An Analysis of Teacher Nominations and

Student Performance in Gifted Programs

Scott L. Hunsaker Vernon S. Finley and Elaine L. Frank
Utah State University Salish Kootenai College

that teachers were definitely too young and inexperi-

ABSTRACT
This study evaluated the relationship of
later perfor-
teacher nomination instruments to
mance of students in a gifted program. Teacher
nominations were based on two instruments,
instrument designed specifically to assess gifted
behaviorslowof income
students from culturally divergent
an
and/or populations and an instrument
designed to assess gifted behaviors in the general
population. Separate canonical correlation analy-
ses between two instruments and a gifted
these
teacher rating of student performance resulted
in significant findings indicating relationships
between the teacher nominations and later school
performance. Structure correlations showed nom-
inations based on thinking abilities, general gifted
behaviors, and special learning skills were related
to later performance on creativity, group skills,
and language abilities.
The use of teacher recommendations, nominations,
or ratings for determining advanced educational oppor-
tunities tor students has been a source of controversv N&dquo;
for well over two hundred years. For example, when
Jefferson (17~7/1955) proposed state-sponsored advanced
education for able students among the poor with the
selection of these students based on recommendations
from local schoolmasters, the schoolmasters were
regarded onlv slightly more positively than the local tap-
master (Mover, 1957). One and a half centuries later,
Goddard (1928) argued against teacher judgments in
identification of gifted students, based on the premises
Work lor this aiiicl< was originallv doneat the Dniversitv of
Georgia and supported under the Javits Act Program(Grant No.
R206Ro<>oo I ) as administered
by the üllice of Educational
Research and fmprovtjmcnt, U. S. Department of Education. This
articL’does not necessarilv represent positions or policies of the
Governmrnt, and no ollicial endorsement should be inicricd.
The authors tlwnk Dr. Garl HuhcrW and Dr. Marv M. Frasier
foitheiiassistaiKeBBiththis manuscript.
Contact the lead author at Department of Elementary
Education, Utah State University, Logan, UT 84322-2805.
enced, subject to many prejudices, and too near the stu-
dents to have perspective.
Those who expressed mistrust for teacher nomina-
tions found support in the study by Pegnato and Birch
(1959) which labeled teacher nominations for gifted
identification purposes as both inefficient and ineffec-
tive. Additional research followed showing teacher nom-
inations to be inaccurate (Mims, 1988; Taylor, 1986).
However, other more recent research has taken a
more positive turn. For example, Gainous (1985) has
shown that teacher accuracy in nominations can be
improved with knowledge of gifted characteristics.
Borland (1978) has shown that asking teachers for nom-
inations based on ratings of specific characteristics,
rather than on global judgments, also improved accu-
racy of nominations.
In concert with more positive research findings con-
cerning teacher nominations, three important critiques
of the earlier negative literature have raised important
issues. First, the analytic method used in the study by
Pegnato and Birch (1959) has been severely criticized by
Gagn6 (1994). He demonstrated that effectiveness and
efficiency were not independent concepts, and that each
PUTTING RESEARCH TO USE
This article points out the usefulness of two
teacher nomination instruments as part of a
process for identifying students from culturally
diverse and/or low income populations as gifted
and talented. When used by teachers following
training on the characteristics of gifted students
that cut across cultures, these instruments can
alert gifted identification committees to studcnts
who can be successful in gifted programs
In addition, in this study, regular classroom
teacher ratings on a nomination instrument were
correlated with gifted classroom teacher ratings on
success in the program. Such correlations can be
used to assess the validity of a specific nomination
instrument. Gathering such data can help school
districts in developing defensible practices in the
identification of students as gifted and talented.

