A Descriptive Analysis of Referral Sources for Gifted Identification Screening by Race and Socioeconomic Status

By Matthew T. McBee. 2006

228 citations recorded by the source corpus.

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/65f64bd2ab7d5e773fe2e16ba766fdcf0b970cb1

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

Citations in the corpus

Racial and Ethnic Representation in Gifted Programs (2009, methodology): “Among Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia, all of which have a 95% confidence interval straddling the 1.0 RI, it was noteworthy that Alabama and Florida had an RI more than 1.0 with uncertainties for the entire data sets, and Georgia showed distinct increase”
A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices (2018, background): “Even if teachers are reliable identifiers of gifted students of similar cultural backgrounds, it is arguable whether they are able to reliably identify children from diverse backgrounds (McBee, 2006).”
Research on Giftedness and Gifted Education (2014, methodology): “, & McBee, M. (2014). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs.”
The Impact of the Nomination Stage on Gifted Program Identification (2016, background): “Research on the performance of classroom teachers as referral agents indicates there is a large degree of variability in the validity of teacher recommendations (Carman, 2011; Hunsaker, Finley, & Frank, 1997; McBee, 2006; Miller, 2009; Siegle, Moore, Mann, & Wilson, 2010).”
Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Education: Recruitment and Retention Issues (2008, background): “TAREK C. GRANTHAM (CEC GA Federation), Associate Professor and Gifted & Creative Education Program Coordinator, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens.”
Unlocking Emergent Talent: Supporting High Achievement of Low-Income, High Ability Students. (2012, unknown): “36 Ford 37 contends that “deficit thinking” is the root of the problem.”
Reexamining Gifted Underachievement and Dropout Through the Lens of Student Engagement (2013, background): “In addition, teacher nominations serve as a common source for initiating the identification process for gifted students (McBee, 2006; Oakland & Rossen, 2005).”
Gifted Girls: Gender Bias in Gifted Referrals (2011, background): “Recent research has demonstrated that teachers’ biases and stereotypic expectations of students have contributed to the underrepresentation of students from certain populations receiving gifted services (Bianco, 2005; Bianco & Leech, 2010; Ford, 1996; Ford, Grantham, & Whiting, 2008; McBee, 2006; Mi”
A Critique of the Literature on Parenting Gifted Learners (2012, background): “Despite some instances to the contrary, most parents appear to be reasonably accurate in their evaluation of their child’s ability (McBee, 2006).”
Disentangling the Roles of Institutional and Individual Poverty in the Identification of Gifted Students (2018, methodology): “In an examination of one state’s screening process, McBee (2006) found that students who were eligible for free and reduced-price lunch (FRL) were far less likely to be nominated than their full-price lunch peers: non-FRL students received more than three times the number of teacher referrals when…”
Factors That Influence In-Service and Preservice Teachers' Nominations of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs (2010, methodology): “This is in contrast to the empirical evidence that fewer students from low-SES backgrounds are nominated for gifted programming (McBee, 2006). This difference in findings may be due to the difference between explicitly thinking about SES as a factor in a student’s profile, as in the study presented ”