Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Self-Nomination in the Identification Process of Gifted and Talented Students in Mexico

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific

Part of the book series: Springer International Handbooks of Education ((SIHE))

  • 111 Accesses

Abstract

In the Asia-Pacific Rim countries, it seems that self-nomination is a common practice when identifying gifted and talented students. Several authors are in favour of this practice, arguing that it is important that students have an active role in their educational process. Self-nomination may also contribute to the necessity of having new tools that broaden the screening process, showing strengths and weaknesses of gifted students beyond unidimensional intelligence tests. Although self-nominations have been used since the 1970s, to date there is little research on its efficacy and no clear methodology on how it can be implemented. In this chapter, self-nomination is analysed as part of a multidimensional and inclusive approach to the identification of gifted and talented students. In addition, different types of self-nomination are analysed and categorised, such as interviews, questionnaires, autobiographies, self-valuation scales, and products. The aim is to distinguish the instruments and determine how to implement them within an identification process in order to make better use of them. Likewise, an overview is presented of specialised literature on advantages and disadvantages of self-nominations. The goal of this exercise is to understand the benefit of their use and their limitations. It also presents a Mexican experience of developing and validating an inventory for self-nomination of adolescents. This instrument is based on students’ self-perceptions of performance in seven areas. The specific purpose of the trial was to evaluate the psychometric properties of the Self Nomination Inventory for Gifted and Talented Adolescents in a Mexican adolescent sample, so full results of the participant self-perceptions are not reported. However, in order to move forward with the inventory’s convergent validation, a comparison was made between the results from the self-nominated students and their teachers’ nominations. Some findings were indicated, that is, 55.4% of the students were confirmed by their teachers in their respective areas of talent, with the athletic and artistic areas being superior at close to 60%. The initial results suggested that the self-nomination inventory may be a useful instrument to support the identification process of gifted and talented student participants in the screening phase of this Mexican study. Finally, recommendations for research and an effective application of self-nomination strategies in educational practices are provided.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Acar, S., Sen, S., & Cayirdag, N. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification. A multilevel meta-analytic review. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Balchin, T. (2007). Identifications of the gifted: The efficacy of teacher nominations in British schools. The Journal of the National Association for Gifted Children, 11(1), 5–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, S. W., Renzulli, J. S., Gubbins, E. J., Siegle, D., Zhand, W., & Chen, C. (2005). Assumptions underlying the identification of gifted and talented students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(1), 68–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, D. W. (2001). Assessing giftedness of Chinese secondary students in Hong Kong: A multiple intelligences perspective. High Ability Studies, 12, 215–234. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130120084348

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297–334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented (4th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dodorico, J. (2008). Measuring personality constructs: The advantages and disadvantages of self-reports, informant reports and behavioural assessments. Enquire, 1(1), 75–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fernández-Ballesteros, R. (2011). Evaluación psicológica: conceptos, métodos y estudio de casos (2nd ed.). Madrid, España: Pirámide.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrando, P. J., & Anguiano-Carrasco, C. (2010). El análisis factorial como técnica de investigación en Psicología. Papeles del Psicólogo, 31(1), 18–33. Retrieved from http://www.papelesdelpsicologo.es/pdf/1793.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1999). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential (Research monograph series). Storrs, CT: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F. (1999). Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT). Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(2), 230–234. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gagné, F., Bégin, J., & Talbot, L. (1993). How well do peers agree among themselves when nominating the gifted or talented? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(1), 39–45. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1993). Frames of mind. The theory of multiple intelligences. Nueva York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence reframed: Multiple intelligences for the 21st century. Nueva York, NY: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • George, D. (2001). Gifted education identification and provision. London, England: Bell & Bain Ltd., Glasgow.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilliam, J. E., & Jerman, O. (2015). Gifted and talented evaluation scales: Examiner’s manual (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J., Hult, G., Ringle, C., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural equation modeling (PLS SEM). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harter, S. (1982). The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, 53(1), 87–97. https://doi.org/10.2307/1129640

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hernández-Torrano, D., Ferrándiz, C., Ferrando, M., Prieto, L., & Fernández, M. C. (2014). The theory of multiple intelligences in the identificación of high ability students. Anales de Psicología, 30(1), 192–200. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.30.1.148271

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hewston, R., Campbell, R. J., Eyre, D., Muijis, R. D., Neelands, J. G. A., & Robinson, W. (2005). A baseline review of the literature on effective pedagogies for gifted and talented students. Retrieved from https://giftedphoenix.files.wordpress.com/2012/11/nagty-occasional-paper-12-developing-expertise-school-based-case-studies-july-2006.pdf

  • Hocevar, C., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Holland, J. L. (1959). Some limitations of teacher ratings as predictors of creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 50(5), 219–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ionica-Ona, A. (2013). Identification of students with talent in the technical domains. Studia Universitatis Babes-Bolyai, Psychologia-Paedagogia, 58(1), 83–91.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290202000401

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jöreskog, K., & Sörbom, D. (1981). LISREL: Analysis of linear structural relationships by maximum likelihood and least squares methods. Chicago, IL: National Educational Resources.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kimberlin, C. l., & Winterstein, A. G. (2008). Validity and reliability of measurement instruments used in research. American Journal of Health-System Pharmacy, 65(1), 2276–2284. https://doi.org/10.2146/ajhp070364

