View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2) in a Türkiye Sample

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2) in a Türkiye Sample
Language: English
Authors: Sevinc Zeynep Kavruk (ORCID 0000-0001-8611-492X), Figen Turan (ORCID 0000-0002-9785-105X)
Source: Psychology in the Schools. 2025 62(8):2345-2361.
Availability: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 17
Publication Date: 2025
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Descriptors: Foreign Countries, Rating Scales, Academically Gifted, Psychometrics, Parents, Children, Test Reliability, Test Validity
Geographic Terms: Turkey
DOI: 10.1002/pits.23470
ISSN: 0033-3085
1520-6807
Abstract: This study adapts the "Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2)" into Turkish for use from preschool onward, specifically during the candidate nomination stage. Conducted with 974 parents (675 mothers, 299 fathers) of children aged 5-10, it employs Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the scale's structure and reliability. CFA results show excellent fit indices (CFI = 0.998, GFI = 0.994, IFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.998, RFI = 0.993) and an RMSEA of 0.017, indicating good model fit. Factor loadings ranged from 0.36 to 0.89, and item-total correlations were between 0.32 and 0.79, demonstrating effective discrimination. Reliability coefficients were high, with Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Composite Reliability (CR) ranging from 0.87 to 0.96. The SIGS-2 Home Rating Scale aligns well with existing measures and reflects changes in IQ levels, showing its suitability for assessing gifted children in Türkiye. While parental nominations are valuable, they may be less reliable than test results in identifying giftedness.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2025
Accession Number: EJ1477345
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwE2W8PlJgAHPcWSPUokJNAuAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDPCfdj2ljNy2J9B0TQIBEICBm1_F7oJYK1P6N_0Nz767pfomu0CFdEywV_N7q-2IyicrHDU-mwomYSIyuIYxi7rexOvGzt5sOeg8_XJrBTRr1fQ8EAbENSfecR2pLQjmDZAU-8FqGUSh0g-kfuKLDfo4IPCwlIb1MA3y4-JIovnsB61gmh1GjYnKI39SHFjz6WVESTeBdP5LoNFxnKRpzYKKpjoII3c8y07ICESy
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0186727887;pis01aug.25;2025Jul21.06:39;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0186727887-1">Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2) in a Türkiye Sample </title> <p>This study adapts the "Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2)" into Turkish for use from preschool onward, specifically during the candidate nomination stage. Conducted with 974 parents (675 mothers, 299 fathers) of children aged 5–10, it employs Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the scale's structure and reliability. CFA results show excellent fit indices (CFI = 0.998, GFI = 0.994, IFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.998, RFI = 0.993) and an RMSEA of 0.017, indicating good model fit. Factor loadings ranged from 0.36 to 0.89, and item‐total correlations were between 0.32 and 0.79, demonstrating effective discrimination. Reliability coefficients were high, with Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Composite Reliability (CR) ranging from 0.87 to 0.96. The SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale aligns well with existing measures and reflects changes in IQ levels, showing its suitability for assessing gifted children in Türkiye. While parental nominations are valuable, they may be less reliable than test results in identifying giftedness.</p> <p>Summary: The SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale, now adapted into Turkish, is a valid and reliable tool for identifying gifted children from preschool onwards.Parental ratings on the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale demonstrate alignment with teacher nomination scores and children's nonverbal ability test results.The SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale facilitates the early identification of gifted children and enhances the multi‐assessment process by integrating parental insights, offering a more comprehensive evaluation of giftedness.</p> <p>Keywords: gifted identification; parental nominations; reliability and validity; SIGS‐2</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-2">Introduction</hd> <p>The identification of gifted children, particularly early identification, is a highly debated topic. These discussions stem from the ambiguities surrounding the definition of the concept of giftedness (Heller [<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref1">32</reflink>]; Renzulli and Reis [<reflink idref="bib73" id="ref2">73</reflink>]). There are numerous differing views in the literature on what the term giftedness means. Although researchers such as Renzulli ([<reflink idref="bib72" id="ref3">72</reflink>]) and Sternberg ([<reflink idref="bib84" id="ref4">84</reflink>]) have conducted extensive studies on the definition of giftedness, no consensus has yet been reached.</p> <p>Modern scientific approaches do not limit giftedness solely to high cognitive abilities in general or specific areas. In addition, elements such as high creativity, strong motivation, and positive environmental characteristics are also considered core components of giftedness (Heller et al. [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref5">33</reflink>]; Subotnik et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref6">85</reflink>]). These approaches emphasize the significant role of environmental factors and individual motivation in the development of gifted individuals.