19
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
was highly related to the number of students singled out
by a specific nomination method. His reanalysis of the
data demonstrated that teacher nominations and testing
were similarly useful as screening tools for gifted identi-
fication.
Second, Renzulli and Delcour-t (1986) criticized the
research on teacher nomination because the criterion for
rating teacher nominations has primarily been the
teacher’s ability to predict students’ IQ scores. They pro-
posed that the research could be interpreted to mean that
teachers are useful sources of information on traits of
giftedness not easily discernable by intelligence tests.
They further suggested that criteria for evaluating the
quality of teacher nominations should include student
performance in the program and later life accomplish-
ments.
Third, Shore, Cornell, Robinson, and Ward (1991)
pointed out that the majority of the research on nomi-
nations for gifted programs merely compares one iden-
tification criterion with another. They suggested that
student performance under &dquo;optimal educational condi-
tions&dquo; (p. 65) be used to assess the value of the various
nomination methods.
One additional aspect of the debate on the ability of
teachers to nominate gifted students focuses on the
notion that teachers tend to be biased against culturally
diverse students. Thus, testing has been proffered as an
antidote for overcoming the prejudices of teachers
(Kaufman & Harrison, 1986). In contrast, others believe
that teacher judgments must be included in gifted iden-
tification decisions to overcome the biases built into
standardized tests, which are blamed for keeping cul-
turally diverse students out of gifted programs (Frasier,
1987; Migdal, 1984; Tuliao, 1986).
The study presented here is part of a larger study on
the identification of gifted students from culturally
diverse groups. It seeks to address the question of
teacher nomination in two ways. First, we take a closer
look at teacher nominations based on specific student
characteristics. Specifically, we seek to determine if
teacher nominations for culturally diverse and/or low
income students are useful when they are asked to rate
students on an instrument designed to judge particular
manifestations of traits, aptitudes, and behaviors related
to giftedness.
Second, following from the critiques of Renzulli and
Delcourt (1986) and Shore et al. (1991), this study
employs student performance in the program as the cri-
terion for the predictive validity of teacher nomination
instruments. Thc basic research question is as follows:
What is the relationship of teacher ratings on teacher
nomination instruments to successful student perfor-
mance in gifted programs when the nominations are
based on the traits, aptitudes, and behaviors related to
giftedness among culturally diverse and/or low income
20
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
studcnts? Two nomination instruments were employed:
the first a rating of students on characteristics of gifted-
ness among culturally diverse and/or low income stu-
dents ; the second a rating of students on characteristics
of giftedness in the general student population.
Method
During a pilot study of the Research-based Assessment
Plan (Frasier, et al., 1995a), 121 students from low
income backgrounds were identified as gifted and tal-
ented. The process to identify these students consisted of
two steps. First, specific schools with a
majority of stu-
dents from low income and culturally divergent popula-
tions were targeted for participations in the pilot study.
All regular classroom teachers from these schools were
trained in the recognition of characteristics of gifted
children from culturally diverse and/or low income pop-
ulations. The teachers were drawn from 16 schools (111
elementary, 3 middle, 1 combination, 1 high) in six
school districts. The school districts varied from rural to
urban (Frasier, et al., 1995a).
The specific characteristics in which teachers were
trained were ten traits, aptitudes, and behaviors (TABs)
believed to be universally associated with giftedness, but
which may manifest themselves differently in differing
social contexts (Frasier & Passow, 1994). For example,
the possession of intense, sometimes unusual, interests
is acknowledged as a trait seen in gifted children regard-
less of culture. However, what those interests are for a
specific child will be influenced by the values of his or
her culture and the structure of his or her society. Other
examples of TABs include Motivation, Insight, Memory
and Imagination/Creativity. The training teachers received
involved intense discussion of cases that helped them
understand each TAB and how it might be manifest in
their students (Frasier, et al., 1995b).
After the training, students from low income back-
grounds were referred for further consideration based
on teacher observations of all students in their class-
rooms using the TABs as a guide. Teachers completed a
nomination form that included their rating of a child on
the ten TABs, supported by anecdotal information about
instances in which they had observed the specific TAB
rated.
Following nominations, assessments of nominated
students were done using data from multiple sources,
including aptitude and achievement tests, creativitv
tests, motivation inventories, writing assessments,
teacher ratings (including the TABs ratings), and infor-
mation about special circumstances that might influence
performance on those measures. Nominated students
were then placed in gifted
programs based on a
