The DOI matches its Crossref record; 15 of the 15 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 5 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Universal screening increases the representation of low-income and minority students in gifted education
Open accessAbstract
Significance: A longstanding concern about gifted education in the United States is the underrepresentation of minorities and economically disadvantaged groups. One explanation for this gap is that standard processes for identifying gifted students, which are based largely on the referrals of parents and teachers, tend to miss many qualified students. Consistent with this hypothesis, we find that a universal screening program in a large urban school district led to significant increases in the numbers of poor and minority students who met the IQ standards for gifted status. Our findings raise the question of whether a systemic failure to identify qualified students from all backgrounds may help explain the broader pattern of minority underrepresentation in all advanced K−12 academic programs.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
A large Florida district introduced universal NNAT screening for second graders in spring 2005 without changing gifted eligibility standards. It substantially increased gifted identification among low-income, Black, Hispanic, ELL, and female students, suggesting traditional parent/teacher referral systems underrefer qualified disadvantaged students.
Key findings
- Overall gifted share among third graders rose from 3.3% to 5.5%; the trend-adjusted increase was 1.5 ppt (SE 0.3), an odds ratio of 1.451, or a 45% increase in the odds of being identified as gifted. School-level difference-in-differences was 1.6 ppt (SE 0.3).
- Plan B eligible students’ gifted share rose from 1.4% to 4.3% (OR 2.743, a 174% increase), while Plan A students rose from 5.1% to 6.6% (OR 1.108, 11%). Odds rose by 74% for Black students (OR 1.741) and 118% for Hispanic students (OR 2.183), versus 12% for White students (OR 1.123).
- Newly identified gifted students (“compliers”) were about 80% Plan B eligible; compared with always takers, they were disproportionately Black (23% vs. 12%), Hispanic (46% vs. 16%), FRL (67% vs. 20%), ELL (18% vs. 2%), female (56% vs. 45%), and less likely to have English-speaking parents (29% vs. 74%), while only 8% were White vs. 61% of always takers.
- Among Plan B students, compliers had similar mean IQ scores to always takers (124.5 vs. 124.2; difference 0.38), and 20% of compliers had IQs of 130 or higher vs. 25% of always takers. All 140 larger elementary schools had at least one gifted third grader in 2006 or 2007, whereas 13 schools had none in 2004 or 2005.
Methods
- Natural experiment/interrupted time series using deidentified District longitudinal records. Sample: third graders in 2004–2007 at 140 larger elementary schools; full sample n = 78,065, Plan B sample n = 37,947. Pre cohorts were 2004–2005; post cohorts were 2006–2007. Universal screening began spring 2005 for second graders using the Naglieri Non-Verbal Ability Test (NNAT), with unchanged IQ thresholds (130 for Plan A; 116 for Plan B).
- Analysis compared gifted shares pre/post, estimated trend-adjusted linear probability and logit odds-ratio models, and used difference-in-differences with matched comparison schools from other Florida districts. Complier characteristics were estimated as the trend-adjusted change in the gifted share with a given characteristic divided by the trend-adjusted change in the gifted share; SEs were clustered by school.
Limitations
- Stated: the analysis covers only one school district, and the District’s distinctive features—nonverbal screening test, lower Plan B referral threshold, strict IQ thresholds, and relatively low baseline gifted rate around 3.5%—may limit generalizability.
- Stated/evident: the program was suspended in 2010 due to Great Recession funding cuts, and by 2011 the gifted share had returned to 2004–2005 levels; comparison schools also gradually increased gifted rates after 2007, complicating long-term inference.
