation of STEM Innovators: Identifying and Developing Our Nation’s
Human Capital, specifically recommends that educators need to identify all
types of talents and nurture potential in all students, including high-ability
students (Colangelo et al., 2010). This is clearly an important, new oppor-
tunity for school psychologists to assume a key leadership role (Pfeiffer,
2001).
•School psychologists should advocate for any high-ability student who
demonstrates uncanny ability or potential to make a mark in an academic
field, even if their IQ score falls below the school district’s cutscore; there
is no single right answer for what IQ threshold or percentage of students
should be identified as gifted, and the numbers can change depending on
changing criteria of academic excellence and available resources.
•School psychologists should monitor the academic progress of students
identified as gifted. Many factors play a role at every stage of the talent
development process, and any number of things in a gifted student’s life
can either enhance or deter the actualization of their potential. The Council
of Exceptional Children—The Association for the Gifted (2010) recently
released a position statement advocating use of growth models for gifted
students. To take advantage of this opportunity, school psychologists need
to become familiar with the talent development and expertise literatures
(e.g., Ericsson, 1996; Feldman, 2003; Lubinski, 2010; Subotnik, 2003) so
that they can design empirically supported progress monitoring protocols
and effectively identify opportunities and experiences that promote a high-
ability student’s path toward excellence and making a mark in society.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 81
•School psychologists can play a key role in advocating for high-ability
students who often are not identified or served by gifted programs in the
schools—students of color, students from financially disadvantaged fami-
lies, students from families in which English is not the primary language
spoken in the home, and students from rural communities. All too often,
marginalized groups of students with uncanny potential to excel are nei-
ther identified nor served in gifted programs (Ford, 2010). The Thomas B.
Fordham Institute (2008) published a report exploring the effect of the No
Child Left Behind legislation on gifted students. The report, High-Achieving
Students in an Era of No Child Left Behind, concluded that although the
nation’s lowest performing students have made relatively steady academic
gains in reading and math between 2000 and 2007, those students per-
forming at or above the 90th percentile appear to have evidenced minimal
gains, and that the excellence gaps have widened among different racial
groups and students of high and low socioeconomic status (Plucker, Bur-
roughs, & Song, 2010).
REFERENCES
Bernal, E. (2003). To no longer educate the gifted: Programming for gifted stu-
dents beyond the era of inclusionism. Gifted Child Quarterly,47, 183–191.
doi:10.1177/001698620304700302
Borland, J. (2003). The death of giftedness: Gifted education without gifted children.
In J. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 105–124). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Borland, J. (2009). The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover,
giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude: spinal tap psy-
chometrics in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly,53, 236–238. doi:10.1177/
0016986209346825
Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., & Stambaugh, T. (2006). A five
state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review,29, 11–23. doi:10.1080/
02783190609554379
Brown, S., Renzulli, J., Gubbins, E., Zhang, D., & Chen, C. (2005). Assumptions
underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quar-
terly,49, 68–79. doi:10.1177/001698620504900107
Callahan, C. M. (2009). Myth #3: A family of identification myths. Gifted Child Quar-
terly,53, 239–241. doi:10.1177/0016986209346826
Cassidy, J., & Hossler, A. (1992). State and federal definitions of the gifted: An update.
Gifted Child Today,15, 46–53.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinkenbeard, P.
R., Rogers, K., ... & Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic
acceleration policy. Journal of Advanced Academics,21, 180–203.
Council of Exceptional Children—The Association for the Gifted. (2010).
Growth in achievement of advanced students. Retrieved from http://www.
gifted.uconn.edu/siegle/TAG/Growth%20Models.pdf
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

82 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for
Gifted Children. (1999). State of the states: Gifted and talented education report,
1998–1999. Longmont, CO: Author.
Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted & National Association for
Gifted Children. (2007). State of the states: Gifted and talented education report,
2006–2007. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.
Cramond, B. (2004). Can we, should we, need we agree on a definition of giftedness?
Roeper Review,27, 15–17. doi:10.1080/02783190409554282
Duckworth, A. L., Peterson, C., Matthews, M. D., & Kelly, D. R. (2007). Grit: Per-
severance and passion for long-term goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,92, 1087–1101. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087
Edwards, K. (2009). Misdiagnosis, the recent trend in thinking about gifted children
with ADHD. Apex,15, 29–44.