</p> <p>In Türkiye, the Ministry of National Education (MoNE) defines giftedness as "learning faster than peers; excelling in areas such as creativity, art, and leadership; possessing special academic abilities; understanding abstract concepts; enjoying acting independently in areas of interest; and demonstrating high performance" (MoNE [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref7">62</reflink>]). This definition encompasses both cognitive and socio‐emotional characteristics, making it a comprehensive approach. However, this broad definition can also lead to challenges in the identification process. Identifying children's potential at an early age can be difficult, which increases the complexity of the identification process (Karadağ [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref8">43</reflink>]). Therefore, it is necessary to consider both scientific concepts and local definitions during the identification process of giftedness.</p> <p>A review of the literature reveals strong evidence that early identification of gifted children and appropriate educational interventions increase their chances of achieving extraordinary success in the future while reducing the risk of social, behavioral, emotional, and/or educational problems (Borland and Wright [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref9">10</reflink>]; Harrison [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref10">30</reflink>]). Therefore, the first step in serving gifted children is to conduct an accurate and appropriate identification process. Successful execution of this process allows for the development of educational programs that are tailored to the learning processes of gifted children, enabling them to fully realize their potential (Johnsen and VanTassel‐Baska [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref11">40</reflink>]).</p> <p>Research involving experts in the field of giftedness emphasizes that the identification process is one of the most critical issues the field faces (Pfeiffer and Jarosewich [<reflink idref="bib69" id="ref12">69</reflink>]). The primary reason for this is that identifying gifted children at an early age is a highly challenging process. Chief among these challenges is the lack of consensus on the definition of giftedness (Pfeiffer and Petscher [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref13">70</reflink>]). Moreover, findings indicate that standard measurement tools commonly used in the identification process, such as intelligence and achievement tests, are insufficient for identifying gifted children (Hodges et al. [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref14">35</reflink>]; Johnsen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref15">38</reflink>]). In light of these findings, it can be argued that employing multiple assessment methods in the identification process is of great importance (Lohman and Foley Nicpon [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref16">54</reflink>]; McBee et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref17">59</reflink>]). The multiple assessment approach contributes to a more accurate and reliable identification process by evaluating children's abilities from a more comprehensive and in‐depth perspective (Johnsen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref18">38</reflink>]; Pfeiffer [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref19">68</reflink>]). This method is particularly effective in the assessment of preschool‐aged gifted children. In addition to intelligence and achievement tests, teacher rating scales, parent rating scales, classroom observations, and information derived from the products that children create in class are fundamental components of the multiple assessment process. This approach ensures a more complete understanding of children's abilities, includes children from diverse backgrounds in the evaluation process, and provides each child with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their abilities (Hartas et al. [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref20">31</reflink>]).</p> <p>The multiple assessment strategy is strongly advocated in the literature, highlighting its various benefits. Among the most commonly cited advantages are the reduction of measurement errors, a more comprehensive understanding of children's giftedness, the inclusion of children from diverse cultural and socioeconomic backgrounds in the evaluation process, and providing children with multiple opportunities to demonstrate their abilities (Geiser et al. [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref21">24</reflink>]; Pfeiffer [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref22">68</reflink>]). This comprehensive approach supports an accurate identification process, enabling better accommodation of the educational needs of gifted children.