committee evaluation of the multiple data sources.
Placement decisions were based upon committee mem-
bers’ professional judgments of the profile as a whole.
Guidance was provided by an on-site facilitator whose
primary function was to make sure the committee did
not overly focus on any one piece of data when dis-
cussing a student profile and when making a decision.
The sample for this study was drawn from the 121 stu-
dents who were placed in gifted programs through this
process. All these students qualified for free or reduced
lunch. Fifty-five percent were African-Americans, 22%
White, and 22% other Non-White ethnic groups (Frasier,
et al., 1995a).
Instrumentation
Two instruments used during the assessment phase
of the identification process served as measures of
teacher nomination for this study. These were the TABs
Summary Fortn (Frasier, et al., 1995a) and the Scales for
Rating tlze Beltaviornl Characteristics of Superior Students
(SRBCSS) (Renzulli, Smith, White, Callahan, & Haliman,
1976). The measure of student success in the gifted pro-
gram was the Scnle /or Rntirtg Students’ Participntion
in the Local Gifted Education Program (Renzulli &
Westberg, 1991), hereafter referred to as the Renzulli-
Westberg.
The TABs Sumtrtar-y Form was used by regular class-
room teachers to refer students from low income and/or
culturally diverse populations for gifted program place-
ment. The instrument consists of a rating from I to 5,
indicating the degree to which a student exhibits each of
the ten TABS. In addition, space is provided for the
teacher to record anecdotal information on how the
TABs are demonstrated by the student. The ten TABs are
Communication, Motivation, Humor; Inquiry, Insight,
Interests, Reasoning, Memory, Problem-solving, and
Imagination/Crcativitv. The instrument provides teach-
ers with the TAB label and descriptions of how the TAB
may be manifest. Specific descriptions of how the TABs
were generated and their definitions are provided in
Frasiei; et al., (1995b).
The SRBCSS is teacher rating instrument that was
a
designed particular behaviors that are com-
to assess
monly associated with gifted characteristics in the gen-
eral population. Although the SRBCSS consists of ten
scales, only four (i.e., Learning, Motivation, Creativity,
and Leadership) were used in this study. On each scale
teachers rated students from 1 to 4 on a number of
behavioral items. The Learning Characteristics scale
consists of eight items; the Motivation scale, nine items;
and the Creativity and Leadership scales, ten items cach.
The Renzulli-Westbcrg is a rating scale for gifted
teachers to assess the performance of students in the
gifted program. It consists of ten behavioral items, with
ratings ranging from 0 to 5, indicating the degree to
which the student displays the behavior indicated. The
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
items relate to of goals typically found in gifted
areas
programs, such independent study, research skills,
as
critical thinking, and creative thinking. One item pro-
vides an overall rating of performance. The instrument
is internally consistent with an alpha reliability coeffi-
cient of .94. No other reliability information is available
(K. Westberg, personal communication, January 31,
1997).
Data Gathering and Analysis
The Renzulli-Westberg was administered in the sec-
ond semester of the year following the identification of
the students as gifted. In the intervening time, 33 stu-
dents had moved to new schools not part of the initial
pilot study and were unavailable for further assessment.
In other cases, data were incomplete and therefore not
used in this study. Separate analyses revealed no sys-
tematic differences for these students (probabilities
ranged from .09 to .91 Thus, complete data for the two
analyses performed for this study were available on 56
students for the first analvsis and 65 students for the
second.
As stated in the preceding paragraph, two canonical
correlation analyses were performed. Analysis 1 involved
the ten item scores on the TABs Summary Sheet and the
ten item scores on the Renzulli-Westberg. Analysis 2
involved the four SRBCSS scale scores and the ten item
scores of the Renzulli-Westberg. Because of the
exploratory nature of this study in regard to the TABs
Summary Sheet, an alpha level of .10 was selected to
determine the numbers of pairs of canonical variates to
retain for interpretation purposes. An F approximation
based on the Wilks Lambda was used in the statistical
testing. Where statistical significance was found, a struc-
ture correlation was used to aid intcrpretation of the
canonical variates, as suggested by Stevens (1992) when
substantive interpretation is to be done.
Results
The analysis between the TABs Summwy Sheet and
the Renzulli-Westberg yielded significance (R=.7695,
Wilks Lambda=.0675, F (100, 269.61) 1.2322, p =.0961)
=
for the first pair of canonical variates. Subsequent tests
of significance indicated that none of the remaining nine
pairs of canonical variates would be useful for interpre-
tation.
Tables I and 2 display the structure correlations of
each set of variables with the first pair of canonical vari-
ates. For regular classroom teacher ratings on the TABs
SUl1ZI1Zwy Sheet, Table 1 shows the contributing vari-
ables for that canonical variate are defined principally
by Problem-solving and secondarily by Inquiry, Insight,
and Reasoning.
21
 TABLE 1 TABLE 2
Correlations between TABs Summary Form Ratings Correlations between Renzulli-Westberg Ratings
and the First Canonical Variate of the First Analysis and the First Canonical Variate of the First Analysis