Ericsson, K. A. (Ed.). (1996). The road to excellence: The acquisition of expert
performance in the arts and sciences, sports, and games. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Feldman, D. (2003). A developmental, evolutionary perspective on giftedness. In
J. H. Borland (Ed.), Rethinking gifted education (pp. 9–33). New York, NY:
Teachers College Press.
Foley Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, R., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investi-
gation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going?
Gifted Child Quarterly,55, 3–17. doi:10.1177/0016986210382575
Ford, D. Y. (1998). The underrepresentation of minority students in gifted education.
Journal of Special Education,32, 4–14. doi:10.1177/002246699803200102
Ford, D. Y. (2005). Ten strategies for increasing diversity in gifted education. Gifted
Education Press Quarterly,19,2–4.
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted
education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the
future. Gifted Child Today,33, 31–35.
Gallagher, J. (2008). Psychology, psychologists, and gifted students. In S. I. Pfeiffer
(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children (pp. 1–12). New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8 1
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen through the lives
of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot, Graham, and Gandhi.NewYork,
NY: Basic Books.
Glass, G. V., & Hopkins, K. D. (1996). Statistical methods in education and psychol-
ogy (3rd ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why gmatters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelli-
gence,24, 79–132. doi:10.1016/S0160-28969790014-3
Horowitz, F. D., Subotnik, R. F., & Matthews, D. J. (Eds.). (2009). The development
of giftedness and talent across the life span. Washington, DC: American Psycho-
logical Association. doi:10.1037/11867-000
Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988, 20 U.S.C. 3061
et seq. (1988).
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using
teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeduca-
tional Assessment,20, 322–336. doi:10.1177/073428290202000401
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 83
Johnson, S. K., Haensly, P. A., Ryser, G. R., & Ford, R. F. (2002). Changing gen-
eral education classroom practices to adapt for gifted students. Gifted Child
Quarterly,46, 45–63. doi:10.1177/001698620204600105
Kaplan, S. N. (2009). Myth 9: There is a single curriculum for the gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly,53, 257–258. doi:10.1177/0016986209346934
Lohman, D. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically
gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly,49, 111–138.
Lohman, D. F. (2009). The contextual assessment of talent. In B. MacFarlane & T.
Stambaugh (Eds.), Leading change in gifted education: The Festschrift of Dr.
Joyce VanTassel-Baska (pp. 229–242). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Lubinski, D. (2010). Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identifi-
cation and development. Personality and Individual Differences,49, 344–351.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.03.022
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented. Report to Congress by the
U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
Moon, S., & Dixon, F. (2006). The handbook of secondary gifted education.Waco,
TX: Prufrock.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2005). State of the states 2004–2005.Wash-
ington, DC: Author.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2009a). Gifted by state. Washington, DC:
Author. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=37
National Association for Gifted Children. (2009b). State of the states in gifted educa-
tion: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: Author.
National Science Board. (2010). Preparing the next generation of STEM innova-
tors: Identifying and developing our nations’ human capital. Retrieved from
http://www.nsf.gov/nsb/publications/2010/nsb1033.pdf
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., ...
Urbana, S. (1996). Intelligence: Knows and unknowns. American Psychologist,
51, 77–101.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 §6301 et seq. (2002).
Norcross, J. C., Hogan, T. P., & Koocher, J. P. (2008). Clinician’s guide to evidence-
based practices. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Otis, A., & Lennon, R. (1993). Otis-Lennon School Ability Test-Sixth Edition: Technical
Manual. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Brace Educational Measurement.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2001). Professional psychology and the gifted: Emerging prac-
tice opportunities. Professional Psychology: Research & Practice,32, 175–118.
doi:10.1037//0735-7028.32.2.175
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students: Recurring issues
and promising solutions. Journal of Applied School Psychology,1, 31–50. doi:
10.1300/J008v19n01 03
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2003). Challenges and opportunities for students who are gifted:
What the experts say. Gifted Child Quarterly,47, 161–169. doi:10.1177/
001698620304700207
Pfeiffer, S. I. (Ed.). (2008). Handbook of giftedness. New York, NY: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8
Pfeiffer, S. I. (2009). The Gifted: Clinical challenges for child psychiatry. Journal of
the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry,48, 787–790.
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

84 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
Pfeiffer, S. I. (in press-a). Lessons learned in work with high-ability students. Gifted
Education International.
