Szymanski VD 2018

738989
research-article2017
JOAXXX10.1177/1932202X17738989Journal of Advanced AcademicsSzymanski et al.
Article
Journal of Advanced Academics
2018, Vol. 29(1) 29–55
Determining Attitudes © The Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permissions:
Toward Ability: A New Tool sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X17738989
https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17738989
for New Understanding journals.sagepub.com/home/joaa
Antonia Szymanski1, Laurie Croft2, and Brian Godor3
Abstract
The purpose of this study is to explore teacher attitudes toward gifted students in
several distinct areas and to provide psychometric evidence of reliability and validity
for the use of an instrument titled “Determining Attitudes Toward Ability” (DATA)
to measure specific components of teacher attitudes. Subscales of Focus on Others,
Problems With Acceleration, Grade Skipping, Identification, and Curriculum/Policy
and ranking the goals of gifted programming allow precise understanding of teacher
attitudes regarding important factors in gifted education. This study represents
the initial efforts to provide a psychometrically evaluated instrument that reflects
developments in the field of gifted education.
Keywords
gifted, instrument development, instruments, professional development, survey,
teacher education, teachers
Teachers profoundly influence the educational experience of students (Swanson &

Lord, 2013). Flynt and Brozo (2009) noted that, in general, teachers have a larger
influence on student achievement than any other factor. In addition to serving as “the
most important school-related” catalysts for academic growth (Rice, 2003, p. v.), teach-
ers are influential in the psychosocial development of students by demonstrating their
care and expectations for success (National Commission on Teaching and America’s
1Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

2University
of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
3Erasmus University Rotterdam, The Netherlands
Corresponding Author:
Antonia Szymanski, Assistant Professor, Western Kentucky University, 1906 College Heights Blvd., 1005
Gary Ransdell Hall, Bowling Green, KY 42101-1000, USA.
Email: [email protected]
30 Journal of Advanced Academics 29(1)
Future, 1996). Teachers’ attitudes toward students can considerably affect students’
motivation and course enjoyment, and gifted students appear to be more affected by
teachers’ attitudes and actions than other students (Croft, 2003; Dworkin, 1987;
Wilson, 2006). Teachers are especially important in the lives of gifted students as
they are often the initial recommenders of students for gifted services. Roberts
(2006) has stated that teachers may be unaware that the strengths of gifted students
actually create needs. McCoach and Siegle (2007), also noted the importance of class-
room teachers in meeting the needs of gifted students. “Without the support of regular
education teachers and administrators, gifted educators are virtually powerless to insti-
tute the curricular and instructional changes necessary to challenge and stimulate the
nation’s gifted students” (p. 247).
Teachers hold implicit beliefs about learning as well as students’ abilities (Croft &
Wood, 2015; Fang, 1996; García-Cepero & McCoach, 2009; Jones, Bryant, Snyder, &
Malone, 2012; Kagan, 1992). These beliefs stem from thousands of hours spent in
schools as students, and are reinforced in teacher education programs and district
classrooms. In addition, these beliefs and attitudes are largely unexamined; yet, they
influence teachers’ interactions with students, affecting, for example, nominations for
gifted programs and differentiating curricular experiences for high-ability learners.
Although A. Robinson and Kolloff (2006) indicated that modifications to create a
more appropriate learning environment for gifted students may include allowing them
to move through the curriculum at a more rapid pace than typically expected, unin-
formed beliefs and negative attitudes toward allowing students to move ahead may
discourage the use of options for acceleration. Left unexamined, teachers’ beliefs can
undermine changes in classrooms and school districts, and cause resistance to profes-
sional development programs (J. Robinson, Myran, Strauss, & Reed, 2014). The pur-
pose of this study is to investigate general education teachers’ attitudes toward gifted
students and their perceptions regarding the goals of gifted programming by introduc-
ing a new instrument for measuring teachers’ attitudes related to gifted students that
will be useful for designing professional development and determining programming
goals.
Background
General Background on Attitudes
Attitudes are important factors that influence behavior. Ajzen (2002) proposed a the-
ory of planned behavior to predict social behavior. This research suggests that the
attitude toward the behavior, the social pressure to perform or not to perform a behav-
ior, and the perception of individual control or self-efficacy with regard to the perfor-
mance are statistically significant predictors of the behavioral intentions of the
individual. Teo and van Schaik (2012) employed the theory of planned behavior to
compare teachers’ attitudes toward using technology with their actual intended behav-
ior, finding that teachers’ attitudes have the largest effect on teachers’ behavior inten-
tions. Other researchers have confirmed the strong relationship between teachers’
Szymanski et al. 31
educational attitudes and their teaching practices (Nespor, 1987; Pajares, 1992).
Therefore, teachers’ attitudes regarding gifted students, their support for gifted ser-
vices or lack thereof, and their feelings of control and self-efficacy can be seen as
important determinants as to their teaching practice as it relates to meeting the needs
of gifted students. Understanding and enhancing teachers’ attitudes toward nurturing
gifted learners is critical.
Teachers’ beliefs and attitudes toward gifted students tend to be formed through
experience—or a lack of experience (Xiang, Dahlin, Cronin, Theaker, & Durant,
2011)—rather than through preservice education about the nature and needs of these
students. Moreover, most teachers do not receive training in their preservice education
or during their in-service work that focuses specifically on gifted students (National
Association for Gifted Children & Council of State Directors of Programs for the
Gifted, 2013). Teachers studied by Geake and Gross (2008) acknowledged the cogni-
tive characteristics of gifted students yet still expressed negative attitudes toward
them. The study indicated that teachers viewed gifted students as socially noncompli-
ant and deviants. Carman (2011) found that a majority of both preservice and in-ser-
vice teachers held negative stereotypical attitudes toward gifted students. Such
negative feelings may be communicated both verbally and nonverbally to students,
thus affecting student motivation and engagement (Wilson, 2006). Wilson (2006)
found that students’ perceptions of teachers’ attitudes predicted student motivation,
academic achievement, and reported enjoyment of the classroom experience. Perceived
teachers’ attitudes accounted for 58% of the variance in motivation and 42% of class
appreciation. Indeed, statistically significant correlations were found between motiva-
tion and instructor’s attitude (r = .60, p < .001) as well as motivation and instructor’s
concern for students (r = .74, p < .001) (Wilson, 2006). Thus, professional develop-
ment is critical for increasing teacher awareness of the needs of gifted students and
creating positive attitudes toward meeting these needs.
Individual characteristics. Individual experiences and education shape ways in which

people view the world. Indeed, individual background characteristics such as education
level, gender, and teaching experience have been shown to influence teaching practices
in general and teaching practices relating to gifted students specifically (Bégin &
Gagné, 1994; Brown, Avery, VanTassel-Baska, Worley, & Stambaugh, 2006; Carman,
2011; Geake & Gross, 2008; Jung, 2014; McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Troxclair, 2013). In
their meta-analysis of 35 studies, Bégin and Gagné (1994) found several statistically
significant results reported for participants’ contact with gifted children, level of educa-
tion, past participation in a gifted program, gender, teaching level, teachers versus par-
ents, and training in giftedness. Of these variables, contact with gifted children, gender
of the respondent, and teachers versus parents produced consistently statistically sig-
nificant and reproducible results. Brown et al. (2005) also found statistically significant
differences between teachers of the gifted, consultants, and general education teachers
in regard to the “Restricted Assessment” subscale that measured participants’ agree-
ment with statements regarding the process of identifying and serving gifted students.
Furthermore, statistically significant differences were found with their Ongoing
Assessment Scale. These findings indicated that teachers who primarily interact with
gifted children have different perceptions regarding identification than classroom
teachers and administrators (Brown et al., 2006). More recently, Jung (2014) found a
statistically significant positive correlation between Australian preservice teachers who
reported a high level of personal interaction with gifted people and their support for
gifted programming. Jung noted that frequent contact may lead to a deeper, personal
understanding of the particular needs of gifted individuals. Thus, the time spent with
gifted people on a personal level may lead to positive overall attitudes toward supporting
gifted students. It may be that these experiences challenge previously held beliefs
through direct interaction. Jung also found that older age was positively correlated to
supporting the needs of gifted students. This finding supports the idea that with life
experience, personal beliefs may be changed. Carman (2011) also reported a medium
effect size negative correlation between years of teaching experience and the number of
stereotypical beliefs expressed by teachers. It is important to investigate multiple back-
ground variables to understand their influence on various aspects of attitudes toward
gifted learners and their needs. As previous research has shown, the results have been
mixed and require further exploration.
Professional Development
The effects of professional development for teachers regarding the needs of gifted
students have been mixed. Starko and Schack (1989) suggested that increased educa-
tion and training as well as experience working with advanced learners increased
teacher perception of the importance of specialized strategies and the actual use of
such strategies. Eyre and Geake (2002) reported that teachers who held negative ste-
reotypes of gifted learners were less likely to seek educational opportunities to learn
more about these students and their needs. Farkas and Duffett (2005), however, found
that 90% of teachers, in a randomly selected nationally representative sample of 900
public school teachers, indicated a desire to receive more professional development to
develop skills to help advanced learners. Effective professional development is needed
to facilitate explicit teacher reflection on beliefs about and attitudes toward gifted
students, as well as the adoption of instructional practices that support advanced learn-
ers (A. Robinson & Kolloff, 2006).
Warford (2011) noted that the sociocultural approach for professional development
highlights the need for learning experiences that expand teachers’ understanding. The
sociocultural approach to teacher development began with the notion that teachers
replicate the style of teaching that they have personally experienced as a student. Thus,
those teachers who did not receive gifted programming may lack a personal frame of
reference regarding the characteristics and needs of gifted students. If teachers were
not identified and served as gifted students and have not received preservice education
on the characteristics and needs of gifted learners, then one might question what
informed the teachers’ practice of serving gifted and talented students. It is important
to understand teachers’ initial understanding and attitudes to create targeted profes-
sional development that will result in lasting change.
Szymanski et al. 33
For professional development to be effective, a preassessment is necessary to create