- Evident: FRL and ELL status can change over time, so students may be classified as Plan B at referral but Plan A by the end of third grade; the pre/post design is not randomized, though the authors validate pre cohorts and use a matched comparison group.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
56 Own result · 25 Own interpretation · 5 Own method · 5 No basis given · 4 Sources not found
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The Plan B compliers are broadly similar to the Plan B always takers, but are 21 ppt.more likely to be Hispanic, and 27 ppt.less likely to have parents who speak English.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Newly identified gifted students were more likely to come from schools in poor neighborhoods with few gifted students, leading to a substantial equalization in gifted participation rates across schools.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Looking at the last two rows of Table 3 for the Plan B group, the compliers have lower achievement scores than the always takers, but about the same mean IQ scores.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, apart from this group, many of the newly identified Plan A gifted students had IQ scores well above the minimum 130-point threshold.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The characteristics of the Plan B compliers are quite similar to those of the overall complier group, reflecting the fact that 80% of all compliers are Plan B eligible.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the introduction of universal screening, the overall fraction of third graders with an IQ test rose by eight percentage points (ppt.), with a much larger gain for Plan B eligibleslarge enough to close the testing gap between the two groups.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Virtually all those with IQ < 125 were classified as Plan B at the time of IQ testing but are Plan A by the end of third grade (mainly because they transition out of ELL status).”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On average, the newly identified students also had IQ scores that were similar to those of the always takers in the same eligibility group, although they had lower standardized achievement scores.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“overall impact for third graders translates into a 45% increase in the odds of being identified as gifted.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the District's gifted student population in the early 2000s mainly comprised White children from higher-income neighborhoods.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 11
- It may state two separate claims as one. 19
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They also attended schools with relatively high fractions of FRL participants and non-White students, and they are somewhat more likely to be female (56% vs. 45%).”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“[In the final column of Table 3, which shows the estimated differences in complier and always-taker characteristics, the estimates for the Black share (0.12) and the Hispanic share (0.30) differ significantly from the White share estimate of -0.53 (P < 0.01) but do not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.25).”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fraction of third graders with IQs above the gifted threshold also rose in both groups, again with a larger increase among Plan B eligible students.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the Plan B group, the two distributions are similar-although the compliers are somewhat less likely to have scores very close to the 116 cutoff.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Half of gifted students in the pre cohort were at schools that enrolled only 18% of the entire third-grade population, whereas half of all third-grade students in the District were at schools that enrolled a total of only 16% of the gifted students.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact on School Distribution.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the District has strict IQ thresholds for eligibility, and, before the introduction of the screening program, the District had relatively low gifted rates (around 3.5% for third graders) that reflected the importance of the IQ thresholds.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“despite facing a lower threshold for gifted status, Plan B students were less likely than Plan A students to have an IQ score on record and were much less likely to be classified as gifted.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Student-Level Data and Sample Description.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The empirical mean and SD of the changes across the 22 other districts are -0.001 and 0.007.The observed change in the District is 2.65 SDs from the mean for the other districts”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Analysis of Student-Level Data.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the fraction of students classified as gifted also increased in both groups, rising from 5.1% to 6.6% among Plan A students and from 1.4% to 4.3% in the Plan B group.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“[In the final column of Table 3, which shows the estimated differences in complier and always-taker characteristics, the estimates for the Black share (0.12) and the Hispanic share (0.30) differ significantly from the White share estimate of -0.53 (P < 0.01) but do not differ significantly from each other (P = 0.25).”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The trend-adjusted difference (model 2) is 1.5 ppt.with an SE of 0.3 ppt., which is nearly identical to the difference-in-differences estimate.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In particular, all 140 larger elementary schools in the District had at least one gifted third-grade student in 2006 or 2007, whereas, in 2004 and 2005, 13 schools had no gifted students.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact on School Distribution.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“with a much larger gain for Plan B eligibleslarge enough to close the testing gap between the two groups.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the newly identified gifted students were disproportionately poor, Black, and Hispanic, and less likely to have parents whose primary language was English.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirteen regular elementary schools in the District had no gifted children in third grade in 2004 or 2005, but the gifted rate was nearly 10% at the 13 schools with the lowest fraction of FRL students.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teachers and parents may simply not recognize the abilities of many of these students.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In interpreting the IQ gap, however, it is important to keep in mind that most compliers are Plan B eligible, and are therefore subject to a lower IQ threshold than the Plan A group who comprise most of the always takers.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Characteristics of Newly Identified Gifted Students.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We confirm that the 2004-2005 (”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, both the use of a nonverbal screening test and the lower Plan B referral threshold may have been important factors in the success of the District's screening program.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“An important limitation of our analysis is that it pertains to only a single school district.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Any increase in the number of students identified as gifted following the introduction of the program can thus be attributed to the screening effort, and not to a relaxation of the standards for gifted status.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the increase in IQ testing was presumably driven by a rise in referrals caused by the screening program”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Impact of Screening on Rates of IQ Testing.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A comparison of the newly identified gifted students to those who would have been identified even without screening shows that Black and Hispanic students, FRL participants, ELLs, and girls were all systematically”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More broadly, disadvantaged groups are significantly underrepresented in advanced academic programs at all levels of K-12 education (15).”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [15]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Comparisons of the newly identified gifted students with those who would have been placed in the absence of screening show that Blacks and Hispanics, free/reduced price lunch participants, English language learners, and girls were all systematically”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“(It is also worth noting that while biases or disparate impact of IQ tests are a common concern, our findings are consistent with the argument often made by proponents of IQ testing that it can serve to limit biases associated with subjective judgment.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although the student population in the District is highly diverse, and arguably representative of the student population in many large urban districts, the District's gifted policies have a number of distinctive features.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“students in the two post cohorts are very similar to those in the two pre cohorts.”