Pfeiffer, S. I. (in press-b). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psycho-
educational practice. New York, NY: Routledge.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Blei, S. (2008). Gifted identification beyond the IQ test: Rating
scales and other assessment procedures. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of
giftedness in children (pp. 177–198). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-
0-387-74401-8 10
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted Rating Scales. San Antonio, TX: Pearson
Assessment. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8 10
Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2010). Mind the (other) gap! The growing
excellence gap in K–12 education. Bloomington: Indiana University, School of
Education, Center for Evaluation and Education Policy.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth #1: The gifted and talented constitute
one single homogeneous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays
in the person over time and experiences. Gifted Child Quarterly,53, 233–235.
doi:10.1177/0016986209346824
Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness: Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta
Kappan,60, 180–184.
Robinson, A., & Clinkenbeard, P. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the
past presage modern scholarship. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness
in children (pp. 13–32). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-
82
Robinson, N. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of
academic giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of
giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
doi:10.1017/CBO9780511610455.016
Rushton, J. P., & Jensen, A. R. (2010). Race and IQ: A theory-based review of the
research in Richard Nisbett’s intelligence and how to get it. The Open Psychology
Journal,3, 9–35. doi:10.2174/1874350101003010009
Shaunessy, E. (2003). State policies regarding gifted education. Gifted Child Today,
26, 16–21.
Stephens, K. (2008). Applicable federal and state policy, law, and legal considerations
in gifted education. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children
(pp. 387–408). New York, NY: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-0-387-74401-8 20
Stephens, K., & Karnes, F. A. (2000). State definitions for the gifted and talented
revisited. Exceptional Children,66, 219–238.
Sternberg, R. (2004). Culture and intelligence. American Psychologist,59, 325–338.
Sternberg, R. (2005). The WISC model of giftedness. In R. Sternberg & J. E. David-
son (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 327–342). New York, NY:
Cambridge.
Sternberg, R., & Subotnik, R. (2000). A multidimensional framework for synthesiz-
ing disparate issues in identifying, selecting, and serving gifted children. In K.
A. Keller, F. J. Monks, R. J. Sternberg, & R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International
handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 271–282). Oxford, England:
Pergamon Press. doi:10.1016/B978-008043796-5/50059-0
Subotnik, R. F. (2003). A developmental view of giftedness: From being to doing.
Roeper Review,26, 14–15. doi:10.1080/02783190309554233
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 85
Swanson, J. (2006). Breaking through assumptions about low-income, minority gifted
students. Gifted Child Quarterly,50, 11–24. doi:10.1177/001698620605000103
Thomas B. Fordham Institute. (2008). High-achieving students in the era of No
Child Left Behind. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications-
issues/publications/high-achieving-students-in.html
Tomlinson, C. A. (2003). Fulfilling the promise of the differentiated classroom: Strate-
gies and tools for responsive teaching. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervi-
sion and Curriculum Development.
Tomlinson, C. A. (2009). Myth 8: The patch-on approach to programming is effective.
Gifted Child Quarterly,53, 254–256. doi:10.1177/0016986209346931
U.S. Congress, Public Law 91-230, April, 1970.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research and Improvement.
(1993). National excellence: A case study for developing America’s talent.Wash-
ington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2009). United States policy development in gifted education: A
patchwork quilt. In L. Shavinna (Ed.), Handbook on giftedness (pp. 1295–1312).
New York, NY: Springer Science. doi:10.1007/978-1-4020-6162-2 68
VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A., & Evans, B. (2007). Patterns of identification and
performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks:
A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly,51, 218–231. doi:10.1177/
0016986207302717
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2005). Challenges and possibilities for serving
gifted learners in the regular classroom. Theory Into Practice,44, 211–217.
doi:10.1207/s15430421tip4403 5
VanTassel-Baska, J., & Stambaugh, T. (2008). Curriculum and instructional consider-
ations in programs for the gifted. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness
in children (pp. 347–365). New York, NY: Springer.
Worrell, F. (2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need
to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly,53, 242–244. doi:10.1177/
0016986209346828
APPENDIX A
Telephone Survey Interview Questions
1. Has the state adopted in its regulations a definition of gifted and talented?
No
Yes
If yes, how or where would I access it? Is it posted on a web site or can
you provide me a copy of the published document?
2. Does the state have specific policies, procedures, and/or guidelines for
gifted screening and/or identification?
No
Yes
If yes, how or where would I access these policies?
