Our Product
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument is a teacher administered screening inventory of characteristics that are centered within the Hispanic culture for grades PK-4.
Purpose of the Instrument
How to Use
The studies of the tool can be found in existing publication and research articles.
Attributes of Hispanic Gifted Bilingual Students as Preceived by Bilingual Educators
Tempo - A Typical Gifted
A Multivariate Analysis of the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
Factor Analysis
HBGSI Assessment Manuscript
Other Articles
Identifying and Assessing Gifted and Talented Bilingual Hispanic Students. ERIC Digest.
Identifying and Assessing Gifted and Talented Bilingual Hispanic Students.
Reaching New Horizons: Gifted and Talented Education for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students
Identifying and Assessing Gifted and Talented Bilingual Hispanic Students.
The Gifted and Talented Program and the Spanish Bilingual Student
Hispanic children in U.S. schools are the fastest growing ethnic group (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). By 2050, the number of Hispanic students will increase to more than 18 million, or 26.6% of the student population, making them the second largest ethnic group in the country (Day, 1993). In certain states the percentages are magnified; for example, in Texas by the year 2030, Hispanics are projected to represent 45.9% of the its general state population (Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and Education, 1996).
Although numbers of Hispanics are increasing, Hispanics, particularly those who are English language learners (ELL), are not currently and equitably represented in programs for gifted and talented (GT) by as much as 70% (LaFontaine, 1987; Ort�z & Gonz�lez, 1989; Cohen, 1990; Colangelo & Davis, 1991). Furthermore, in a six-state study Berm�dez and Rakow (1993) determined that among the respondents from highly Hispanic populated school districts, very few were identifying and/or serving gifted, ELL students, and of those districts that had developed identification procedures for this group of students, only 33% experienced success with the developed measures.
Reasons for Underrepresentation of Hispanic Bilingual Students in Gifted Programs
A number of reasons have been given for the underrepresentation of Hispanic ELL students in GT programs. These include the lack of valid tests or instruments (Melesky, 1985; Cohen, 1990; Irby & Lara-Alecio, 1996), the biased nature of standardized tests (Gonz�lez & Yawkey, 1993), the ambiguous definitions of giftedness (McKenzie, 1986), and teachers' lack of familiarity with ELL student characteristics (Berm�dez & Rakow, 1990). Furthermore, most procedures for identifying GT students have been developed for use with the native English speaking, middle class children (Cohen, 1988). Frequently because of their lack of English proficiency, ELL students are perceived as not being ready for gifted education (Harris, 1991); this frequently cited perception limits the definition for giftedness which is reflective of the values and perceptions of the majority culture (Harris & Weismantel, 1991).
Reasons given by researchers for the underrepresentation of minority students in GT programs include: 1) teachers' and appraisers' lack of knowledge and cultural sensitivity; 2) bias in the standardization process; and 3) identification of students based on a single test (Sawyer, 1993). Barkan and Bernal (1991) stated, "The historical problem of having too few children from nondominant ethnic groups in gifted programs derives precisely from decisions about what evidence of actual or potential giftedness one requires" (p. 144). For many years, no adequate identification measures have existed for students who are not middle class native English speakers (Berm�dez & Rakow, 1990) since screening and identification procedures often rely on norms which exclude minority learners (Marquez, Berm�dez, & Rakow, 1992).
Need for Better Assessment and Identification Measures and Procedures
In one study, 78% of the gifted education coordinators who answered a questionnaire acknowledged the need to use different means of assessment for LEP students, but only 32% believed their identification process was successful in identifying GT, LEP students (Berm�dez & Rakow, 1993). This demonstrates the need to find valid, reliable, and practical methods for screening language minority students into a pool for further study for possible placement into a gifted education program.
Instruments developed for the identification of GT, LEP students should take into account language, socioeconomic and cultural factors (Irby, Hernandez, Torres, & Gonzales, 1997), because the particular instrument used has been determined to make a difference in whether or not a student is identified as GT (Ortiz & Volloff, 1987). ). The use of nontraditional and culturally sensitive methods of observation by teachers was recommended in screening procedures (Irby, et al., 1997). With regard to language, students should be assessed in their native language (Melesky, 1985; Cohen, 1988) or students should be assessed with instruments which do not use language at all. In fact, nonverbal testing procedures have been strongly recommended as fair evaluation instruments of culturally and linguistically different children (Bernal , 1974; Melesky, 1985; Tamaoke, Saklofske, & Ide , 1993; Clark, 1992).