For gifted resource teacher ratings on the Renzulli-

Westberg of performance in the gifted program (see TABLE 3
Table 2), the primary defining variable is Creativity.
Correlations between SRBCSS Ratings and the
Group Discussion and Interaction make secondary con-
tributions. First and Second Canonical Variates of
For Analysis 2 involving the SRBCSS ratings and the the Second Analysis
Renzulli-Westberg, there were statistically significant
findings for the first two pairs of canonical variates. The
canonical correlation for the first pair of canonical vari-
ates was .675 (Wilks Lambda = .2688, F(40, 195.24) _ =

2.0210, p .0009). For the second pair of canonical vari-

=

ates, the canonical correlation was .470 (Wilks Lambda

=
.4941, F(27, 152.51 ) = 1.54, p = .0543). The remaining
significance tests did not achieve the desired alpha level,
indicating that there are only two dimensions to the
relationship between the two sets of variables.
The correlation between each of the SRBCSS scale
scores and both interpretable pairs of canonical variates

are shown in Table 3. For the first set of variables,

all four scales (i.e., Motivation, Learning, Creativity

Leadership) contribute to the canonical variate. For the
second canonical variate, Learning is the principal defin-
ing variable, with Creativity and Leadership contribut-
ing secondarily.
Structure corrclations for ratings on the Renzulli-
are shown in Table 4.
Westberg, Contributing variables
for the canonical variate include Communication,
Creativity, interaction, and Enthusiasm. Contributing
variables for the second canonical variate are Enthusiasm
and Creativity.
Discussion
Canonical correlation analysis is appropriately used
for prediction in this study because the administration
of instruments was done in a naturally occurring
chronological arrangement. Thus the relationships
between classroom teacher ratings of characteristics of
giftedness among low income and/or culturally diverse
gifted students may intuitively be seen as predicting stu-
dent success in various aspects of performance in gifted
programs. The rating instrument of characteristics