a baseline of teachers’ attitudes and understanding. This preassessment could inform
future professional development activities by focusing on key areas for growth rather
than repeating basic information. Those conducting the assessment need a tool that is
easy to administer and indicates clear areas requiring training and further discussion.
Myths in Gifted Education

Despite robust research in gifted education regarding characteristics and needs of
gifted students, some myths remain persistent in the general population. Cross (2002)
indicated several pervasive myths that focus on preparing gifted students for functioning
in a heterogeneous society. These myths, which remain unsupported by research,
predict social maladjustment if gifted children are not grouped with their age-mates or
allowed to pursue an area of interest instead of participating in activities typical of
their age and gender. Well-meaning adults may cause serious emotional distress by
acting on these myths in the absence of research-based knowledge. The pervasive
nature of myths regarding the needs of gifted students is so great that Gifted Child
Quarterly dedicated a special issue in 2009 detailing 19 of the most widespread inac-
curacies in gifted education. The issue addressed myths relating to the nature of gifted-
ness, identification, social and emotional needs of gifted learners, curriculum and
programming, and creativity. The articles written by leaders in the field debunked the
myths and provided research-based information. Yet, teacher and administrative
behaviors still demonstrate belief in these the myths and folklore. It is imperative to
determine which areas need professional development to not only provide evidence
against the myths but to help teachers and administrators change beliefs based on false
information.
Because general education teachers have little background in gifted education,
greater awareness of evidence-based knowledge about appropriate strategies in
specific areas such as acceleration and identification of diverse gifted students is
essential to both explore implicit attitudes and develop appropriate skills. For example,
Colangelo, Assouline, and Gross (2004) detailed myths that may discourage educators
from allowing students to move through curriculum at a faster pace than average
children (acceleration). Teachers who are unaware of the extensive research-based
findings that underpin acceleration as an educational strategy may believe these myths
and feel that it is safer to do nothing. Baldwin (2004), Lohman (2005), and Ford,
Grantham, and Whiting (2008) have highlighted the need for teachers and program
administrators to increase their awareness of barriers that may prevent diverse students
from fully displaying their academic potential and from being included in special
programs for high-ability learners. It is important for educators to utilize current
research to improve the educational experience for gifted students. Accurately identifying
gaps in teacher knowledge about acceleration and identification as well as other attitudes
and knowledge regarding the needs of gifted students, is a challenge. An instrument
that allows those planning professional development to quickly determine the areas
that need the most attention would be beneficial.
Measuring Attitudes
The words beliefs and attitudes are often used synonymously in education; however, a
review of the literature shows clear distinctions. Richardson (1996) noted, “Attitudes
and beliefs are a subset of a group of constructs that name, define, and describe, the
structure and content of mental states that are thought to drive a person’s actions”
(p. 103). The difference between these two constructs is that beliefs are more cognitive
in nature. Beliefs are individual understandings believed to be true. Thus, a person has
beliefs about a specific topic. Attitudes are described as affective. They are the feelings
and emotions related to personal experiences regarding a topic (Wilkins, 2008). A
person has attitudes or feelings toward a topic. Beliefs are the cognitive understanding
that underpins attitudes, which are affective responses to an individual, object, or
situation. For example, if teachers have the cognitive misunderstanding that gifted
children do not require special instruction, then they may have negative attitudes
toward providing individual curriculum. Therefore, while beliefs are the building
blocks regarding the understanding of a topic, attitudes are thought to influence action.
Exploring teachers’ attitudes may provide important insight regarding how these
attitudes influence teaching practice.
While teachers typically have an overall positive personal attitude toward gifted
learners (McCoach & Siegle, 2007; Troxclair, 2013), their attitudes regarding the
specific educational needs of gifted students may vary. For example, while teachers
may feel positive about gifted students in general, they may have negative views about
providing specialized curriculum to meet their educational needs. Specificity would be
lost if scores on personal attitude and curricular attitudes were combined, limiting the
potential efficacy of professional development efforts. By examining specific areas,
they can be targeted for research exploration and professional learning.
Attitudes predispose individual action; therefore, understanding attitudes may help
to predict behaviors in response to perceived goals of gifted programming. This could
be particularly useful when trying to understand how teachers with negative attitudes
toward acceleration may respond when the goal of gifted programming is to challenge
students by offering them curriculum at a higher grade level. It is important to examine
teachers’ perceived goals of gifted programming to understand the relationship
between their attitudes and support of various goals.
Although several researchers have created surveys to measure attitudes toward
giftedness, Gagné and Nadeau created the most recent psychometrically evaluated
instrument in 1991. This survey has been widely used as a formative and summative
assessment for teacher professional development and has been administered to both
educators and parents. The Gagné and Nadeau (1991) instrument has facilitated
studies that have both furthered the field and shaped professional development in
gifted education. The instrument was designed for use with teachers and parents and
was created at what was perceived as an initial period of Canadian public awareness
regarding the needs of gifted students (Gagné & Nadeau, 1991). Gagné and Nadeau
identified the six factors that comprised the overall attitude as needs and support,
resistance to objections, social value, rejection, ability grouping, and school
Szymanski et al. 35
acceleration. The instrument scoring guide indicated that these six areas should be
added together to obtain an overall attitude score.
Since the development of the Gagné and Nadeau survey, the field has evolved in
meaningful ways in respect to the understanding of acceleration and identification of
diverse students. Instruments have been specifically developed to reflect the new emphases
on acceleration (Hoogeveen, van Hell, & Verhoeven, 2005; Southern, Jones, & Fiscus,
1989). However, an instrument that provides information regarding several areas of
gifted education has not been available. The Determining Attitudes Toward Ability
(DATA) scale has been created to measure teacher attitudes in the multiple aspects of
gifted education. Specifically the instrument was created to help determine teacher
attitudes in regard to identifying and serving the needs of gifted students compared with
those of regular or special education students (focusing on others), grade skipping,
acceleration concerns, identification, and curriculum and policy. A final section of the
DATA, called Goals of Gifted Programming, asks participants to rank the goals of
gifted programming to help understand how various perspectives of programming could
relate to attitudes. These areas will be explored in detail throughout the study.
Areas of Interest in Measuring Attitudes