Minority Population Representation in GT Programs
Why are minority students underrepresented in gifted and talented (GT) programs when "access to equitable programming is not a privilege; it is a right" (Smith, LeRose, & Clasen, 1991, p.18)? Although "there is no logical reason to expect that the number of minority students in gifted programs would not be proportional to their representation in the general population� (Frasier, 1997, p.498), they are underrepresented by 30 to 70% in gifted and talented (GT) programs (Colangelo & Davis, 1991). According to Maxwell (1992), Hispanics comprised 16.2% of public school enrollment, but only 4.7% of the students enrolled in GT programs.
It has been demonstrated that, "Gifted students who are culturally different or who have limited proficiency in English, stand little chance of attaining the IQ score or achievement test score that is necessary to be placed in a gifted program" (Robisheaux & Banbury, 1994, p. 28). LEP students may be denied into GT programs due to their limited English vocabulary (Irby, Hernandez, Torres, & Gonzales, 1997), because they are perceived as not being ready for GT programs, or because of the opposition of staff members to special programs (Harris, 1991).
Identification of Minority GT Students
In the state of Texas, there are three principles established for the identification of GT students: 1) the district definition and identification process has to be in writing and approved by the local school board; 2) identification has to be based on at least five sources--including both objective and subjective measures; and 3) the identification process is ongoing and provisions for the transfer of students, for errors in identification, and for students exiting from the program are included in the written, board-approved procedures (Lashaway-Bokina, 1996).
When the identification of gifted minority students is sought, there are questions related to ethnic and cultural issues to be considered: 1) Who are the gifted of these groups?; 2) Are they different from the gifted students of the majority culture?; 3) What influences the display of their giftedness and is this display different than that of the majority culture?; and 4) What are the advantages of multi-area identification for the various groups? (Baldwin, 1991).
When describing the problems affecting the identification of GT minority students, Frasier (1997) used four words beginning with the letter "a". Access referred to the low expectations of educators, low rates of referrals by parents, educators not recognizing gifted behaviors in minority students and the effects of cultural differences on teacher referrals. The second problem, assessment, has already been written about in previous paragraphs. Accommodation referred to program designs and curriculum that do not address the cultural and linguistic differences. Finally, attitudes about gifted potential in members of minority groups are that minority students do not fit the perceptions of giftedness.
"Many potentially gifted minority students are never considered for gifted programs due to a lack of referrals and ill-conceived teacher attitudes concerning minorities" (Lashaway-Bokina, 1996). Results of Berm�dez and Rakow's 1990 study showed that: 1) bilingual teachers were significantly more aware than teachers in regular classrooms of bias in standard instruments and informal procedures; 2) English as a Second Language (ESL) teachers were more aware than teachers in regular classrooms of the challenge LEP students face in speaking English as a second language; 3) teachers in the primary grades were more aware than high school teachers of the role first language plays on second language performance; and 4) bilingual teachers were more aware than regular teachers of the inadequacies of current identification procedures and the value of a solid foundation in the first language to facilitate the transition to the second language.
Indicators of Giftedness
The definition of giftedness and how to identify gifted minority students has been debated and no one theory of gifted and talented behavior has been accepted by everyone. First of all, no one definition of giftedness fits all programs and circumstances (Davis & Rimm, 1985), even though definitions of giftedness have tended to reflect the values and perceptions of the majority culture (Harris & Weismantel, 1991) and central to most definitions of giftedness are intelligence, creativity, and talent (Lashaway-Bokina, 1996). "All gifted students possess cognitive, affective, and social characteristics that distinguish them from students who are not considered gifted" (Maker & Schiever, 1989, p. 3). Within and between linguistic and cultural groups, however, there are different sociocultural and peer expectations (Harris, 1991).
How giftedness is displayed may be unique to each ethnic group and unlike that of Anglo children (Baldwin, 1991). Therefore, it is best to describe giftedness within the context of a culture (Leung, 1981; Marquez, Berm�dez, & Rakow, 1992).
Identification procedures must consider linguistic and cultural behaviors that could mask giftedness, such as nonverbal cues that are different in different cultures (Berm�dez & Rakow, 1990). "Even though some bilingual children have a functional command of the English language, assessing them through a qualitative method encompassing cultural and linguistic factors gives them the opportunity to show their genuine cognitive abilities and potentials" (Gonzalez, Bauerle, & Felix-Holt, 1994). In one study, 78% of the respondents acknowledged the need to use alternate means of assessment, such as self-reports, observations by members of the same cultural groups, parent and teacher observations, parental interviews, and checklists developed with community input (Berm�dez & Rakow, 1991). In the same study, 70% of the respondents reported using multiple sources in identifying GT LEP students, but only 32% found their processes successful. Unfortunately the majority of respondents indicated they had excluded community input in the identification process. "Attempting to determine a [LEP] child's intellectual potential by using English-based assessment instruments can lead to erroneous conclusions.... assessment in English is more likely to reflect knowledge of English... than general intellectual potential" (Harris, 1993).
Tamaoke, Saklofske, and Ide (1993) indicated that nonverbal tests can be used as fair evaluation instruments of culturally and linguistically different children. "Mexican American children performed significantly better on nonverbal than on verbal intelligence tests" (Clark, 1992, p. 222).
The use of nontraditional and culturally sensitive methods of observation will allow more students to be identified as gifted (Irby, et al., 1997). Borland and Wright (1994) suggested using observation, portfolio assessment and case study methods, especially with economically disadvantaged students. Whoever makes the assessment of Hispanic students should speak their native language and have an understanding of the cultural and linguistic differences (Ortiz & Gonz�lez, 1989). Informal and dynamic assessment procedures providing a holistic measure of a student's performance in many different contexts should be used to identify GT, LEP students so that these students do not remain in ESL or bilingual classrooms without being served (Robisheaux & Banbury, 1994).
Effective solutions depend upon a change in our views about giftedness in minority groups, how we use these new views to develop procedures that better address giftedness in the diverse groups, using multiple assessment procedures that are culturally and linguistically appropriate, and preparing teachers to recognize the creative behaviors of minority students (Frasier, 1997). Gonz�lez, et al. (1994) believed that we need to incorporate cultural features in verbal and nonverbal cognitive development, rely more on nonverbal measures of intelligence rather than on verbal measures, and include people from the community of the child as informants in the nomination process. In addition to the recommendations already mentioned, others include providing information about students' strengths, providing situations where students can display skills other than verbal/logical, providing a checklist that includes characteristics shown to be traits for GT minority students, and observing the students in school and other settings (Harris & Weismantel, 1991).
Identifying GT students from linguistically and culturally diverse populations benefits individuals and society (Harris, 1993) as the leaders of tomorrow are in the schools of today (Davis & Rimm, 1985). "We cannot risk the loss of a mind as great as that of Einstein who like many minorities would not have been included in a program for the gifted" (Baldwin, 1991, p.423).
Purpose of the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument is a teacher administered screening inventory of characteristics that are centered within the Hispanic culture, and it is based on research that has been centered solely within this cultural group. It is designed for use with Hispanic bilingual students in grades Kindergarten through four for the specific purpose of screening students to enter into the pool of potentially gifted who will be referred for further testing. Although this instrument was designed for the specific purpose of screening only, and although it has not been evaluated as one of the instruments on a school district's identification matrix, it is possible, based on the use of other such instruments over time, that the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument could be included as one component of an identification matrix as a teacher observation rating scale.
Description of the Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening instrument
The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument is the product of an extensive review of literature and data gathered through questionnaires to institutions serving gifted programs. The Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument was initiated with 90 items in 1992 . These 90 items were derived from over 400 characteristics found in the literature that related to one or more of the following classifications: gifted Hispanics (also in bilingual education), Hispanic familial/sociological/linguistic/academic characteristics, Hispanic elementary students, and diverse gifted populations, including minority, rural, and urban. The Hispanic literature surveyed included the following categories of Hispanics: Latino, Chicano, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Mexican, Mexican-American, Central American, and South American. Further testing reduced the 90 items to 78 items and eleven clusters. Those clusters follow: Cluster 1- Social and Academic Language, Cluster 2-Cultural Sensitivity, Cluster 3- Familial, Cluster 4- Motivation for Learning, Cluster 5- Collaboration, Cluster 6- Imagery, Cluster 7-Achievement, Cluster 8-Support, Cluster 9- Creative Performance, Cluster 10- Problem-Solving, and Cluster 11- Locus of Control.
