Patterns of Identification and Performance Among Gifted Students Identified Through Performance Tasks: A Three-Year Analysis
Abstract
This study tracks the profile data of identification for gifted students in South Carolina, where a new performance-based dimension of identification has been employed, during a 3-year period. Targeted to identify more low-income and minority students, the identification protocol demonstrates efficacy in doing so. The study also tracks comparative data, showing the verbal and nonverbal profiles of students identified using this protocol in comparison to students more traditionally identified. Results suggest that students identified using performance tasks were more likely to be identified through the nonverbal assessment component of the tasks. Performance data are tracked across 2 years, showing that performance task-identified students, in general, perform at levels below traditionally identified students. In their area of strength, however, they tend to approach the mean for the traditionally identified gifted students on that portion of the high-stakes state test.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A 2-year follow-up found that students identified with performance tasks had general performance levels below traditionally identified students, but their performance was near the mean of traditional students in their areas of strength.
“A 2-year follow-up study on the students revealed that those identified with the performance tasks had general performance levels below that of traditionally identified students, but their performance was near the mean of traditional students in their areas of strength (VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007).”
From Gifted Students (2019) · cites this paper as VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007
Students from underrepresented groups identified using a variety of indicators often still perform at lower levels than peers identified in more traditional ways.
“students from underrepresented groups who are identified using a variety of indicators often still perform at lower levels than their peers identified in more traditional ways (e.g., VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007)”
From Gifted Students (2019) · cites this paper as VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Card, D., & Giuliano, L. (2015) · doi:10.3386/w21519 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- VanTassel-Baska, J., Feng, A. X., & Evans, B. L.
- Affiliations
- The College of William and Mary
- William & Mary (US)
- Venue
- Gifted Child Quarterly
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2007-01
- Volume
- 51
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 218-231
- ISSN
- 0016-9862 (ISSN-L)
- 1934-9041
- OpenAlex
- W2126524059
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 8.15
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Gifted Child Quarterly (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Keywords
- gifted identification, performance tasks, low-income students, minority students, nonverbal assessment, gifted education, South Carolina
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.
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