- Also stated in: § Analysis of Student-Level Data. · plain
“The only notable difference is a small decline in the fraction of Whites, offset by small rises in the fractions of Blacks and Hispanics.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Analysis of Student-Level Data.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Analysis of Student-Level Data. · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“At the same time, the combination of large impacts for Blacks and negligible effects for Whites suggests that factors related to race/culture may also play a role.”
§ low-income and minority students in gifted education > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper relies on this without support.
The District's student population is representative of the student population in many large urban districts.
“Although the student population in the District is highly diverse, and arguably representative of the student population in many large urban districts, the District's gifted policies have a number of distinctive features.”
Citations
Cites
Identification and estimation of local average treatment effects
Imbens, G. W., & Angrist, J. D. (1994) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/2951620 · Cited by 4,101
Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects
Angrist, J. D., & Imbens, G. W. (1995) · National Bureau of Economic Research · doi:10.3386/t0118 · Cited by 2,915
What Makes Giftedness?: Reexamining a Definition
Renzulli, J. S. (2011) · Phi Delta Kappan · doi:10.1177/003172171109200821 · Cited by 1,181
Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education
(2002) · doi:10.17226/10128 · Cited by 1,169
Discretion and Disproportionality
Grissom, J. A., & Redding, C. (2016) · AERA Open · doi:10.1177/2332858415622175 · Cited by 457
Ford, D. Y. (1998) · The Journal of Special Education · doi:10.1177/002246699803200102 · Cited by 330
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Education: Recruitment and Retention Issues
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008) · Exceptional Children · doi:10.1177/001440290807400302 · Cited by 325
McClain, M., & Pfeiffer, S. I. (2012) · Journal of Applied School Psychology · doi:10.1080/15377903.2012.643757 · Cited by 293
Naglieri, J. A., & Ford, D. Y. (2003) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/001698620304700206 · Cited by 244
Identifying Young, Potentially Gifted, Economically Disadvantaged Students1
Borland, J. H., & Wright, L. (1994) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/001698629403800402 · Cited by 173
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–344 of 344
Centering Dignity, Strength, and Self-Determination
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0007
Reimagining Behavior Support in Schools
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0026
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0003
Environmental Fit and the Ecology of Inclusion
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0015
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0012
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0007
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0005
Gender, Masking, and the Performance of Acceptability
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0019
Recognizing Strengths and Challenges Across Neurodivergent Profiles
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0005
Centering Sensory Inclusivity and Student Voice in Neurodiversity-Affirming SEL
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0033
Advocacy in Special Education Systems
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0023
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0003
Supporting Neurodivergent Caregivers
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0045
Accessible Design for Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0029
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.005.0004
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0017
Honoring Dedicated Interests as Pathways to Learning and Connection
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0041
Accessible Design for Learning
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.003.0010
Rodrigues, S. (2026) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/9780197843413.002.0006
Modeling Demographic Change in NYC’s Gifted Education Program Using the Representation Index
Strickland, K., & Chan, W. (2026) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862261453384
Almulhim, N. F., Aljughaiman, A. M., & Alfaiz, F. S. (2026) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence14080166
Gil, T. O. (2026) · Urban Education · doi:10.1177/00420859261474252
A Conceptual History of Gifted Education
Gil, T. O. (2026) · Educative Jurnal Ilmiah Pendidikan · doi:10.70437/educative.v4i1.1574