22
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016

TABLE 4
Correlations between Renzulli-Westberg Ratings
and the First and Second Canonical Variates
of the Second Analysis
N=65.
specifically targeting low income and/or culturally
diverse children (the TABs Summmy Sheet) and the
instrument developed with the general student popula-
tion in mind (SRBCSS) were able to predict some aspects
of successful performance in the gifted program. The
first canonical variate of the first analvsis, with the TABs
Summary Sheet, explained approximately 59% of the
variance on the Renzulli-Westberg performance ratings.
For the second analysis, with the SRBCSS, the first and
second canonical variates explained approximately 46%
and 32% respectively of the variance on the Renzulli-
Westberg.
With a canonical correlation analysis, the question of
whether the linear combination of variables generated in
the analysis can be interpreted in a meaningful way is
also important. An interpretation of the contributing
variables to the first canonical variate in the first analy-
sis (i.e., Problem-solving, Inquiry, Insight, Reasoning)
indicates that classroom teacher ratings of student
thinking abilities are related to later gifted program
teacher ratings of student performance on creativity
and group skills (i.e., Group Discussion, Interaction,
Enthusiasm) in the gifted program.
For the first canonical variate of the second analysis,
all four variables (i.e., Learning, Motivation, Creativity,
Leadership) contributed, perhaps representing class-
room teacher ratings of general gifted behaviors, The
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
second canonical variate is distinguished from the first
by focusing primarily on the Learning scale, with the
Motivation scale clearly excluded. While the first variate
seems to be general gifted behaviors, the second variate
appears to be more an assessment of special learning
skills.
Whatever interpretation is given to the regular
teacher ratings, they exhibited some relationship to later
gifted program teacher ratings of language abilities (i.e.,
Communication, Interaction, Enthusiasm) and creativ-
ity for the first canonical variate, and enthusiasm and
creativity for the second canonical variate.
A concern raised from these interpretations is the
stronger focus on skills more closely associated with
academic performance (i.e., critical thinking abilities,
learning ability) and the relatively lesser contribution of
other ability areas such as creativity and leadership in
regular classroom teacher ratings. Creativity is often
cited as a strength of culturally diverse populations
(Torrance, 1974). Classroom teachers apparently give
some attention to this variable, as it was found to con-
tribute to the interpretation of both canonical variates
for the second analysis. However, it was excluded from
interpretation in the first analysis.
A reason sometimes given for focusing on academic
skills in nominating students to gifted programs is the
rigorously academic curriculum used in such programs
(Hunsaker, 1994). Thus, teachers nominate students
they believe will be successful in the program and pro-
tect students they believe will not be successful from the
demands of thc program. It is also possible that the
selection committees focused on more academic crite-
ria, despite the best efforts of facilitators to help them
keep a holistic perspective.
However, on all three pairs of interpretable variates,
the linear combinations of contributing variables to per-
formance ratings on the Renzulli-Westberg resulted in
the inclusion of creativity as one important aspect of
student success in the gifted program. Perhaps the gifted
programs into which these students were placed
included some components of creative thinking, as
many gifted programs do, and gifted program teachers
were able to recognize the creativity of these students in
these programs, even though it was a less important
component of the regular teacher ratings included in
assessment used to place students in the programs.
Another broad set of skills at which students in the
program were apparently successful was the social skills
(i.e., group skills, language abilities, enthusiasm). A find-
ing of success in these skills is important given the need
students have, particularly students from culturally
diverse groups, for strong social networks to support
their efforts to succeed academically (Van Tassel-Baska,
1989). Perhaps gifted program teachers have recognized
the diverse students strengths in participating enthusi-
23
 astically in the social setting of the gifted program class-
room.
It is encouraging that classroom teacher ratings were
able to anticipate successful performance by low income
and/or culturally diverse students in gifted programs as
rated by gifted program teachers. However, the predic-
tion of success apparently holds for only creativity and
broad social abilities in the gifted program. Classroom
teacher ratings on the various characteristics were not
related to performance in gifted programs on more aca-
demic variables such as products, activities, and
research. One potential reason for this may be that
classroom teachers are unaware of the expectations in
gifted programs. Classroom teacher nominations then
may be useful for finding students who may succeed on
the day-to-day creativity and group activities used in
many gifted programs. However; they may not necessar-
ily find students who will be successful in the more inde-
pendent work that is also employed in instructing gifted
students.
Thus, while teacher nominations using ratings of spe-
cific characteristics of giftedness predicted success on