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Larroder, A., & Ogawa, M. (2015). The development of a self-evaluation checklist for measuring Filipino students’ science giftedness. Asia-Pacific Science Education, 1(5). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41029-015-0002-0

  • Maker, J. (1996). Identification of gifted minority students: A national problem, needed changes and a promising solution. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 41–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massé, L., & Gagné, F. (1996). Should self-nominations be allowed in peer nomination forms? The Gifted Child Quarterly, 40(1), 24–30. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McBee, M. T., Peters, S. J., & Miller, E. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38(5), 403–411. Retrieved from: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.535.1598&rep=rep1&type=pdf

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McCoach, D., Gable, R., & Madura, J. (2013). Instrument development in the affective domain: School and corporate applications. New York, NY: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mee, S. (2002). Psychoeducational assessment. In M. Horne (Ed.), Keys to effective LD teaching practice (pp. 24–36). Knoxville, TN: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville Center for Literacy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Merrick, C., & Targett, R. (2004). Module two: The identification of gifted students. In DEST & GERRIC (Eds.), Professional development package for teachers: Gifted education professional development package. Sydney, NSW: DEST (Department of Education, Science and Training) & GERRIC. Retrieved from http://foi.deewr.gov.au

    Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, B., & Muthén, L. (1998–2007). Mplus version 5.0 statistical analysis with latent variables: User’s guide (4th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nagai, Y., Nomura, K., Nagata, M., Ohgi, S., & Iwasa, M. (2014). Children’s perceived competence scale reference values in Japan. Journal of Child Health Care, 19(4), 532–541. https://doi.org/10.1177/1367493513519295

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) & the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted (CSDPG). (2015). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data 2014–2015. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/key%20reports/2014-2015%20State%20of%20the%20States%20%28final%29.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Nichols, L. (2004). Giving students a voice: Learning through autobiography. Thought & Action, 19(2), 37–50. Retrieved from https://www.nea.org/assets/img/PubThoughtAndAction/TAA_04Win_04.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. I. (2002). Identifying gifted and talented students. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 19(1), 31–50. https://doi.org/10.1300/J008v19n01_03

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2003). Gifted rating scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

    Google Scholar 

  • Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales. Section 1: General overview. Oxford, England/San Antonio, TX: Oxford Psychologists Press/The Psychological Corporation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 35(3), 128–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629103500304

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J. S. (1988). The multiple menu model for developing differentiated curriculum for the gifted and talented. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(3), 298–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200302

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Renzulli, J., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., Westberg, K. L., …, Sytsma, R. E. (2010). Scale for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Technical and administration manual (3rd ed.). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Richert, E. S. (2003). Excellence with justice in identificaction and programming. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 146–158). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rigdon, E. E. (1996). CFI versus RMSEA: A comparison of two fit indexes for structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 3(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519609540052

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rodríguez, R., Rabassa, G., Salas, R., & Pardo, A. (2017). Protocolo de identificación y evaluación del alumnado de altas capacidades. El reto de dar respuesta a las necesidades educativas de este alumnado. Madrid, España: Santillana.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roets, L. F. (1997). Leadership: Skills training programs for ages 8–18 (8th ed.). Des Moines, IA: Leadership.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2006). Propuesta de intervención educativa a alumnos y alumnas con aptitudes sobresalientes. México, México: SEP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Secretaría de Educación Pública. (2017). Datos de la Subsecretaría del Sistema de Planeación, Evaluación y Coordinación de la SEP. Retrieved from: http://spec.sep.gob.mx/web/?page_id=28

  • Tirri, K., & Nokelainen, P. (2007). Comparison of academically average and gifted students’ self-rated ethical sensitivity. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 587–601. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701786053

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tourón, J., Peralta, F., & Repáraz, C. (1998). La superdotación intelectual: modelos identificación y estrategias educativas. Pamplona, España: Eunsa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Treffinger, D. J., Young, J. C., Selby, E. C., & Shepardson, C. (2002). Assessing creativity: A guide for educators. Sarasota, FL: The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

    Google Scholar 

  • Warburton, E. C. (2010). From talent identification to multidimensional assessment: Toward new models of evaluation in dance education. Research in Dance Education, 3(2), 103–121. https://doi.org/10.1080/1464789022000050480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zavala, M. A. (2004). Desarrollo y validación de un sistema para la detección de alumnos con aptitudes sobresalientes-superdotados. Revista Educación y Desarrollo, 3, 13–20.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Universidad De La Salle Bajío, León, México

    María Alicia Zavala Berbena

  2. PAUTA, Institute of Nuclear Sciences, Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México UNAM, Mexico City, México

    Gabriela de la Torre García

Authors
  1. María Alicia Zavala Berbena
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Gabriela de la Torre García
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to María Alicia Zavala Berbena .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. School of Education, UNSW Australia, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Susen R. Smith

Section Editor information

  1. Pontificia Universidad Católica de Valparaíso, Viña del Mar, Valparaíso, Chile

    María Leonor Conejeros-Solar

  2. Dept. of Psychology, Pontificia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, LIMA, Perú

    Sheyla Blumen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Zavala Berbena, M.A., de la Torre García, G. (2019). Self-Nomination in the Identification Process of Gifted and Talented Students in Mexico. In: Smith, S. (eds) Handbook of Giftedness and Talent Development in the Asia-Pacific. Springer International Handbooks of Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_24-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-3021-6_24-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-13-3021-6

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-13-3021-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference EducationReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Education

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation