In his 1981 book, “The Mismeasure of Man,” biologist Stephen Jay Gould famously assailed the validity and influence of IQ testing, bringing news of this developing critique to a broader audience. Contrary to the beliefs of some of the original creators and backers of IQ tests, Gould disagreed with the idea that the tests could be used to rank or assign value to people. And he pointed out the structural racism and subjectivity embedded in both the tests and how they were being used to perpetuate societal power structures.
Sarah Carr, The Hechinger Report, March 2024
IQ tests remain a key tool in the intelligence measurement process in most schools. However, when considering “exceptional” students, whether in the cateogries of “gifted” or “special needs,” IQ tests are not the pure measure of ability to learn that they are purported to be. (This article by Carr and other research led me to observations shared in my dissertation, quoted below.)
Inequities in Assessments for the Gifted
Assessments of the gifted should provide objectivity and a data point which can be consistent across a range of abilities (Gubbins et al., 2021; Silverman & Gilman, 2020). However, in some cases the test used to evaluate the level of ability in students is both inaccurate and limiting. For instance, one study found that a particular set of assessments allowed for a greater number of Hispanic students to qualify, while another is better for younger ELLs but not for those who are older (Mun et al., 2020). This inconsistency calls into question the overall validity of the test.
Some researchers take issues with non-traditional assessments because of the difficulty of regulating and defining the output (Hodges et al., 2018), but this is in part an issue in the field because of the lack of a clear, standard definition of giftedness which would yield more consistency in testing options (Hodges et al., 2018).
Further, all too frequently the tests used to identify gifted potential were designed to identify gaps in understanding or areas in need of improvement (Lakin & Wai, 2022), and this misapplication of the assessment can lead to short-term issues with recognition of ability. For instance, it could be that a student’s issues with reading comprehension are reflected in LinkIt! by a low score, but that same student could be highly gifted in other areas which are not weighted as heavily in the evaluation, such as creative writing.
Students who are gifted with non-academic intelligence such as leadership or creativity or who are classified as twice exceptional can be missed in the assessment-driven approach as well (Lavrijsen & Verschueren, 2020; Shearer, 2020). This leads back to the importance of aligning the organization’s understanding of giftedness with the screening methods chosen for gifted identification (Makel & Johnsen, 2020).
Furthermore, even when researching results from the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, recognized for higher evaluations in underrepresented subgroups, the data remains pitched in the favor of White and Asian-American students (Lee, Karakis et al., 2021). Assessments, whether administered by a psychologist or taken online in a room full of students, are not the objective measure they are often purported to be (Henry & Karanxha, 2018).
“Gifted” Label Too General to Drive Programming
Special education services may be based on specific diagnoses such as dyslexia, processing disorder, or the like. In contrast, simply labeling a student with the broad term ‘gifted’ does not effectively inform service delivery at a fine-grained level… In addition to the gifted label not reflecting advances in intelligence research, the label is also ineffective in informing school programming and student services as the label is nearly meaningless given its varied and inconsistent interpretations.
Matthews & Jolly, 2022
Targeted instruction designed around student strengths has been demonstrated to show greater achievements over time (Palacios Gonzalez & Jung, 2021; Plucker & Callahan, 2014). The use of pedagogies which respond to student ability and interest, including differentiation and curriculum compacting, results in higher achievement scores and productivity in student work (Reis et al., 2021; Chandra Handa, 2019). Studies that look at contributions through adulthood have found that focusing on specific areas of strength such as math or art leads to greater achievements over time as opposed to focusing on general intelligence (Makel et al., 2016; Olszewski-Kubilius & Corwith, 2017; Subotnik et al., 2011). When we can drill down to the specific strengths of a student and respond with targeted programming, students have a greater potential to thrive.
In addition to systemic and policy changes, we also need a shift in mindset. Embedded in too many schools’ practice and policy, to this day, is the idea that an intelligence test score can somehow measure human potential. It does not. At their best, these tests provide a snapshot in time of a child’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses. But it is fundamentally unjust to deploy them in ways that conflate a score with a capacity for learning, and exclude children from full participation in that learning process by denying them access to an academic curriculum, or extra help learning to read.
Matthews & Jolly, 2022
TAKEAWAYS
- GOALS: What are the goals of the “gifted” program in your school? If the program is multi-faceted, each aspect should link back to a goal.
- TOOLS: According to these goals, which assessment tools map to those abilities?
- UNIVERSAL TESTING: Testing all students at some point in their educational career prior to gifted selection is the single most effective way to improve equity in a gifted selection process (cite).
SOURCES
NOTE: If not cited below, all academic citations can be found here.
Carr, Sarah. “How flawed IQ tests prevent kids from getting help in school
School psychologists are relying less on testing — but the change is too slow for some.” 28 Mar, 2024. Hechinger Report. https://hechingerreport.org/how-flawed-iq-tests-prevent-kids-from-getting-help-in-school
Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Ottone-Cross, K., McCoach, D. B., Langley, S. D., Callahan, C. M., Brodersen, A. V., & Caughey, M. (2021). Identifying and Serving Gifted and Talented Students: Are Identification and Services Connected? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115-131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
Hodges, J., Tay, J., Maeda, Y., & Gentry, M. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
Lakin, J. M., & Wai, J. (2022). Developing student aptitudes as an important goal of education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 95–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211039543
Lavrijsen, J., & Verschueren, K. (2020). Student characteristics affecting the recognition of high cognitive ability by teachers and peers. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, 101820. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.101820
Lee, H., Karakis, N., Olcay Akce, B., Azzam Tuzgen, A., Karami, S., Gentry, M., & Maeda, Y. (2021). A meta-analytic evaluation of Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test: Exploring its validity evidence and effectiveness in equitably identifying gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(3), 199-219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986221997800
Makel, M.C., & Johnsen, S.K. (2020). Conceptions of giftedness. In J.A. Plucker & C.M. Callahan (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: a survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (3rd ed., pp. 113-121). Prufrock Press.
Matthews, M.S.; Jolly, J.L. Why Hasn’t the Gifted Label Caught up with Science? J. Intell. 2022, 10, 84. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040084
Mun, R. U., Hemmler, V., Langley, S. D., Ware, S., Gubbins, E. J., Callahan, C. M., McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2020). Identifying and serving English learners in gifted education: Looking back and moving forward. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(4), 297-335. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220955230
Shearer, C. B. (2020). Multiple intelligences in gifted and talented education: lessons learned from neuroscience after 35 years. Roeper Review, 42(1), 49-63. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2019.1690079
Silverman, L. K., & Gilman, B. J. (2020). Best practices in gifted identification and assessment: Lessons from the WISC‐V. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1569-1581. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22361
Gifted Weekly 