some aspects of gifted programs,
they did not predict
success on aspects of the program that are
likely to have
academic priority. Nonetheless, the results of this study
provide some evidence that classroom teachers can use
ratings of student characteristics, whether general or spe-
cific to low income and/or culturally diverse populations,
to nominate students for gifted
programs. Students so
nominated can be successful in various aspects of the
gifted program rated by their gifted program teachers.
as
The results undcrscore the value teacher nomina-
tions can have under certain conditions. One of these
conditions is training concerning universal traits, apti-
tudes, and behaviors that underlie giftedness regardless
of cultural background or economic condition of stu-
dents’ families. Another is the provision of nomination
instruments that assist teachers in focusing on and rat-
ing the particular manifestations of these traits in spe-
cific cultural or socioeconomic settings. Finally, teacher
nomination under the conditions specified can have pre-
dictive validity for certain aspects of student perfor-
mance in the program,
References
Borland, J. H. (1978). Teacher identification of the gifted: A
new look. Journal for the Education
of the Gifted, 2, 22-32.
Frasier, M. M. (1987). The identification of gifted Black stu-
dents : Developing new perspectives. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 10, 155-180.
Frasier, M. M. & Passow, A.H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm
for identifying talent potentials. Storrs, CT: University of
Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
24
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 16, 2016
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Finley, V. S., Garcia,
J. H., Martin, D., & Frank, E. (1995a). An exploratory study of the
effectiveness of the Staff Development Model and the Research-based
Assessment Plan in improving the identification ofgifted economi-
cally disadvantaged students. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut,
National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Frasier, M. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Lee, J., Mitchell, S., Cramond,
B., Krisel, K., Garcia, J. H., Martin, D., Frank, E., & Finley, V. S.
(1995b). Core attributes o f giftedness: A foundation for recognizing
the gifted potential of minority and economically
disadvantaged stu-
dents. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research
Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Gagne, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors?
Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness
and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Chid
Quarterly, 38, 124-126.
Gainous, E. C. (1985). Effects of the training program,
Identification of the Potentially Gifted, on teachers’ accuracy in the
identification of intellectually gifted children. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 46, 1140A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8512268)
Goddard, H. H. (1928). School training of gifted children
Yonkers-on-Hudson, NY: World Book.
Hunsaker, S. L. (1994). Creativity as a characteristic of gifted-
ness : Teachers see it, then they don’t.
Roeper Review, 17, 11-15.
Jefferson, T. J. (1955). Notes on the state of Virginia (W. Peden,
Ed.). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press. (Original
work published in 1787)
Kaufman, A. S., & Harrison, P. L. (1986). Intelligence tests and
gifted assessment: What are the positives? Roeper Review, 8, 154-
159.
Meyer, A. E. (1957). An educational history of the American
people. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Migdal, B. (1984). Identification, ratings and reading achieve-
ment of gifted kindergarten children. Dissertation Abstracts
International, 45, 3610A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8502720)
Mims, J. S. (1988). Access to gifted and talented education:
Alternative strategies for underrepresented students. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 49, 2619A. (University Microfilms No.
AAC8811924)
Pegnato, C. W., & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children
in junior high schools: Comparison of methods.
Exceptional
Children, 25
, 300-304.
Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. A. B. (1986). The legacy and
logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 30, 20-23.
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., &
Hartman, R. K. (1976). Scales for rating the behavioral characteris-
tics of superior students. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Press.
Learning
Renzulli, J. S., & Westberg, K. (1991). Scale for rating students’
participation in the local gifted education program. Storrs, CT:
University of Connecticut.
Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S.
(1991).Recommended practices in gifted education: A critical analy-
sis. New York: Teachers College Press.
Stevens, J. (1992). Applied multivariate statistics for the social
sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Taylor, L. L. (1986). Teacher accuracy in the selection of gifted
characteristics. Masters Abstracts International, 24, 189.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Differences are not deficits. Teachers
College Record, 75,
471- 487.
Tuliao,N. A. C. (1986). The identification of
culturally-different
gifted and talented children. Dissertation Abstracts International,
48, 281A. (University Microfilms No. AAC8710615)
VanTassel-Baska, J. L. (1989). The role of the family in the suc-
cess of disadvantaged gifted learners. Journal
for the Education of
the Gifted, 13
, 22-36