Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2)

Examiner's Manual

Gail R. Ryser, Kathleen McConnell, Laila Y. Sanguras, Todd Kettler

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2021
• ISBN:
  9781000495898
• Edition: 2
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Inclusive Education

Scales for Identifying Gifted Students–Second Edition (SIGS-2) offers the most comprehensive observational instrument available for identifying gifted students grades K–12. Used as part of a comprehensive process for identifying gifted children, SIGS-2 offers schools an instrument with extensive statistical and research support. This Examiner's Manual includes the information the examiner needs to administer, score, and interpret the SIGS-2. Information relating to the standardization, reliability, and validity of the SIGS-2 is also found in the manual.

To explore the full collection of SIGS-2 print and online resources, please visit: https://www.routledge.com/go/scales-for-identifying-gifted-students-sigs.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction to the Scales for Identifying Gifted Students–Second Edition

DOI: 10.4324/9781003237792-1

Background

Ryser and McConnell published the Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS) in 2004 as a norm-referenced rating scale designed to assist school districts in the identification of students for participation in gifted and talented education programs. The SIGS assessed seven areas: general intellectual ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership, and each area was assessed at home and at school. Since its publication in 2004, the SIGS has become one of the most widely used behavioral rating scales for the identification of gifted or high-ability students. The SIGS has been used in all 50 states in the United States and in 20 other countries around the world, representing use on five continents in its 16-year history.

The SIGS was developed with a nationally (U.S.) representative sample, and the scales have been noted for their excellent reliability and validity. McBee et al. (2016) used the SIGS in a study of the gifted and talented identification process, noting that “it has a high-quality research base and… its test manual provides an extensive set of reliability and validity information” (p. 269). Similarly, in a 2017 study, Peters and Pereira noted that there are approximately 30 behavior rating scales potentially used for the identification of gifted and high-ability students, and the SIGS was considered among the top four based on research and psychometric qualities. With widespread use in schools across the U.S. and internationally, as well as favorable reviews in the research community, the SIGS has become a valuable tool in gifted and talented education.

Updated Features of the SIGS-2

The second edition of the SIGS (SIGS-2) explicitly builds on the successful tradition of the SIGS. The theoretical framework of the SIGS-2 is unchanged, and the basic processes of the Home Rating Scales and School Rating Scales are unchanged. There were three goals driving the new edition: (1) maintain the qualities of the SIGS that made it one of the top behavioral rating scales in the world for gifted and talented education, (2) provide expanded and updated national norms, and (3) reevaluate the measurement model to provide SIGS-2 users with a structurally valid and reliable measurement tool. Although many features of the SIGS-2 are quite similar to the original SIGS, Figure 1.1 provides a quick glance at the changes that SIGS-2 users will notice.

FIGURE 1.1 Updated Features of the SIGS-2

Using Rating Scales to Screen and Identify Students for Gifted Education

The process for identifying students for participation in gifted education programs has been widely studied and discussed. There is no single process or procedure for identification. In the U.S. there is no federal policy governing the identification process; therefore, policies governing the process tend to vary among individual states. Even within the realm of state policies for identification, in several cases individual school districts have significant latitude in developing their own processes within the boundaries of the state policy guidelines. Thus, there is no single way to use the SIGS-2 within the identification process. However, as schools use the SIGS-2, there are some generally agreed-upon recommended practices for identifying students for participation in gifted education programs:

• Recognize multiple manifestations of giftedness, including domain-specific talent. Some students will manifest exceptional potential in single domains (e.g., mathematics, science, language; Callahan, 2005; Ford et al., 2008; Pfeiffer, 2008).
• Initially consider all students as potential participants in gifted education. Broad initial screening of 100% of the student population is the most equitable practice for identifying gifted students (Card & Giuliano, 2016; Hamilton et al., 2017; McBee et al., 2016; Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019).
• Implement multiple pathways to be identified for participation in gifted education. Multiple pathways may include self-nomination, authentic assessment, behavioral rating scales, and other evidences of potential. Identification should not be limited to test scores (Gubbins et al., 2018; McBee et al., 2012; Peters, Gentry, et al., 2019).
• Use valid and reliable measurement tools in the identification process and seek instruments that minimize bias (Callahan, 2005; Ryser, 2011; Worrell & Erwin, 2011).
• Use multiple sources of data when considering students for participation in gifted education programs, and honor data supporting strengths rather than gaps (Acar et al., 2016; Callahan, 2005; Johnsen, 2018b).
• To improve equity in identification, consider the use of local building norms or group-specific norms or criteria (Card & Giuliano, 2016; Carman et al., 2018; Peters, Rambo-Hernandez, et al., 2019).

There are two general measurement approaches to identifying students for participation in gifted education: (a) performance measures and (b) nonperformance measures (Acar et al., 2016; Sternberg, 1986). The performance measures approach typically involves obtaining scores from assessments to represent the student’s level of performance. These performance measures involve essentially no judgment—the score is the performance.

Nonperformance measures are broadly considered as all of the data not collected as performance measures. A key feature of nonperformance measures that distinguishes them from performance measures is judgment. Rating scales are nonperformance measures because they are based on the observation and judgment of teachers or parents/guardians. Interestingly, Acar et al. (2016) found that when performance and nonperformance measures are used together in gifted identification, each type tends to identify different students who would not otherwise be identified despite overlap or convergence of the two measures.