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

86 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
3. Do all of the local school districts/local educational units in your state
follow policies, procedures, or guidelines re gifted screening/identification
promulgated by your state department of education?
No
Please explain
Yes
4. Does the state have a list of approved tests or procedures acceptable for
gifted screening and identification?
No
Yes
If yes, how or where would I access a copy of this list?
5. Has the state set a specific IQ and/or achievement test score for a student
to qualify as gifted and talented?
No
If no, does the state provide a range or recommended score
Yes
If yes, what is the score for the following: IQ test
Achievement test
Other test(s)
6. Does the state have a set of policy and procedures for gifted identification
which provides for exceptions or alternative plans for the identification of
under-represented gifted students?
No
Yes
If yes, how or where could I access the information online?
7. Does the state recommend or require the use of a teacher rating scale in
the identification of gifted students?
No
Yes
Requires
Recommends
APPENDIX B
Follow-Up Questionnaire Item # 8
Dear STATE COORDINATOR NAME,
Hello. Dr. Steven Pfeiffer and I at Florida State University have been research-
ing STATE’S NAME gifted identification procedures. I’m not sure if you recall,
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

Identification of Gifted Students in the United States 87
but I contacted you earlier in the fall with regards to a gifted study we are
conducting. Thank you for responding to our first query!
Dr. Pfeiffer and I would like to ask you one additional follow-up question.
We promise that it will only take 2–3 minutes to answer this follow-up
question:
A. Does your state follow one specific decision-making model in identi-
fying and selecting prospective students for gifted programs?
B. If so, which model (from the 5 choices below) does your state follow?
Your feedback is very valuable to us because it will help our study accurately
represent the specific decision-making model in our research.
Our present study is categorizing gifted decision making using 5 options.
The 5 options or models are based on the work of & Subotnik (2000). Below
is a very brief description of each of the 5 models. After reading the 5
descriptions, please select which option (or model) most closely represents
how your state proceeds in terms of gifted identification.
1) Single Cutoff Model: School districts within the state use a single score
(e.g., IQ Score of 130; achievement test score 2 standard deviations above
the mean) to guide decision making on whether a student qualifies for
a gifted program. The specific cut score or criterion is necessary and
sufficient for admission into the gifted program.
2) Single Cutoff: Flexible Criterion: Like the above, only one score or one
piece of information is considered. However, rules/regulations allow flex-
ibility in terms of which test is acceptable (a student can qualify based on
a score on an IQ test or a score on a motivation scale). In other words,
a state using this option or model would allow school districts to decide
using one criterion from 2 or more possible options (e.g., 85th on a cre-
ativity scale, or 2 SD or above on an IQ test, or 95th percentile on an
achievement test).
3) Multiple Cutoff: This model requires that a student must score above a
prespecified cut score on 2 or more different measures. In other words,
each score must be above a certain predetermined threshold to qualify
for gifted classification and gifted services. For example, a student must
score above the 95th percentile on an aptitude measure and above the
90th percentile on a measure of creativity.
4) Averaging: Unlike the previous 3 models, the averaging model assumes
that a student can be gifted in different domains and that the student does
not have to demonstrate the same level or threshold of giftedness across
different domains. This model or approach assumes that a higher score
in one or more area(s) (e.g., creativity, artistic talent) can compensate for
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014

88 M.-C. McClain and S. Pfeiffer
a lower score in another area. In other words, selection is based on an
average value.
5) Dynamic Model: This approach or model does not use multiple cutscore(s)
obtained at a single point in time. This approach to gifted identification
measures the amount of change (growth, improvement) over time, com-
paring a second administration with an earlier, initial administration of a
test or measure.
QUESTION: Which of the above 5 models or approaches, if any, do you feel
most closely represents what your state recommends that school districts
follow (Please put an ×in the appropriate blank)?
1) Single Cutoff Model
2) Single Cutoff-Flexible Criterion Model
3) Averaging Model
4) Dynamic Model
5) Another Model (please specify what approach your state follows)
NOTE: If there is a website or document that provides specific information
in answering this question, could you please provide it:
Finally, I would like to follow-up with a personal phone call within the next
2 weeks regarding this request.
Please feel free to contact me at any time if you have any questions or
concerns, and thank you again for your help and time—I really appreciate
it!
Sincerely,
Mary-Catherine McClain
Downloaded by [Florida State University] at 14:25 11 January 2014