Focus on others. Geake and Gross (2008) produced evidence that suggested that teachers
in their study had negative feelings regarding gifted students. Disaffection, or negative
attitude, could explain why many teachers fail to acknowledge the unique needs of
gifted learners in the classroom. Using the Gagné and Nadeau (1991) Opinions About
the Gifted and Their Education Scale, both McCoach and Siegle (2007) and Troxclair
(2013) found conflicting attitudes in teachers with regard to gifted learners. Although
the Gagné and Nadeau instrument indicated six separate factor scores, McCoach and
Siegle did not find factors emerging that coincided with those of Gagné and Nadeau’s;
therefore, they conducted their own factor analysis and named the resulting factors
accordingly. The items comprising their factors focused on Support (α = .76), feelings
of Elitism toward gifted education (α = .80), and attitudes regarding Acceleration (α=
.71), which were similar to the Gagné and Nadeau factors but varied slightly in the
items composing them. Troxclair, who used subscale designs from both Gagné and
Nadeau and McCoach and Siegle, found that preservice teachers held high scores on
both the Resistance to Objectives (Gagné and Nadeau Scale) and Elitism (McCoach &
Siegle, 2007) subscales. These subscales measured the degree to which the respondents
held negative views regarding the need for special programming for gifted students,
respectively. Although these subscales did have some overlap, there were items in each
that varied. McCoach and Siegle reported the mean score on the Elitism subscale which
favors the needs of nongifted students over those of gifted students was M = 4.02 ranking
this subscale as the second highest. These findings showed that teachers held strong
feelings regarding the importance of focusing on the needs of nongifted students even
if they recognize that gifted students require support.
These studies suggest a necessity to focus on specific aspects of teachers’ attitudes
that directly influence gifted students’ experience. Troxclair (2013) found that although
preservice teachers understood the need for support for gifted learners, they were
generally opposed to specific research-based practices that would meet their needs.
Even if teachers recognized that gifted students deserved and required specialized
approaches to education, the belief that providing interventions might negatively
affect general education, students overrode this acknowledgment resulted in few
curricular interventions.
Grade skipping. Grade skipping has been used as a form of intervention for gifted
learners for many years. It still remains controversial, even though research
has indicated the risks are minimal (Assouline, Colangelo, VanTassel-Baska, &
Lupkowski-Shoplik, 2015). The roles of teachers in supporting this intervention are
critical to its success. Despite decades of solid research, practitioners often make decisions
regarding acceleration based on folklore or personal beliefs (Lupkowski-Shoplik,
Assouline, & Colangelo, 2015). A common idiom in American culture is early to rise,
early to rot. This saying, which dates back to the early 1900s, expressed the idea that
if children are allowed to advance ahead of their age-mates, they will eventually meet
with failure academically or professionally due to the pressure. Terman (1925) was
motivated to conduct his landmark study, in part, to provide evidence against this idea.
Since Terman’s study, several scholars have shown that gifted learners who are
provided with appropriate educational options, including grade skipping, do not struggle
academically or psychologically at any rates higher than the general population and
indeed are quite successful (Larsen McClarty, 2015; Park, Lubinski, & Benbow,
2013). A belief that allowing students to move ahead will lead to devastation later in
life could preclude allowing students to move ahead a grade especially in elementary
years. School personnel may recognize the need to alter the curriculum to meet the
needs of gifted students but may still refuse to allow a grade skip because of personal
attitudes. Lupkowski-Shoplik et al. (2015) found that even if teachers recognized the
academic needs of gifted students, they were still reluctant to allow students to be
accelerated into classes with students who were older. Understanding the specific
attitudes regarding grade skipping could provide useful information for professional
development to help dispel myths surrounding this topic. Professional development in
this area may help provide the catalyst needed to allow teachers to learn the facts of the
research and change their attitudes.
Acceleration concerns. It is important to highlight the many alternate forms of acceleration

to grade skipping because teachers hold different views regarding acceleration that
does not involve students moving ahead a grade. Southern and Jones (2004) identified
18 different types of acceleration. Whole-grade skipping was only one of the options
that included early entrance to elementary school, curriculum compacting, subject-
matter acceleration, Advanced Placement courses, concurrent dual enrollment, and
early college entry. More recently, this list was expanded to include International
Baccalaureate, Distance Learning, and Accelerated/Honors High School or Residential
High School on a College Campus (Southern & Jones, 2015), thus illustrating the
many forms of acceleration that are available for gifted students. Southern and Jones
Szymanski et al. 37
(2015) noted five dimensions that could be used to distinguish among different means
of acceleration, including “pacing, salience, peers, access, and timing” (Southern &
Jones, 2015, p. 11). Pacing is the extent to which the rate of instruction varies from the
norm. Salience refers to the extent to which the acceleration intervention is obvious to
others. Peers addresses concerns about students being separated from their similar-aged
classmates. Access refers to the ability of the school district to provide acceleration
opportunities for their students. Timing addresses the point in the school career in
which the acceleration occurs (Southern & Jones, 2015). Teachers and their adminis-
trators may hold different attitudes and understandings regarding the five dimensions
of acceleration and may be more inclined to support certain forms of acceleration over
others. Assessing teacher knowledge and attitudes about various forms of acceleration
is beneficial for creating professional development that can help to expand their under-
standing and move beyond seeing acceleration as simply skipping a grade.
Identification. Teacher knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs are important because teachers
are gatekeepers to gifted programming (Schroth & Helfer, 2008; Siegle & Powell,
2004; Speirs-Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon, 2007). Schroth and
Helfer found that 87% of the participants in their study rated teacher nomination as an
effective method of identifying academically gifted students. Teacher nominations
were ranked second to standardized tests by all of the participants as a means of iden-
tifying gifted students. Siegle and Powell (2004) found statistically significant differ-
ences between classroom teachers and gifted coordinators in recommending students
for gifted programs. The gifted coordinators in their study focused more on student
strengths than weaknesses when nominating students for programming, thus suggest-
ing that general education teachers may not fully be aware of the characteristics of
gifted students or may overlook them while focusing on student deficits. Speirs-Neu-
meister et al. (2007) expressed concern, based on their study results, that teachers may
not recognize gifted underachieving students. These teachers were also unable to
understand the relationship between boredom and underachievement in the classroom
and the need for appropriate curricular interventions. They seemed to have difficulty
in identifying strengths in students for whom they had concerns, leading the authors to
question whether such a lack of awareness might lead to underrepresentation of diverse
students due to a deficit model that teachers hold.
Several studies have found that lack of understanding regarding identification of
diverse gifted learners could potentially interfere with recommendations for program-
ming (Elhoweris, Mutua, Alsheikh, & Holloway, 2005; Hargrove & Seay, 2011;
McBee, 2006; Szymanski & Shaff, 2013). Szymanski and Shaff (2013) noted that
teachers in their study struggled with the ideas of truly gifted students and the perfor-
mance of Hispanic low socioeconomic status (SES) students who comprised their stu-
dent population, which suggested that teachers’ personal understanding of the
characteristics of giftedness was limited. Elhoweris et al. (2005) found that students’
ethnicity was a statistically significant factor influencing teachers’ referral for gifted
programming for elementary school students. McBee (2006) reported that, in the state
of Georgia, non-White or low-income students were less likely to be nominated for
gifted programming. In his study, McBee found that African American students were
nominated at a rate of 31% of Caucasian students. Finally, Hargrove and Seay (2011)
found that 49.9% of the teachers in their study indicated that teachers’ inability to
recognize indicators of potential giftedness was a barrier for African American males’
participation in gifted programming. Teachers’ attitudes about identification for gifted
programs could be the determining factor in whether or not children receive appropri-
ate services to develop their potential.
Curriculum and policy. Teachers’ attitudes and understanding of the needs of gifted stu-
dents influence their decisions regarding curriculum and teaching practice. As the
manager of the classroom, teachers choose the content and means of instruction. Those
with a positive attitude toward meeting the needs of all learners are more likely to
engage in teaching practices such as differentiation, cluster grouping, and individual-
ized instruction (Missett, Brunner, Callahan, Moon, & Azano, 2014; Plunkett & Kro-
nborg, 2011). Plunkett and Kronborg (2011) found that preservice teachers who took
just one course on the needs of gifted education made statistically significant changes
in their attitudes regarding the needs of gifted learners and the roles of the classroom
teacher in meeting those needs. Missett et al. (2014) reported that teachers’ attitudes in
their study were influential in the decisions that teachers made concerning the pacing
of instruction and grouping students. These teachers’ attitudes also reflected whether
teachers made instructional decisions based on viewing the class as a unit or recogniz-
ing individual students who comprised the class. Such educational modifications
aimed to engage gifted students by matching the teaching practices to their level and
pace of learning.
Modifying teaching practices and curricula takes time. Teachers’ time is already
stretched thin. Farkas and Duffett (2005) found that nationwide, 63% of teachers indi-
cated that struggling students receive the most overall attention in the school, 13%
indicated average students, 7% reported advanced students get the most overall atten-
tion, and 16% reported that students received equal amounts of attention. In this same
report, 73% of the participating teachers agreed with the statement, “Too often, the
brightest students are bored and under-challenged in school—we’re not giving them a
sufficient chance to thrive” (Farkas & Duffett, 2005, p. 52). This lack of teacher atten-
tion could result in disengagement or underachievement by students whose academic
needs are not being met. It is critical that teachers’ attitudes and understanding regard-
ing the curricular needs of gifted students are examined to provide professional devel-
opment that highlights the needs of advanced learners.
Goals of gifted programming. As gatekeepers to identification and subsequent program-

