{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03435114503816794, 'fraction_numerical': 0.014679976512037582, 'mean_word_length': 5.33271375464684, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0000038-021 APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, S. I. Pfeiffer (Editor-in-Chief ) Copyright © 2018 by the American Psychological Association. All rights reserved. Alternative models for identifying students for gifted programs have been a focus of study since at least the early 1970s, when substantial scholarly attention first began to be directed toward the lack of diversity among gifted students. In recent decades, researchers worked to develop identification procedures that recognize a broader range of talent, and that are presumed to be less influenced by students’ cultural, linguistic, and economic background. These efforts can be broadly categorized as advocating for the use of different or alternative measures (i.e., using different tests) or for a different application of traditional measures (i.e., using the same tests differently). The former approach includes the use of nonverbal ability tests (e.g., the Test of Nonverbal Intelligence [TONI]) and structured observation protocols (e.g., U-STARS+), whereas the latter approach includes methods such as universal screening, local, and group-specific norms for traditional aptitude tests or systems for combining and including multiple measures. With roots back to the pioneering efforts of psychometricians like Martin Jenkins (1936), there has been a growing awareness of the lack of equity in educational outcomes, particularly those measured by standardized assessments (i.e., differences in mean scores for different groups). In K–12 settings, observable outcomes of these score differences include differential representation rates in special education (but see Morgan et al., 2015, for an argument disputing differential representation in special education) and gifted education programs, as well as differential rates in college attendance, degree completion, and many other important outcomes. This relative lack of diversity in cultural, racial, and economic terms is evident within the population of students identified by schools to participate in gifted programs (Yoon & Gentry, 2009), as well as in the excellence gaps in student achievement documented by Plucker, Burroughs, and Song (2010). Whether it is framed in terms of equity and excellence, social justice, economics, or even as a desire for strict numerical proportionality, identification is a crucial issue, and one over which there has been much gnashing of teeth. There seems to be a collective desire for greater proportionality of representation, and yet there is little agreement on how to go about achieving that end. Additionally, differential representation—the widespread observation that gifted classrooms do not look like a representative sample of the larger general school populations—is likely a key reason why gifted education has been subject to a great deal of criticism from other disciplines (e.g., sociology; Margolin, 1994). In this chapter, we outline contemporary efforts to create and implement “alternative” models of gifted education identification or program selection. We address where these models have been successful and where they have stumbled, and on the basis of these findings, we offer recommendations for practice for psychologists and teachers who are charged with developing and implementing identification practices in K–12 schools. C h a P t e r 2 1