How to Use the HBGSI
The HBSGSI may be used in total or may be used in short form. In either case, local norms should be calculated based on mean scores for the group being tested. The following procedure is recommended.
1.  The classroom teacher should complete the HBGSI for each child in her/his classroom.
2.  For each classroom or grade level, a mean score should be calculated (This is calculated by the computer program online.).
3.  Each child who scores above the mean score should be referred for further assessment .
Note: Ongoing research continues with concurrent validity studies. Currently we are working on the cross analysis with the Bilingual Verbal Abilities Test and other scales. Current work is underway to have the program compute and report standard deviations within classrooms and grade levels, thus, providing a standardized format for score reports. At this point, mean scores are legitimate scores to use locally and for screening. To use the instrument for identification, the standardized format would be encouraged. Manually, the scores can be transformed into T scores for the examination of local norms.
Defining Terms
The HBGSI takes into account our definition and construct of the Hispanic bilingual child which is based on Joe Renzulli's original definition of "above average intelligence, creativity, and task commitment." However, as important as the general descriptors are, there are constructs that are critical to defining the Hispanic bilingual gifted child and which encircle the general definition of giftedness-- socio-linguistic-academic-cultural constructs.
Generally, in gifted education programs there are three phases in the identification process:
1. Nomination or referral
2. Assessment
3. Recommendation for placement
The HBGSI can be used in Phase 1 of the identification process as a referral instrument that would move the student to Phase 2-Assessment.
Additionally, the HBGSI can be used within a district's matrix for Phase 3-Recommendation for placement.
Other potential instruments for use with Hispanic English language learning students who demonstrate gifted potential within a district matrix follow:
  • Tejas Lee
  • Aprenda
  • La Prueba
  • Bateria Woodcock
  • SABE
  • Naglieri Nonverbal Abilities Test (NNAT)
  • Bilingual Verbal Abilities Tests (BVAT)
  • Hispanic Bilingual Gifted Screening Instrument
  • Ethnographic assessment procedures
  • Dynamic assessment procedures
  • Portfolio assessment
  • SABE
  • Test scores
  • Teacher observation
  • Behavioral checklists
  • Past school performance
  • Parent interview
  • Writing samples or other samples of creativity/achievement
  • Input from cultural group
Abbott, J. (1982). An anthropological approach to the identification of Navajo gifted children. In Identifying and educating the disadvantaged gifted/talented. Selected proceedings from the fifth national conference on disadvantaged gifted/talented. Los Angeles, CA; The National/State Leadership Training Institute on the Gifted and the Talented.
Baldwin, A.Y. (1991). Ethnic and cultural issues. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G.A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp.416-427). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Barkan, J.H., & Bernal, E.M. (1991). Gifted education for bilingual and limited English proficient students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 3, 144-147.
Berm�dez, A.B., & Rakow, S.J. (1990). Analyzing teachers' perceptions of identification procedures for gifted and talented Hispanic limited English proficient (LEP) students at-risk. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students, 7, 21-33.
Borland, J.H., & Wright, L. (1994). Identifying young, potentially gifted, economically disadvantaged students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 4, 164-171.
Center for Demographic and Socioeconomic Research and Education (1996). A Texas challenged: Population projections for a changing state. College Station, TX: Department of Rural Sociology, Texas A & M University.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th edition). New York: Macmillan.
Cohen, L.M. (1988). Meeting the needs of gifted and talented minority language students: Issues and practices. Silver Spring, MD: National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 309 592).
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G.A. (Eds.). (1991). Handbook of gifted education. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1985). Education of the gifted and talented. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
Davis, G.A., & Rimm, S.B. (1989). Education of the gifted and talented (revised ed.) Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Day, J.C. (1993). Population projections of the United States by age. sex. race. and Hispanic origin: 1993 to 2050. (U.S. Bureau of the Census, Current Population Reports, P2~1 104). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Frasier, M.M. (1991). Disadvantaged and culturally diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 14.3, 234-245.
Frasier, M.M. (1997). Gifted minority students: Reframing approaches to their identification and education. In Colangelo, N. & Davis, G.A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.) (pp.498-515). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Gonz�lez, V. (1993). How to differentially diagnose normal second language learning from true handicapping conditions: A qualitative-developmental approach. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Association for Bilingual Education, Houston, TX. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 356650).
Gonz�lez, V., Bauerle, P., & Felix-Holt, M. (199211993). A qualitative assessment method for accurately diagnosing bilingual gifted children. In Malave, LM. (Ed.) Annual Conference Journal NABE '92-'93. (pp.37-51). (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372640).
Gonz�lez, V., & Yawkey, T. (1993). The assessment of culturally and linguistically different students: Celebrating change. Education Horizons. 41-49.
Harris, C.R. (1993). Identifying and serving recent immigrant children who are gifted.
[On-line], Available: http :www.ed. gov/databases/ERIC_Digests/ed358676.html.
Harris, C.R. (1991). Identifying and serving the gifted new immigrant Teaching Exceptional Children. 23.4, 26-30.
Harris, D.M., & Weismantel, J. (1991). Bilingual gifted and talented students. In Ambert, A.N. (Ed.), Bilingual education and English as a second language: A research handbook. 1988-1990. New York & London: Garland Publishing, Inc.
Irby, B., Hernandez, L., Torres, D., & Gonzales, C. (1997). The correlation between teacher perceptions of giftedness and the Hispanic bilingual screening instrument. Unpublished manuscript.
Irby, B., & Lara-Alecio, R. (1996). Attributes of Hispanic gifted bilingual students as perceived by bilingual educators in Texas. New York SABE Journal. 11. 120-142.
Lashaway-Bokina, N. (1996). Gifted, but gone: High ability, Mexican-American, female dropouts. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Connecticut, 1996).
Leung, E.K. (1981). The identification and social problems of gifted bilingual-biculturalchildren. Paper presented at the Council for Exceptional Children Conference on the Exceptional Bilingual Child, New Orleans, LA.
Marquez, J.A., Berm�dez, A.B., & Rakow. S.J. (1992). Incorporating community perceptions in the identification of gifted and talented Hispanic students. The Journal of Educational Issues of Language Minority Students. 10.117-127.
Maxwell, S. (1992). Limited-English-proficient Hispanic students-identification and programming for gifted students. In Berger, S.L. Programs & Practices in GiftedEducation: Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act of 1988 project. (pp.59-62). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. (Report no. R1880620007). (ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children).
McKenzie, J.A. (1986). The influence of identification practices, race, and SES on the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 30.93-95.
Melesky, T.J. (1985). Identifying and providing for the Hispanic gifted child. NABE Journal. 9.43-56. Office of Educational Research and Improvement. (1993). National excellence: A case for developing America's talent. (PIP 93-1201). Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Ortiz, V.Z., & Gonz�lez, A. (1989). Validation of a short form of the WISC-R with accelerated and gifted Hispanic students. Gifted Child Quarterly. 33.4,152-155.
Ortiz, V., & Volloff, W. (1987). Identification of gifted and accelerated Hispanic students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted. 11(1). 45-53.
Oxford-Carpenter, R., Pol, L., Lopenz, D., Stupp, P., Gendell, M. & Peng, S. (1984). Demographic projections of non-English-language-background and limited-English-proficient persons in the United States in the year 2000 by state. age. and language group. Rosslyn, VA: Interamerica Research Associates, National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
Robisheaux, J., & Banbury, M.M. (1994). Students who don't fit the mold. Gifted Child Today, 17, 28-31.
Sawyer, C.B. (1993). Identifying gifted and talented students with limited English proficiency. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Houston, 1993).
Smith, J., LeRose, B., & Clasen, R.E. (1991). Underrepresentation of minority students in gifted programs: Yes! It matters!. Gifted Child Quarterly. 35.2, 81-83.
Stronge, J.H., Lynch, C.K., & Smith, C.R. (1987). Educating the culturally disadvantaged gifted student. The School Counselor.34. 336-341.
Tamaoke, K., Saklofske, D.H., & Ide, M. (1993). The nonverbal reasoning ability of Japanese children measured by Naglieri's (1985) Matrix Analogies Test-Short Form. Psychologia: An International Journal of Psychology in the Orient. 36.53-60.
Torrance, E.P. (1973). Non-test indication of creative talent among disadvantaged children. Gifted Child Quarterly. 17(1). 3-9.
United States Department of Education. (1991). National educational longitudinal study 88. Final report: Gifted and talented education programs for eighth grade public school students. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Budget, and Evaluation.
United States Department of Education. (1995). National household education Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.