ming, teachers play critical roles in influencing what, if any, services gifted learners
receive. An important aspect of the recommendation process is the teachers’ percep-
tions of the goals of the gifted program and how well they match the needs of the
students. Bain, Bliss, Choate, and Brown (2007b) found that when the goal for gifted
education was academic acceleration, preservice teachers overwhelmingly favored
pullout programs; however, if the goal was enrichment, the participants favored
Szymanski et al. 39
heterogeneous grouping within the classroom. The researchers also found differences
in programmatic choices between those who had personally been identified as gifted
and those who had not, reflecting the effect of personal experience on shaping atti-
tudes toward goals of gifted programming. Thus, understanding teachers’ perceptions
regarding the goals of gifted programming is a necessary step to explain their attitudes
in other areas relating to gifted services. For example, a teacher who believes enrich-
ment is the goal of gifted programming may hold negative views toward grade skip-
ping or other forms of acceleration. Conversely, teachers who support acceleration
may believe that the goal of gifted programming should be academic advancement of
capable students. Teachers’ attitudes, as well as their perceived goals for gifted pro-
gramming, provide a more complete image of perspectives shaping services for high-
ability learners.
Purpose
The purpose of this study is to explore teachers’ attitudes toward gifted students in
several distinct areas and to evaluate the psychometric evidence of reliability and
validity of scores obtained from the instrument titled Determining Attitudes Toward
Ability to measure specific components of teachers’ attitudes.
Method
Participants
Teachers (n = 350) from a mid-Western suburban school district were sent an elec-
tronic link with an invitation to take an online survey. The superintendent of the dis-
trict and the University Insitutional Review Board (IRB) had approved the study, and
teachers were aware that their participation in the anonymous survey was being
requested to help create a district-wide assessment regarding the gifted program. The
first page of the survey featured an implied consent notification, and teachers were
made aware that the survey was voluntary and that by proceeding, they were consent-
ing to participate. The second page of the survey asked seven demographic questions
designed to introduce variables as potential predictors of attitudes on different sub-
scales. In addition to sex, years of teaching, grade level taught, and level of education,
participants were asked whether they regularly worked with gifted students, and
whether their schools had a gifted program.
A summary of the demographic question responses is shown in Table A1 (Appendix
A). As of 2011 to 2012, the United States National Center for Education Statistics
Schools and Staffing Survey indicated that 81.9% of teachers are Caucasian, 23.7%
are male, and 76.3% are female. It also indicated that 39.9% of all teachers hold bach-
elor’s degrees, 47.7% hold master’s degrees, and 7.6% held educational specialist
degree (U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics,
2012). The population for the current study mirrors the U.S. Schools and Staffing
Survey for public schools on teacher sex and closely resembles the census on level of
education. Teacher ethnicity was not asked in this survey; however, statewide teacher
information indicates that 2% of the state teachers were non-White. The district had a
total enrollment of 5,934 students. The student population was 84.3% Caucasian,
3.05% African American, 1.99% Asian, 6.38% Hispanic, 0.39% Pacific Islander, and
0.12% Native American. Twenty-seven percent of the students were eligible for free
and reduced-price lunch and 2.62% were identified as English language learners.
The demographic question asking whether participants “regularly work with gifted
students” was designed to gauge the level to which teachers recognized gifted students
in their classrooms, and to orient them toward the purpose of the survey. The final
demographic question asked respondents whether they or any close family member or
friend had ever been identified as gifted, uncovering any relationships between per-
sonal experience with gifted individuals and attitudes and understanding of giftedness.
Creating the DATA Instrument

