The nonverbal battery of the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) is one of the two most common nonverbal measures used in gifted identification, yet the relationships between demographic variables and CogAT7 performance has not yet been fully examined. Additionally, the effect of using the CogAT7 nonverbal battery on the identification of diverse demographic groups based on various norming, cutoff, and modifier plans has only just begun to be explored. In this study, we analyzed the CogAT7 nonverbal battery scores of kindergartners from a very large urban school district with a high minority, low socioeconomic status, and high English language learner population to determine the relationships between demographic variables and CogAT performance. The results suggest relationships between CogAT scores and multiple demographic variables, similar to other nonverbal instruments. We also examined the effects of various norming practices, including school-level and group-specific norming, on identification using the CogAT7 nonverbal battery.

The Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) is said to be a culturally neutral measure of ability that assesses both majority and minority students equally. Although research has examined the effects of ethnicity and gender on NNAT performance, little published research has examined the relationship between socioeconomic status (SES) and NNAT performance. Correlations and multiple regression were used to examine the relationships between ethnicity, SES, and NNAT performance in a large kindergarten sample. The results suggest a significant relationship between ethnicity, SES, and NNAT performance. Even after adjusting for ethnic differences, children from low-SES families were half as likely as other children to be identified. Putting the Research to UseDoes the NNAT really identify students with low-SES backgrounds at the same rate as students from average to high SES backgrounds? Although many believe using a nonverbal test levels the field for all students, the research we present does not support this belief. In this sample, students from average to high SES families were twice as likely to be identified than those from low-SES families. Since nonverbal tests are one of the most used methods of screening for G/T in our schools, if districts wish to continue to use the NNAT, it should not be as a solo measure of ability, but rather as part of a multiple measure process. In addition, districts using the NNAT should calculate the differential of any particular test administration on the basis of gender, ethnicity, SES or other variables to determine if any adjustments need to be made to ensure that elusive level playing field.

This article is a mixed-methods exploration of the levels of stereotypic views about gifted individuals held by current and future educators. Because educators are often asked to provide recommendations for participation in gifted programs, it is important to determine whether those recommendations are based, in part, on stereotypic thinking. Stereotypic views held by educators could bias the selection of participants for gifted programs, preventing students from receiving appropriate gifted educational services. Participants were volunteer undergraduate (n = 91) and graduate (n = 20) education majors. Qualitative and quantitative data analyses were conducted to determine both the levels of stereotypic thinking within each group as well as differences in levels of stereotypic thinking between groups. Results suggest both preservice and in-service teachers hold stereotypical thoughts about the gifted in multiple areas.

The lack of a unified definition of giftedness leads researchers to use very different operationalizations when selecting a sample of gifted individuals for use in research. We found 104 empirical articles from 38 journals that differentiated between gifted and nongifted students which were analyzed to determine the most common methods of identifying individuals in research. Results of the analysis show a lack of consensus as to what qualifies a person to be defined as gifted for the purposes of research. This lack of consensus leads to lower generalizability of research about giftedness and to an inability for researchers in the field to compare results of studies. An agreedupon unified definition of giftedness for the purposes of research will lead to a more homogeneous group of participants, which in turn would lead to multiple benefits, including higher external validity in research designs.

The two most commonly used nonverbal tests for gifted identification, the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) and the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) nonverbal battery, have not been compared in their newer versions to explore the effects of their use on the identification of underserved populations. Additionally, the effects of the use of various norming groups and cutoff scores on both instruments’ identification abilities has not been compared. This study compared 15,733 CogAT7 nonverbal battery scores and 14,421 NNAT2 scores of kindergartners between 2013 and 2015 from one large urban school district to explore the differences between how each test relates to major demographic variables and examine the effects on who is selected for participation in gifted programming based on which instrument, which norming group, and which cutoff scores are used. Both instruments were less likely to identify students from demographic groups that have been traditionally underrepresented than students from traditionally overrepresented demographic groups, but identification varied based on the type of norming plan used and which instrument was taken. Suggestions are made as to the best instrument for use with various demographic groups and norming plans.