</p> <p>In Türkiye, when examining the identification process of gifted children, it is observed that the primary goal of this process is to select students for the Science and Art Centers (BİLSEM). The identification of gifted children in Türkiye is carried out through a four‐stage process. In the first stage, classroom teachers at the primary school level and guidance counselors at the middle and high school levels nominate potential gifted children as candidates. In the second stage, nominated children undergo a group screening test. In the third stage, children who achieve successful results in the group screening test are subjected to an individual assessment test. In the fourth and final stage, the results obtained from the individual assessment tests are evaluated by the identification committee, and a placement decision is made based on this evaluation (MoNE [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref23">62</reflink>]). However, a notable shortcoming of this procedure is the absence of an application procedure for preschool‐aged children. The preschool period is a time of rapid cognitive and emotional development, and recognizing potential giftedness during this period is crucial for correctly guiding their development. However, the current identification process does not include a stage that covers preschool children, which is considered a significant shortcoming in terms of detecting and supporting potential talents at an early age.</p> <p>There are limited studies and measurement tools in Türkiye that support parental involvement during the candidate nomination stage (Bildiren and Bilgen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref24">6</reflink>]; Bildiren et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref25">9</reflink>]). This study aims to adapt the "Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2)" into Turkish for use from the preschool stage onward, particularly during the candidate nomination stage, which is the first step of the identification process. The literature emphasizes that parents are extremely effective in early detection of the potential of gifted children (Besnoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref26">4</reflink>]; Mun et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref27">63</reflink>]; National Association for Gifted Children [<reflink idref="bib65" id="ref28">65</reflink>]; Wellisch [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref29">91</reflink>]). Parents are often seen as the first to notice emerging talents in their children and as the first individuals who should participate in the identification and development of these talents (Besnoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>]; Hertzog et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref31">34</reflink>]; Olszewski‐Kubilius et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref32">66</reflink>]). For example, a study conducted by Keli and Mojca ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref33">46</reflink>]) in Slovenia with 201 parents of preschool children aged 4–6 examined how parents perceive potential giftedness in their children. The findings emphasized the critical role of parents in recognizing and fostering their children's talents and strengths. Similarly, Mollenkopf et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref34">60</reflink>]) found that most parents identify their children's exceptional abilities by the age of 2, highlighting their role as the primary guides in the identification process. Supporting this, Jabůrek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref35">37</reflink>]), in a study with 277 parents in the Czech Republic, identified moderate positive correlations between a parental nomination scale and established intelligence measures such as Cattell's Fluid Intelligence Test, Scale 2, and the Woodcock‐Johnson International Edition II ‐ Tests of Cognitive Abilities. These findings reinforce the importance of integrating reliable assessment tools to enhance the validity of parental insights. Expanding on this, Mack et al. ([<reflink idref="bib56" id="ref36">56</reflink>]) conducted a large‐scale study involving 2346 children and their parents (1283 mothers, 426 fathers, and 637 parental pairs) and found a moderate level of accuracy in parents' judgments regarding their children's cognitive abilities. While these findings suggest that parental assessments can provide meaningful insights, they also indicate the need for structured tools to support and refine parental observations.</p> <p>International studies further highlight the significance of parental involvement in the early stages of identifying gifted children, particularly through validated and culturally appropriate tools (Pfeiffer [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref37">68</reflink>]; Subotnik et al. [<reflink idref="bib85" id="ref38">85</reflink>]). Parental checklists, in particular, are recognized as valuable instruments in early identification since parents often have the most frequent opportunities to observe their children's cognitive and behavioral development (Wu [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref39">93</reflink>]). This is especially relevant for young children, who form strong attachments to their parents and family members, making parental observations a key source of information in gifted identification (Wu [<reflink idref="bib93" id="ref40">93</reflink>]). Taken together, these studies underscore the pivotal role of parents and parental nomination tools in accurately identifying children's cognitive and gifted potential across various cultural contexts. However, in Türkiye, the availability of validated tools that incorporate parental perspectives remains limited, presenting challenges to the effectiveness of the identification process. Developing and adapting instruments like SIGS‐2 into Turkish has the potential to align identification practices with international standards while addressing the cultural and educational needs of the country. Furthermore, adapting a scale to support parental nomination in Türkiye could strengthen existing identification frameworks by facilitating a more comprehensive and multi‐method assessment approach.