Teachers’ attitudes toward and understanding of gifted students were measured using
the DATA scale, developed by the authors. McCoach, Gable, and Madura (2013)
offered 10 steps in the instrument development process. These steps served as a gen-
eral guide in the creation of the DATA scale. A thorough literature review was con-
ducted to identify any published questionnaires in gifted education, as well as to
ascertain themes that appeared in the research since the publication of the Gagné and
Nadeau scale. A total of five surveys were used as the operational foundation of the
current instrument including three recent surveys that had been published and two
older instruments that were included in the study because of their numerous citations
in research (Bain et al., 2007b; Gagné & Nadeau, 1991; Hoogeveen et al., 2005;
Southern et al., 1989; Wiener & O’Shea, 1963).
Following the methodology used by McCoach et al. (2013) and Gagné and Nadeau
(1991), we first created a descriptive table of variables from the five surveys and then
generalized the variables into 13 areas of focus. We then constructed a total of 92 ques-
tions that summarized important ideas from each of the areas. The questions were
submitted to a panel of four experts for review and comment. The panel was com-
prised of University professors in gifted education who had more than 80 years of
combined experience in the field of gifted education. They provided feedback in ques-
tion clarity and the appropriateness of the questions.
After the questions had been reviewed by the panel of experts, they were discussed
with a focus group of 12 general education teachers to provide clarity regarding teacher
understandings and perceptions of what was being asked. The focus group teachers
were participating in the first week of professional development in understanding the
needs of gifted children in their classroom and were excellent resources regarding
interpreting the questions. Focus group teachers and the researchers went through each
question individually to discuss the perceived meaning behind each question. The
teachers then took the survey and responded with their overall impressions of its pur-
pose. The feedback from the focus group resulted in minor modification of less than
10% of the questions to improve clarity and understanding.
Szymanski et al. 41
Once the wording of the questions had been reviewed with both experts and general
education teachers who had begun to learn more about gifted education, an original
instrument was created and tested to provide evidence of reliability and construct
validity. The initial survey was sent electronically to 124 participants in two school
districts. The initial pilot questionnaire had 92 Likert-type questions. Items used a
4-point Likert-type response scale ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree.
The original instrument used the Bain, Bliss, Choate, and Brown (2007a) questions of
asking the teachers their perceptions of the goals of gifted programming in elementary,
middle, and high school, and asked participants to prioritize a list of possible goals
such as “accelerating academic progress, developing creativity, providing enrichment
activities, developing self-esteem, and developing higher-order thinking skills” (p. 4).
The goal in creating this instrument was to provide a means by which researchers,
administrators, and those conducting professional development could identify specific
areas in attitudes toward and understanding of the needs of gifted students that would
benefit from focused professional development. As such, the original 92 questions
were expected to be reduced to a smaller number to facilitate the administration and
scoring of the survey. Of the original 92 questions, 18 were eliminated due to inade-
quate variance; the responses to these questions were too skewed to provide enough
differentiation in the responses to be useful.
The original hypothesized structure envisioned a 13-factor solution. However, ini-
tial exploratory factor analysis revealed a six-factor solution with 27 items resulting in
the best fit. The six-factor solution consisted of the final five subscales on the DATA
and one additional subscale called Social and Emotional Needs. Cronbach’s alphas
obtained by this sample and the number of questions in each subscale are listed in
Table A2. Based on the work by Cortina (1993) regarding the number of items in a
scale and acceptable levels of alpha reliability, a priori reliability of .6 was set as the
lowest threshold of reliability. Subsequent tests of reliability indicated five factors
with acceptable Cronbach’s alphas. Therefore, the “Social and Emotional” scale was
eliminated from the analysis revealing a parsimonious five-factor solution.
The final version of the DATA scale has five subscales. The subscales are as fol-
lows: Focus on Others, Grade Skipping, Acceleration Concerns, Identification, and
Curriculum and Policy. The DATA consists of 23 statements and asks users to indicate
how much they agree or disagree with the statement using a 4-point scale with 1 rep-
resenting strongly disagree and 4 representing strongly agree as shown in Appendix B.
The Focus on Others subscale asks questions that probe the level of priority the
participants place on promoting the good of the majority or providing resources to
students who are below average. High scores on this subscale reflect negative attitudes
toward special programming for gifted learners. The intent of this subscale is to deter-
mine perspectives that all students need appropriate educational opportunities, includ-
ing gifted children.
Although Southern and Jones (2004) identified 18 different types of acceleration,
most general education teachers view acceleration as grade skipping; therefore, the
subscale Grade Skip was created that specifically asks questions to determine the
teachers’ understanding of and attitudes toward whole-grade acceleration. High scores
on this subscale reflect positive attitudes regarding grade skipping.
As Colangelo et al. (2004) noted, it is not uncommon for teachers and administra-
tors to have misunderstandings and biases against accelerating students. The
Acceleration Concerns subscale lists four statements that specifically identify typical
misconceptions regarding acceleration. High scores on this subscale reflect negative
attitudes toward accelerating students through curriculum by any means.
The appropriate identification of students to participate in gifted programming has
been an issue of concern in the field. The Identification subscale reflects the extent to
which teachers have positive attitudes regarding identifying diverse learners for gifted
programming. This subscale is especially beneficial in light of recent developments in
the field regarding twice-exceptional and gifted English language learners.
The final subscale is Curriculum and Policy. This subscale lists five statements
regarding teacher lesson planning for gifted students as well as state and local policy
regarding gifted learners. High scores on this subscale indicate positive attitudes
toward designing lessons for gifted students and supporting policies that would
increase teacher training and services for gifted learners.
A unified or holistic score of overall attitude was not a priority because of the many
complex facets that comprise attitudes. The DATA questions did not converge to deter-
mine a single overall score for attitudes toward gifted students but rather provided
information regarding the specific subscale scores. Thus, an individual may score high
on Grade Skipping but score equally high on Focus on Others. These scores indicate
that the person may not only support allowing specific students skip a grade but also
hold beliefs that other students are more worthy of teachers’ time and school resources.
A combination of these two high scores would not yield a meaningful score, reflecting
the individual’s overall attitude toward practices that affect gifted learners.
Three additional questions were included in the DATA survey. These questions
asked the user to rank the goals of gifted programs in elementary, middle school, and
high school. These questions were based on the Bain et al. (2007a) survey that asked
teachers to rank five possible choices for programmatic goals. The benefit of open-
ended responses to these questions was allowing teachers and administrators to pro-
vide their own expressions of understanding. The responses were then coded to find
common themes. In this initial study of the DATA, important differences were found
in teachers’ perceptions of goals for elementary gifted programs compared with the
goals for middle and high school gifted programs. Recognizing that most end users
may not have the time or expertise to code hundreds of open-ended statements, the
most frequently cited goals are listed in the instrument included in Table A5. This
increased the number of ranking choices to 10 in the final instrument, compared with
the five offered by Bain et al. (2007a). The DATA can be used to provide a systematic
method of determining goals related to gifted programming as well as exploring how
teachers’ attitudes may influence the goals that they prioritize for gifted programs.
Statistical methods for instrument effectiveness. The current study sought to provide evi-
dence of the validity of the DATA as a tool that could be used to identify areas in need
of professional development with teachers with a new data set. Initial confirmatory
factor analyses were conducted to verify that the instrument was functioning as
Szymanski et al. 43
expected. Adequate fit indices were obtained (χ2 = 350.703, df = 219, p = .001; Chi-
squared minimum/degrees of freedom [CMIN/DF] = 1.45; root mean square error of
approximation [RMSEA] = .04; comparative fit index [CFI] = .90; P value for a close
model fit [PCLOSE] = .96; Bentler, 1990; Browne & Cudeck, 1993; Byrne, 2001; Hu
& Bentler, 1999) that indicated the proposed structural model fit the data well. Three
error residuals were correlated in the model; however, these correlations are within the
same factor. The covariation is presumably due to (a) shared method of data collection
(individual self-reporting) and (b) a small theoretical overlap in terms of content con-
tained in the operationalization of these variables. Thus, the error terms most likely
reflected common variance between the components, which has been found to be
acceptable in general practice (Cole, Ciesla, & Steiger, 2007). Table A3 provides
detailed variable information regarding factor loadings, t-values, and item reliability.
Due to the low sample size and some low factor loadings, the instrument is not recom-
mended for use by researchers at this time. Further revisions are being made to the ques-
tions and additional piloting is planned. The DATA is recommended to be used to plan
professional development rather than as a tool for statistical analysis in its present form.
Statistical Methods Used to Answer Research Questions Regarding

Teacher Attitudes
To fulfill the purpose of the study, descriptive statistics and corrections were calcu-
lated for the pilot data. Factor analysis was also done to analyze the pilot data with the
proposed model. In addition, frequency analysis was used to rank the responses to
open-ended questions regarding the goals of gifted programming.
Results
Table A4 presents the means and standard deviations of the subscales, which show that
the participants felt moderately positive regarding Identification and Curriculum and
Policy, and had lower scores on Grade Skip, Acceleration Concerns, and Focus on Others.
More variability was shown in the scores on Focus on Others (SD = .400) and Grade Skip
(SD = .405) than the other subscales whose standard deviations were less than .400.
Within the overall model, the estimates of the correlations provided the basis for
gaining insight into the proposed theoretical structure and the relationships among the
subscales. As shown in Table A4, the subscale Focus on Others had a statistically
significantly negative correlation to Curriculum and Policy (r = –.46, p < .05), Grade
Skip (r = –.27, p < .001), and Identification (r = –.32, p < .05). However, the subscale
Focus on Others, had a significantly positive correlation to Acceleration Concerns
(r = .43, p < .001). The subscale Curriculum and Policy had a statistically significantly
negative correlation to Acceleration Concerns (r = –.42, p < .001) and had a statistically
significantly positive correlation to Grade Skip (r = .34, p < .001). The subscale
Acceleration Concerns had a statistically significantly negative correlation to Grade
Skip (r = –.27, p < .001) and Identification (r = –.32, p < .05). Evidence
of discriminant validity is provided by the low correlations between the subscales,