The best approach to identification to avoid missing students who ought to be selected is to combine performance and nonperformance approaches. Teacher rating scales tend to be highly correlated with performance measures (McBee et al., 2014). Thus, although they support and improve the validity of performance measures, rating scales will also indicate students to be considered for gifted program participation even if those students might have been overlooked by performance approaches alone (Acar et al., 2016).

Rating scales are a recognized method for gathering trustworthy information in the process of selecting students for participation in gifted education. Rating scales are an efficient way to collect the perceptions of teachers as well as parents/guardians who have regular interactions with the students being considered (Jarosewich et al., 2002; Worrell & Erwin, 2011). Teachers have extended opportunities to observe the behaviors and performances of students in academic situations that may be more nuanced than standardized test performances, and well-designed rating scales are effective means for systematically capturing those observations. Additionally, rating scales are effective tools for gathering data on constructs associated with giftedness that are not easily measured by standardized tests, such as creativity and leadership (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995; Jarosewich et al., 2002; Oakland et al., 1996).

The SIGS-2 includes seven separate rating scales allowing for data collection in general intellectual ability as well as each of the four core domains of mathematics, language arts, science, and social studies. Additionally, the SIGS-2 includes rating scales in leadership and creativity. Seven independent scales allow for flexible use in the identification process. Schools can use all seven scales if their program identification protocol seeks data in each of those areas. Additionally, any combination of the scales can be used to match identification to specific program components. For instance, a school identifying for a gifted program in leadership and STEM might use the General Intellectual Ability scale, the Mathematics scale, the Science scale, and the Leadership scale. Each scale is scored and normed separately. The SIGS-2 is not designed to yield a single overall score.

Definitions of Giftedness

Although there is no federal mandate for serving students identified as gifted in the public school system, many states now have either permissive or mandated legislation for identifying and developing programs for these students. The federal government recognizes that students can have exceptional gifts and talents and provides a definition to guide states. The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 defined gifted and talented students as follows:

The term “gifted and talented” when used in respect to students, children or youth means students, children or youth who give evidence of high performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities. (Title XIV, p. 388)

A government report, National Excellence: A Case for Developing America’s Talent (U.S. Department of Education, Office of Educational Research, 1993), provided a definition from a talent development perspective:

Children and youth with outstanding talent perform or show the potential for performing at remarkably high levels of accomplishment when compared with others of their age, experience, or environment. These children and youth exhibit high performance capability in intellectual, creative, and/or artistic areas; possess an unusual leadership capacity; or excel in specific academic fields. They require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the schools. Outstanding talents are present in children and youth from all cultural groups, across all economic strata, and in all areas of human endeavor. (para. 5)

More recently, the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC, 2019a), the largest professional association dedicated to gifted education and gifted individuals, issued a definition. The NAGC definition reflects scholars’ and practitioners’ views of giftedness:

Students with gifts and talents perform—or have the capacity to perform—at higher levels compared to others of the same age, experience, and environment in one or more domains. They require modification(s) to their educational experience(s) to learn and realize their potential. Students with gifts and talents:

• Come from all racial, ethnic, and cultural populations, as well as all economic strata.
• Require sufficient access to appropriate learning opportunities to realize their potential.
• Can have learning and processing disorders that require specialized intervention and accommodation.
• Need support and guidance to develop socially and emotionally as well as in their areas of talent.
• Require varied services based on their changing needs. (p. 1)

These definitions recognize diverse areas of giftedness (e.g., intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership, academic) and use terms that imply the need for specialized services for identified students. Likewise, the SIGS-2 recognizes seven areas of giftedness and can help practitioners identify gifted students so that educational programs can be designed to meet their needs.

Development of the SIGS and SIGS-2

To develop an initial pool of items for the SIGS, Ryser and McConnell (2004) conducted a review of the literature, examined other rating scales for identifying gifted and talented students, and reviewed standards developed by educational organizations in different content areas. From this they developed a list of characteristics for each of the seven areas. The initial sets of characteristics were reviewed by a number of professionals in the field of gifted education. Based on their feedback, the characteristics were refined to generate initial items. The initial SIGS (Ryser & McConnell, 2004) norming version contained 18 items per scale, except for the Leadership scale, which contained 17 items. The norming version of the SIGS was further refined through two statistical analyses before becoming finalized. First, item discrimination characteristics were examined, and items with discrimination coefficients below .40 were deleted. Second, Ryser and McConnell used the results of differential item functioning studies to delete additional items based on item bias. Based on the results of those procedur...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• Chapter 1 Introduction to the Scales for Identifying Gifted Students–Second Edition
• Chapter 2 Administration, Scoring, and Interpretation Guidelines
• Chapter 3 Norming Sample and Reliability of the SIGS-2
• Chapter 4 Validity of the SIGS-2
• Chapter 5 Fairness of the SIGS-2
• Chapter 6 Using Local Norms With the SIGS-2
• Chapter 7 Recommended Practices for Screening and Assessment
• References
• Appendices