Excellence Gaps: A State-Based Review of Policies
Jennings, J. (2025) · doi:10.56902/etdcrp.2025.132
Measures to Identify Gifted Students in STEM Subjects: A Systematic Review of Literature
Peperkorn, C., & Wegner, C. (2026) · Journal of Advanced Academics · doi:10.1177/1932202x261471305
The Organizational Experience of Next Gen Learning Through Portrait of a Graduate
Campbell, K. (2026) · Digital Commons - DU (University of Denver) · doi:10.56902/etdcrp.2026.72
Üstün Zekâlılar Eğitiminde Yeni Yönelimler: Değişen Kavramlar Üzerine Bir İnceleme
Şakar, S. (2026) · Van Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi/Yüzüncü Yıl Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi dergisi · doi:10.33711/yyuefd.1904549
MAPPING THE EARLY IDENTIFICATION LITERATURE ON GIFTEDNESS: A BIBLIOMETRIC STUDY
Kavruk, S. Z. (2026) · İnönü Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi · doi:10.17679/inuefd.1882966
Gray, C. J. (2026) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862261472441
Chaves, F. Á., & Torres, Y. R. (2026) · Perspectivas · doi:10.15359/rp.32.4
Aktan, O., & Topçu, M. (2026) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862261478068
Nurturing excellence: early childhood gifted education in Saudi Arabia
Alsulami, B., & Hertzog, N. B. (2026) · Early Years Journal of International Research and Development · doi:10.1080/09575146.2026.2722383
Exceptional cognition and the limits of social prediction
Wang, P., Xia, Y., Tang, X., Vincent, J., Zou, L., Law, E. L., Hertwig, R., & Paas, F. (2026) · Trends Open · doi:10.1016/j.treopn.2026.08.020
Actionable Insights from Observational Data: The Case of Advanced Classes in K-12 Education
Bajwa, N., Hunter, S. B., & Das, S. (2026) · ACM Conference on Equity and Access in Algorithms, Mechanisms, and Optimization (EAAMO) · doi:10.1145/3846167.3848599
Contemporary Narrative Therapy
Hampson, L., & Hoff, C. (2026) · Routledge eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781003596295
Gravely, T. M. (2026) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech)
Teacher Self-Efficacy Growth From a Gifted Summer Institute: A Mixed-Methods Study
Margot, K. C., Kim, D., Floyd, C. B., & Latham, A. N. (2026) · journal for the education of the gifted · doi:10.1177/01623532261486065
Gifted, Black, and Belonging: How HBCUs Cultivate Scholar Identity and Excellence
Davis, C. H., & Hilton, A. A. (2026) · Gifted Child Today · doi:10.1177/10762175261474514
Bridging potential and achievement: the AI-enhanced Latin American model of talent development
Blumen, S., Franco, E., Alcántara, K., & Benavides, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1988238
Student Engagement As A Predictor Of STEM Student Success
Foul, M. S. A. A. (2026) · UND Scholarly Commons (University of North Dakota)
Ford, D. Y. (2026) · Roeper Review · doi:10.1080/02783193.2026.2732863
Untapped potential: Gifted and talented youth in the displacement context
Teja, Z., & Worrell, F. C. (2026) · Gifted and Talented International · doi:10.1080/15332276.2026.2749504
The Periphery Paradox: How Excellence Science Programs Reproduce Geographic Inequality
Lagziel, A., & Yemini, M. (2026) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862261493433
Gifted Education Finance and Short-Term Academic Growth in One State
Helal, A. M., Wai, J., Parra-Martínez, F. A., & Seaton, D. (2026) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862261490445
Metadata
- Authors
- Card, D., & Giuliano, L.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- University of Miami (US)
- ORCID
- Card, David
- Venue
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
- Publisher
- National Academy of Sciences
- Published
- 2016-11-15
- Volume
- 113
- Issue
- 48
- Pages
- 13678-13683
- ISSN
- 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
- 1091-6490
- PMC
- PMC5137751
- OpenAlex
- W2154336198
- Semantic Scholar
- 487a55789f828746af73b010950ffea00e771447
- Cited by
- 343
- References
- 15
- Citations by year
- 2026: 125 · 2025: 29 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 38 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 37 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 2
- FWCI
- 32.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Grantee Submission
- Funders
- Institute of Ed (R305D110019)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Critical Race Theory in Education
- Keywords
- gifted education, universal screening, underrepresentation, low-income students, minority students, English language learners, gender disparities, second grade students, urban school districts, eligibility criteria
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child, Gifted, Child, Preschool, Ethnicity, Female, Humans, Male, Mass Screening, Minority Groups, Socioeconomic Factors
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