indicating that each is measuring a distinct area of the construct of gifted attitudes.
Although there are several statistically significant correlations between subscales,
most are small-to-medium effect sizes (.27 ≤ r ≤ .46; Cohen, 1988).
Ranking Findings
Teachers responded to the open-ended questions about the goals of gifted program-
ming for elementary, middle, and high school. Open-ended responses provided teach-
ers with space to communicate their perceptions about gifted programming rather than
being forced to choose among goals that might not reflect their beliefs. Statements
were coded into categories and a frequency analysis was conducted. The frequencies
were compared by the grade level taught and charts were created to display the fre-
quencies for the goals by teachers of the grade as well as those who taught in the other
grades. Table A5 shows the results for the 10 most frequently cited goals by grades
taught.
The results showed that although the groups had some similar goals, the order of
importance varied based on the perceived development of the students. Both elemen-
tary and high school teachers ranked serving individual needs as the most important
goal of gifted programming (16% and 14%, respectively). Only 5% of elementary and
middle school teachers felt that identification of gifted students was an important goal,
relegating identification to the 10th most frequently cited goal. None of the groups
mentioned fostering creativity as an important goal of gifted programming. Only 1%
of elementary teachers included this in the open-ended responses, and neither middle
nor high school teachers listed this as an important goal. The final instrument in
Appendix B lists the 10 most frequently cited goals and asks users to rank them for
ease of interpretation.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to contribute to the understanding of teachers’ attitudes
toward the gifted and to report the results of field-testing of the DATA instrument to
evaluate the reliability and validity of scores obtained from its use. Results from field-
testing showed that the tool can be used to provide insights regarding teachers’ atti-
tudes toward high-ability students and better plan professional learning experiences.
The DATA allows researchers to focus on complex subcomponents that contribute to
teachers’ attitudes. However, further development of the instrument is required before
it can be used by researchers for scientific inquiry.
Bégin and Gagné (1994) identified four areas of methodological deficiencies in
their review of studies on attitudes toward gifted. This study endeavored to avoid
such deficiencies. The adequacies of the measurement as well as the quality of the
variables were carefully considered in creating the DATA scale. Efforts were taken
to follow professional recommendations to create a psychometrically sound instru-
ment that met the criteria for content validity and reliability (McCoach et al., 2013).
Szymanski et al. 45
These included conducting a thorough literature review for updated surveys, submit-
ting questions to an expert panel, conducting focus group interviews to clarify ques-
tions, and piloting and providing evidence of the validity of the instrument to lend
credibility to the use of the DATA scale as an appropriate measure of attitudes toward
gifted students. Lower alpha scores and lower fit indices indicate that although the
instrument is the first step in the right direction, it would benefit from further
refinement.
The small effect sizes of the correlations between subscales lend evidence of
discriminant validity between the areas. These correlations support findings by
McCoach and Siegle (2007) and Troxclair (2013), who found conflicting attitudes in
teachers regarding gifted learners. They also suggest the importance of identifying
individual areas of interest rather than trying to rely on a holistic score to measure
attitudes concerning the needs of the gifted. The significant negative correlation
between Focus on Others and Curriculum and Policy suggests that those who have
strong ideas regarding focusing on students who are not gifted may not see the need
to modify curriculum or create policies that assist gifted learners. This finding is
important in light of the work by Missett et al. (2014), who found that teacher atti-
tudes influenced their teaching practices. If a group of teachers or administrators are
found to score exceptionally high on the subscale Focus on Others, it could suggest
that professional development begin by educating them on the unique needs of gifted
learners.
Bain et al. (2007a) limited the choices for possible goals for gifted programming
to five main areas focusing on acceleration, creativity, enrichment, self-esteem, and
higher order thinking skills. It is important to note that the top five program goals as
evidenced by open-ended responses shared only the topic of enrichment with the
forced choice goals of Bain et al (2007a). This suggests a plethora of perspectives
regarding the goals for gifted programming, even among those within the same dis-
trict. For practical purposes, the instrument presented lists the 10 most frequently
cited choices evidenced by the open response. Although various program models
exist, very few researchers have examined the connection between the goals of a
gifted program and the services it provides, or the consistency among programs for
students at different ages. The DATA instrument can be used to help fill this gap in
the literature. Providing an easy-to-use tool to collect data regarding the importance
teachers place on different goals of gifted programming can help to improve the pro-
gram offerings and communication between gifted and regular classroom teachers.
Understanding what teachers view as the most important goals of a gifted program
can also be an indicator of teachers’ attitudes. As field-testing demonstrated, teacher
perceptions regarding the goals of gifted programming are quite diverse and these
perceptions change with grade level. The DATA can be used to provide a systematic
method of determining goals regarding the programming. Researchers can use this
information to compare services provided in a district and programming goals among
teachers in that district, to investigate trends and create models to test various path-
ways of achieving these goals.
Limitations
The current study has several limitations. The sample was smaller than would have
been preferred to pilot test the instrument and all of the teachers came from the same
school district in the Midwest. Therefore, the teachers who responded may differ sys-
tematically from those in other districts in the same or other states, and in other parts
of the world. The results of the pilot testing were encouraging, although they suggest
that further work is necessary before the instrument can be recommended to research-
ers for use. There is value in the current instrument for use in planning professional
development; however, more work is required to improve factor loading and
reliability.
Concluding Remarks
This study provides two contributions to greater understanding in the field of gifted
education. The first is to provide a psychometrically tested instrument that probes
teachers’ attitudes about contemporary issues in the field; the DATA allows research-
ers to focus on multiple dimensions that contribute to teachers’ attitudes. Although in
the preliminary stages of development, the DATA provides the first step toward
increasing awareness of the field for psychometrically sound, up-to-date instruments.
The second contribution is to compare teacher perceptions of the goals of gifted pro-
gramming and understand how the needs of gifted are perceived in various stages of
development. This focus is important because it underpins the essential component of
communicating the goals of a gifted program. Teachers within a school district teach-
ing at similar levels had quite different expectations for gifted programming. These
expectations could influence the teacher recommendations for the programs as well as
teacher support for interventions suggested by the gifted coordinator. Future research
that focused on the relationship between teacher goals and attitudes could add to our
understanding of this area.
Future work is planned to refine the DATA and revise the questions to produce a
more robust tool. It is hoped that this work will encourage others to undertake the chal-
lenge of developing sound instruments that can be used to move the field forward in
understanding.
Appendix A
Table A1. Participant Demographics (N = 283).
Percentage Percentage of teachers

Demographic Data n of sample in the United States
Male 67 24 23.7
Female 214 76 76.3
Bachelor of Science Degree (BS) 127 45 39.9
(continued)
Szymanski et al. 47
Table A1. (continued)

Percentage Percentage of teachers
Demographic Data n of sample in the United States
Master of Science Degree (MS) 153 55 47.7
Elementary school teachers 136 48
Middle school teachers 65 23
High school teachers 81 29
0-5 years teaching experience 45 16
17+ years teaching experience 110 39
Regularly work with gifted students 128 56 NA
Personal experience with a person 192 68 NA
identified as gifted
No personal experience with a 90 32
person identified as gifted
Table A2. Subscales and Reliabilities for Original DATA Scale Creation.
Subscale Number of items Cronbach’s α

Social and Emotional Needs 3 .526
Focus on Others (negative) 6 .731
Grade Skipping 4 .720
Acceleration Concerns (negative) 5 .723
Identification 5 .731
Curriculum and Policy 5 .737
Note. DATA = Determining Attitudes Toward Ability.
Table A3. Loadings, t-Values, and Item Reliability.
Item reliability
Squared
multiple
Standardized t-values Standard correlation
Constructs Items factor loadings (critical ratio) errors coefficient
Focus on Q13 0.48 53.13 0.04 .23
others Q15 0.60 53.69 0.04 .36
Q17 0.56 43.93 0.04 .31
Q30 0.46 60.49 0.03 .21
Q33 0.44 59.67 0.03 .20
Q37 0.47 57.53 0.03 .23
Skip Q18 0.62 58.42 0.04 .39
Q20 0.61 64.40 0.03 .36
Q26 0.48 75.21 0.04 .23
(continued)
Table A3. (continued)
Item reliability
Squared
multiple
Standardized t-values Standard correlation
Constructs Items factor loadings (critical ratio) errors coefficient
Acceleration Q19 0.60 64.06 0.03 .36
Q24 0.45 73.69 0.03 .20
Q29 0.47 70.03 0.03 .22
Q35 0.77 63.82 0.03 .59
Identification Q14 (REVERSED) 0.56 61.81 0.04 .32
Q22 (REVERSED) 0.51 86.11 0.03 .25
Q27 (REVERSED) 0.49 78.75 0.03 .26
Q31 0.20 93.66 0.04 .04
Q36 0.26 66.27 0.04 .07
Policy Q16 0.34 90.65 0.04 .12
Q21 0.49 85.31 0.04 .24
Q25 0.50 74.25 0.04 .25
Q32 0.36 72.23 0.04 .13
Q34 0.50 74.41 0.04 .25
Table A4. Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.
Subscale M SD 1 2 3 4 5
1 Focus on Others 2.10 .400 1
2 Grade Skipping 2.30 .405 −.270** 1
3 Acceleration Concerns 2.24 .387 .426** −.459* 1
4 Identification 2.92 .378 −.318* −.034 −.269** 1
5 Curriculum and Policy 2.92 .380 −.462* .344** −.424** .277** 1
*p < .05. **p < .001.
Table A5. Frequency of Teacher Goals for Gifted Programming by Grades Taught.
Elementary Middle school High school

