Equitably identifying gifted students using two popular nonverbal tests: Which improves representation?

By Rachel Renbarger

How does which test is used influence who is identified as gifted? Parents and practitioners both constantly ask this very important question, especially when considering how to equitably identify traditionally underserved populations. A new study suggests that identification varies based on which test is used as well as how the scores are interpreted.

Using two of the most frequently used standardized tests in the US, researchers at the University of Houston- Clear Lake, recently published an article in Gifted Child Quarterly called “Differences in Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery Versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to Identify the Gifted/Talented.” I interviewed lead author Carol Carman about their findings and the implications for gifted education.

Previously, Carman and her team found that disproportionately few Black and Hispanic students, English language learners, and students from low-income households were identified as gifted when using these tests. However, their previous work could not compare how the two tests performed. In this new study, they sought to uncover which test more equitably identifies students from various demographic groups.

From this study, there were 3 main takeaways for gifted administrators and teachers:

1. Which test identified more equitably depends on the demographic. If the school was a diverse and segregated setting, it depends on the type of diversity and segregation you have in order to make the decision on which test to use. Generally, though, the CoGAT identified more students from underrepresented groups. However, if the setting is not diverse or segregated, the tests do not differ in who is identified as gifted. It also depends on which score rules (national or school, percentages or cut scores) are used for identification.

2. Comparing students only to others in their school can work to improve equity in identification. Carman advocates for using school norms, which means rather than looking at who is a top scorer compared to students across the nation, administrators should look at who is a top scorer compared to students in the same school. School-level norms have been used to help inequity because we know there are issues in identifying GT students from all walks of life. Using school-level norms thus identifies the gifted students within each local context, figuratively comparing apples to apples. Traditionally, many districts have identified students who have scored at the top percentiles of the test for their GT programs (national norms). Unfortunately, this has led to identifying more White, Asian, and higher-income students for GT services. Additionally, some schools then had a large proportion of their students identified as gifted and other schools had few students identified, making it difficult to provide adequate or equal services. Carman tried to figure out how districts should account for inequity in these opportunities to learn prior to school.

As she told me, “If we're testing kindergarteners, we really need to realize that some of those differences we're going to see between groups aren't because certain groups are naturally lower scorers. It's because some groups in general don't have those opportunities… Students who come from a lower SES background or background where both parents have to work in order to keep the lights on and not get evicted don't have that kind of time.” Some districts have been adding points to students’ scores if they come from a racial, ethnic, or class group that isn’t identified as often to account for this opportunity gap. Depending on your district and state, this can be difficult to calculate, or illegal. What the researchers found in this study was that using school-level norms even beats out these “opportunity to learn” points in terms of equitably identifying gifted students.  

3. Gifted services should influence which identification measures are used. Using either of these tests, with only the nonverbal reasoning portions compared in this study, should be used for gifted services that rely on those skills. As Carman told me, “We all know that the best identification is one that matches our program. So if you're doing a strong arts-based program, you really should be using some sort of arts-based identification system.” Districts should regularly examine the alignment between identification measures and how they serve the students they identify.

Policy Implications

Carman hopes that school districts incorporate professional development on gifted students and identification. Many districts use one of these tests, either the NNAT or the CoGAT, along with other identification measures such as teacher nominations. However, researchers have found that teachers may hold stereotypes about what it means to be gifted. If professional development could train teachers and administrators about what the research says on gifted students, hopefully we could improve equity in that way as well.

Article Details

Differences in Using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery Versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to Identify the Gifted/Talented
Carol A. Carman, Christine A. P. Walther, Robert A. Bartsch
First Published May 22, 2020 Research Article
DOI: 10.1177/0016986220921164
Gifted Child Quarterly

About the Author