1 Individual needs (16%) Challenge (18%) Individual needs (14%)
2 Challenge (13%) Psycho/social needs (15%) Future planning (14%)
3 Strengthen basic skills (11%) Interests (13%) Enrichment (12%)
4 Interests (10%) Critical thinking (10%) Strengthen basic skills (10%)
5 Psycho/social needs (10%) Individual needs (8%) Interest (10%)
6 Enrichment (8%) Enrichment (8%) Psycho/social needs (9%)
7 Critical thinking (7%) Future planning (5%) Challenge (9%)
8 Deeper learning (6%) Acceleration (5%) Critical thinking (9%)
9 Classroom/teaching needs (6%) Strengthen basic skills (5%) Acceleration (7%)
10 Identification (5%) Identification (5%) Deeper learning (3%)
Szymanski et al. 49
Appendix B
Determining Attitudes Toward Ability (DATA) Instrument Questions
Focus on others
Gifted education separates students into superior and “less-than” groups.
The mastery of basic skills is more critical than letting a few students get further and
further ahead.
The public has a greater responsibility to help children who are below average in intel-
ligence than to help children who are above average in intelligence.
Funding for gifted education reduces the amount of resources available for students
who need accommodations for other special needs.
Most students are not gifted, so gifted students should NOT be the focus of the teach-
er’s attention.
Grouping gifted children together is unfair even if shown to be effective.
Grade skipping
Most gifted students will fare better with interventions other than academic acceleration.
(Reversed)
Many more students could benefit from whole-grade acceleration (grade skipping).
Grade skipping in elementary school is an effective way to appropriately challenge
gifted students.
Acceleration in middle school is an effective way to appropriately challenge gifted
students.
Concerns with acceleration

A child who skips a grade cannot compensate for material that is missed by skipping.
Gifted students who skip a grade often have problems because of their new school
placement.
Students who are accelerated have problems with their new classmates.
Acceleration results in gifted children being isolated from other children.
Identification
Children who come from high-poverty backgrounds are typically NOT as gifted as
those from more affluent homes. (Reversed)
Using nontraditional means to identify gifted students who are culturally and linguisti-
cally diverse lowers the standards of the gifted program. (Reversed)
A student for whom English is a second language must first be proficient in English
before he or she could benefit from academic classes for gifted students. (Reversed)
Students identified as gifted may also be underachievers in their everyday work.
Goals for Gifted Programming.
Elementary Middle school High school

1 Individual needs Challenge Meeting individual needs
2 Challenge Psycho/social needs Future planning
3 Strengthen basic skills Students can pursue their Enrichment
interests
4 Students can pursue their Critical thinking Strengthen basic skills
interests
5 Psycho/social needs Meeting individual needs Students can pursue their
interests
6 Enrichment Enrichment Psycho/social needs
7 Critical thinking Future planning Challenge
8 Deeper learning Acceleration Critical thinking
9 Classroom/teaching needs Strengthen basic skills Acceleration
10 Identification Identification Deeper learning
All people, regardless of race, ethnicity, gender, or socioeconomic status (SES), have
equal percentages of gifted learners.
Curriculum and policy

Teachers should provide specific instruction at the level necessary for gifted students
to develop their talent.
When planning interventions for gifted students, it is more important to consider the
appropriate level of academic challenge than chronological age.
Programs for gifted learners should be mandated.
All teachers should receive professional development annually in gifted education.
Every state should have a policy that permits acceleration.
Acknowledgments
We thank the editors for the opportunity to revise and resubmit our article on Determining
Attitudes Toward Ability (DATA). We appreciate the time and thoughtful responses of the
reviewers for our original submission. We thank The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank
International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development at the University of Iowa for
providing insight and support for this project. We believe the DATA fulfills an important need,
both practically and from a theoretical viewpoint, and look forward to reaching the broadest
possible audience. We look forward to seeing how our colleagues use and update the instrument
to move the field forward.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.
Szymanski et al. 51
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.
References
Ajzen, I. (2002). Perceived behavioral control, self-efficacy, locus of control, and the
theory of planned behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 665-683.
doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00236.x
Assouline, S. G., Colangelo, N., VanTassel-Baska, J., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (2015). A
nation empowered (Vol. II, pp. 53-72). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin and Jacqueline N.
Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007a). Attitudes and Perceptions of
Giftedness Survey. Unpublished manuscript.
Bain, S. K., Bliss, S. L., Choate, S. M., & Brown, K. S. (2007b). Serving children who are gifted:
Perceptions of undergraduates planning to become teachers. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 30, 450-478.
Baldwin, A. Y. (2004). I’m Black but look at me, I am also gifted. In S. M. Reis (Ed.), Culturally
diverse and underserved populations of gifted students (pp. 1-10). Thousand Oaks, CA:
Corwin Press.
Bégin, J., & Gagné, F. (1994). Predictors of a general attitude toward gifted education: A review
of the literature and blueprints or future research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
17, 161-179.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,
107, 238-246.
Brown, E., Avery, L., VanTassel-Baska, J., Worley, B., II, & Stambaugh, T. (2006).
A five-state analysis of gifted education policies. Roeper Review, 29, 11-23.
doi:10.1080/02783190609554379
Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen &
J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136-162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Byrne, B. M. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications
and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Carman, C. A. (2011). Stereotypes of giftedness in current and future educators. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 34, 790-812. doi:10.117/0162353211417340
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., & Gross, M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold
back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 5-12). Iowa City, IA: The Connie Belin and
Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development.
Cole, D. A., Ciesla, J., & Steiger, J. H. (2007). The insidious effects of completely justifiable
correlated residuals in latent variable covariance structure analysis. Psychological Methods,
12, 381-398. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.12.4.381
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and applications.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Croft, L. J. (2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis
(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558-571). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Croft, L. J., & Wood, S. M. (2015). Professional development for teachers and school counsel-
ors: Empowering a change in perception and practice of acceleration. In S. G. Assouline,
N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empowered:
Evidence Trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. 2, pp. 87-
98). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.
Cross, T. (2002). Social/emotional needs: Competing myths about the social and emotional
development of gifted students. Gifted Child Today, 25(3), 44-46. doi:10.4219/gct-2002-76
Dworkin, G. A. (1987). Teacher burnout in the public schools: Structural causes and conse-
quences for children. Albany: State University of New York.
Elhoweris, H., Mutua, K., Alsheikh, N., & Holloway, P. (2005). Effect of children’s ethnicity on
teachers’ referral and recommendation decisions in gifted and talented programs. Remedial
and Special Education, 26, 25-31. doi:10.1177/07419325050260010401
Eyre, D., & Geake, J. (2002). Trends in research into gifted and talented education in England.
Gifted and Talented International, 17, 13-21. doi:10.1080/15332276.2002.11672981
Fang, Z. (1996). A review of research on teacher beliefs and practices. Educational Research,
38, 47-65.
Farkas, S., & Duffett, A. (2005). Results from a National Teacher Survey. Washington, DC:
Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Flynt, E. S., & Brozo, W. G. (2009). It’s all about the teacher. The Reading Teacher, 62, 536-
538. doi:10.1598/RT.62.6.8
Ford, D., Grantham, T., & Whiting, G. (2008). Another look at the achievement gap:
Learning from the experiences of gifted black students. Urban Education, 43, 216-239.
doi:10.1177/0042085907312344
Gagné, F., & Nadeau, L. (1991). Opinions about the gifted and their education. Unpublished
instrument.
García-Cepero, M. C., & McCoach, D. B. (2009). Educators’ implicit theories of intelligence
and beliefs about the identification of gifted students. Universitas Psychologica, 8, 295-310.
Geake Gross, M. (2008). Teachers’ negative affect towards academically gifted stu-
dents: An evolutionary psychology study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 217-231.
doi:10.1177/0016986208319704
Hargrove, B. H., & Seay, S. E. (2011). School teacher perceptions of barriers that limit the
participation of African American males in public school gifted programs. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 34, 434-467. doi:10.1177/016235321103400304
Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2005). Teachers’ attitudes toward academic
acceleration and accelerated students in the Netherlands. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 29, 30-59. doi:10.1177/016235320502900103
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analy-
sis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 69, 1-55.
Jones, B. D., Bryant, L. H., Snyder, J. D., & Malone, D. (2012). Preservice and inservice teach-
ers’ implicit theories of intelligence. Teacher Education Quarterly, 39, 87-101.
Jung, J. Y. (2014). Predictors of attitudes to gifted programs/provisions: Evidence from pre-
service educators. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 247-258. doi:10.1177/0016986214547636
Kagan, D. M. (1992). Implication of research on teacher belief. Educational Psychologist, 27,
65-90.
Larsen McClarty, K. (2015). Life in the fast lane: Effects of early grade acceleration on high school
and college outcomes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 3-13. doi:10.1177/0016986214559595
Szymanski et al. 53
Lohman, D. H. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of aca-

demically gifted minority students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 28, 333-360.
Lupkowski-Shoplik, A., Assouline, S., & Colangelo, N. (2015). Whole-Grade accelera-
tion: Grade-skipping and early entrance to kindergarten or first grade. In S. Assouline,
N. Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation empow-
ered: Evidence trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol. II)
53-72. Iowa City, IA: Belin & Blank International Center for Gifted Education and Talent
Development.
McBee, M. (2006). A descriptive analysis of referral sources for gifted identification screening
by race and socioeconomic status. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 27, 103-111.
McCoach, D. B., Gable, R. K., & Madura, J. P. (2013). Instrument development in the affective
domain: School and corporate applications. New York, NY: Springer Science + Business
Media.
McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2007). What predicts teachers’ attitudes toward the gifted?
Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 246-255. doi:10.1177/0016986207302179
Missett, T. C., Brunner, M. M., Callahan, C. M., Moon, T. R., & Azano, A. P. (2014). Exploring
teacher beliefs and use of acceleration, ability grouping, and formative assessment. Journal
for the Education of the Gifted, 37, 245-268. doi:10.1177/0162353214541326
National Association for Gifted Children, & Council of State Directors of Programs for the
Gifted. (2013). State of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data
2012-2013. Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. (1996). What matters most: Teaching
for America’s Future. New York, NY: Author.
Nespor, J. (1987). The role of beliefs in the practice of teaching. Journal of Curriculum Studies,
19, 317-328.
Pajares, M. F. (1992). Teachers’ beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy con-
struct. Review of Educational Research, 62, 307-332.
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. (2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping
on adult STEM productivity among mathematically precocious adolescents. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105, 176-198.
Plunkett, M., & Kronborg, L. (2011). Learning to be a teacher of the gifted: The importance of
examining opinions and challenging misconceptions. Gifted and Talented International,
26, 31-46. doi:10.1080/15332276.2011.11673587
Rice, J. K. (2003). Teacher quality: Understanding the effectiveness of teacher attributes.
Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Richardson, V. (1996). The role of attitudes and beliefs in learning to teach. In J. Sikula (Ed.),
Handbook of research in teacher education (2nd ed., pp. 102-119). New York, NY:
Macmillan.
Roberts, J. L. (2006). Teachers of secondary gifted students: What makes them effective? In F.
A. Dixon & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 567-580).
Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Robinson, A., & Kolloff, P. B. (2006). Preparing teachers to work with high-ability youth at
the secondary level: Issues and Implications for licensure. In F. A. Dixon & S. M. Moon
(Eds.), The handbook of secondary gifted education (pp. 581-610). Waco, TX: Prufrock
Press.
Robinson, J., Myran, S., Strauss, R., & Reed, W. (2014). The impact of an alternative profes-
sional development model on teacher practices in formative assessment and student learn-
ing. Teacher Development, 18, 141-162. doi:10.1080/13664530.2014.900516
Schroth, S. T., & Helfer, J. A. (2008). Identifying gifted students: Educator beliefs regarding
various policies, processes, and procedures. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 32,
155-179. doi:10.1177/1932202X0902000302
Siegle, D., & Powell, T. (2004). Exploring teacher biases when nominating students for gifted
programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 21-29. doi:10.1177/001698620404800103
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2004). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In
N., Colangelo, S. Assouline, & U. M. Gross (Eds.), A nation deceived: How schools hold
back America’s brightest students (Vol. II, pp. 5-12), Iowa City, IA: The Belin and Blank
International Center.
Southern, W. T., & Jones, E. D. (2015). Types of acceleration: Dimensions and issues. In S.
Assouline, N., Colangelo, J. VanTassel-Baska, & A. Lupkowski-Shoplik (Eds.), A nation
empowered: Evidence Trumps the excuses holding back America’s brightest students (Vol.
II, pp. 9-18). Iowa City, IA: The Belin and Blank International Center.
Southern, W. T., Jones, E. D., & Fiscus, E. D. (1989). Practitioner objections to the academic
acceleration of gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 29-35.
Speirs-Neumeister, K. L., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007).
Fourth-grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and serving
diverse gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
Starko, A. J., & Schack, G. D. (1989). Perceived need, teacher efficacy, and teaching strategies
for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 118-122.
Swanson, J. D., & Lord, E. W. (2013). Harnessing and guiding the power of policy: Examples
from one state’s experiences. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 36, 198-219.
doi:10.1177/0162353213480434
Szymanski, T., & Shaff, T. (2013). Teacher perspectives regarding gifted diverse students.
Gifted Children, 6(1), Article 1. Retrieved from http://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/viewcontent.
cgi?article=1055&context=giftedchildren
Teo, T., & van Schaik, P. (2012). Understanding the intention to use technology by pre-service
teachers: An empirical test of competing theoretical models. Journal of Human-Computer
Interaction, 28, 178-188. doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.581892
Terman, L. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted
children. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
Troxclair, D. A. (2013). Preservice teachers’ attitudes towards giftedness. Roeper Review, 35,
58-64. doi:10.1080/02783193.2013.740603
U.S. Department of Education National Center for Educational Statistics. (2012). School and
Staffing Survey. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/sass/
Warford, M. (2011). The zone of proximal teacher development. Teacher and Teacher
Education, 27, 252-258. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.008
Wiener, J., & O’Shea, H. (1963). Attitudes of university faculty, administrators, teachers, super-
visors, and university students toward the gifted. Exceptional Children, 30, 163-165.
Wilkins, J. L. M. (2008). The relationship among elementary teachers’ content knowledge,
attitudes, beliefs, and practices. Journal of Mathematics Teacher Education, 11, 139-164.
doi:10.1007/s10857-007-9068-2
Wilson, J. H. (2006). Predicting student attitudes and grades from perceptions of instructors’
attitudes. Teaching of Psychology, 33, 91-95. doi:10.1207/s15328023top3302_2
Szymanski et al. 55
Xiang, Y., Dahlin, M., Cronin, J., Theaker, R., & Durant, S. (2011). Do high flyers maintain
their altitude? Performance trends of top students. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
Institute.
About the Authors
Antonia Szymanski is an assistant professor of Gifted Studies at Western Kentucky University
School of Teacher Education. She teaches Masters courses on the psycho/social needs of gifted
students, creativity, and how teachers can help improve gifted educational experiences. Her
research interests are gifted students’ psycho/social needs such as intensities, racial identity and
motivations, and developing creativity. She also works with schools and researches teacher
education and professional development.
Laurie Croft is a clinical professor of gifted education in the Department of Teaching and
Learning at the University of Iowa College of Education. She is the associate director for pro-
fessional development at The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development and facilitates the endorsement process in gifted
education. After supporting the professional development of educators for almost 20 years, her
research interests often focus on best practices in developing the talents of teachers who are
committed to meeting the needs of gifted/talented students, as well as on the competencies and
characteristics of successful teachers of high-ability learners.
Brian Godor is an assistant professor at Erasmus University in Rotterdam in the Department of
Psychology, Education and Child Studies. He has over ten years of experience in educational
policy development and professional teacher development. His research focuses on the socio-
emotional development of gifted students and the professional development of primary school
teachers. Recent research projects include a large-scale investigation into potential differences
between academically –gifted students and normative student in terms of sense of belonging in
the classroom, student voice in the classroom, strengths of friendships and family dynamics.

Szymanski VD 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Szymanski VD 2018

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Szymanski VD 2018

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

738989

Antonia Szymanski1, Laurie Croft2, and Brian Godor3

Teachers profoundly influence the educational experience of students (Swanson &

1Western Kentucky University, Bowling Green, KY, USA

Individual characteristics. Individual experiences and education shape ways in which

For professional development to be effective, a preassessment is necessary to create

Myths in Gifted Education

Areas of Interest in Measuring Attitudes

Acceleration concerns. It is important to highlight the many alternate forms of acceleration

Goals of gifted programming. As gatekeepers to identification and subsequent program-

Creating the DATA Instrument

Statistical Methods Used to Answer Research Questions Regarding

of discriminant validity is provided by the low correlations between the subscales,

Percentage Percentage of teachers

Table A1. (continued)

Subscale Number of items Cronbach’s α

Note. DATA = Determining Attitudes Toward Ability.

Table A3. Loadings, t-Values, and Item Reliability.

Table A3. (continued)

Table A4. Subscale Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations.

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Elementary Middle school High school

Concerns with acceleration

Goals for Gifted Programming.

Elementary Middle school High school

Curriculum and policy

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Lohman, D. H. (2005). An aptitude perspective on talent: Implications for identification of aca-

You might also like