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-3">Methods</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727887-4">Research Design/Model</hd> <p>This study is a methodological cross‐sectional research conducted to evaluate the reliability and validity of the Turkish version of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale. Methodological research aims to develop, test, and improve research methods (Tezcan [<reflink idref="bib89" id="ref41">89</reflink>]). Scale adaptation studies are considered a subcategory of methodological research because they provide critical information about the usability of scales in different contexts and the universality and cultural appropriateness of measurement tools (Karaçam [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref42">42</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-5">Population/Sample</hd> <p>The population of the study consists of 26,815 preschool and 61,050 primary school students in Aydın province (MoNE [<reflink idref="bib61" id="ref43">61</reflink>]). To determine an appropriate sample size for the research, a literature review was conducted. Bryman and Cramer ([<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref44">12</reflink>]) emphasize that the sample size in reliability and validity studies should be at least five times, preferably 10 times, the number of items in the test. This recommendation aims to ensure a sufficient sample size for measurement tools to provide more reliable and valid results. DeVellis and Thorpe ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref45">18</reflink>]) and Williams et al. ([<reflink idref="bib92" id="ref46">92</reflink>]) offer a different rating regarding sample size: a sample size of 100 is rated as "poor," 200 as "fair," 300 as "good," 500 as "very good," and 1000 as "excellent." This rating serves as a guide for researchers to select an appropriate sample size for their studies. Additionally, there are varying views on sample size in factor analysis. Sarstedt and Mooi ([<reflink idref="bib79" id="ref47">79</reflink>]) stated that the sample size should be ten times the number of items in factor analysis, while Gorsuch ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref48">26</reflink>]) increased this ratio to 15 times. Tavşancıl ([<reflink idref="bib88" id="ref49">88</reflink>]) adopted a more flexible approach, suggesting that the sample size should be between five and 10 times the number of items. These perspectives highlight the importance of achieving an adequate sample size for reliable and valid results in factor analysis. In line with recommendations from the literature, this study was conducted with 974 randomly selected parents of children aged 5–10 years. The participants were drawn from a diverse population to minimize sampling bias and enhance representativeness. The demographic characteristics of the participants are detailed in Table 1.</p> <p>1 TABLE Demographic information of the sample group.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">Variables</th><th>N</th><th>f</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>Parenting Role</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>%69.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>%30.7</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Education</td><td>Primary School</td><td>83</td><td>%8.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Middle School</td><td>115</td><td>%11.8</td></tr><tr><td align="center">High School</td><td>272</td><td>%27.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Associate Degree</td><td>132</td><td>%13.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Undergraduate</td><td>315</td><td>%32.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Postgraduate</td><td>57</td><td>%5.9</td></tr><tr><td>Father's Education</td><td>Primary School</td><td>71</td><td>%7.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Middle School</td><td>92</td><td>%9.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center">High School</td><td>278</td><td>%28.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Associate Degree</td><td>127</td><td>%13.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Undergraduate</td><td>340</td><td>%34.9</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Postgraduate</td><td>66</td><td>%6.8</td></tr><tr><td>Mother's Employment Status</td><td>Working</td><td>480</td><td>%49.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Not Working</td><td>494</td><td>%50.7</td></tr><tr><td>Father's Employment Status</td><td>Working</td><td>948</td><td>%97.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Not Working</td><td>26</td><td>%2.7</td></tr><tr><td>Child Gender</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>%47.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>%52.7</td></tr><tr><td>Child Age</td><td>5 years</td><td>73</td><td>%7.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">6 years</td><td>147</td><td>%15.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center">7 years</td><td>205</td><td>%21.0</td></tr><tr><td align="center">8 years</td><td>218</td><td>%22.4</td></tr><tr><td align="center">9 years</td><td>225</td><td>%23.1</td></tr><tr><td align="center">10 years</td><td>106</td><td>%10.9</td></tr><tr><td>Child's Grade Level</td><td>Kindergarten</td><td>120</td><td>%12.3</td></tr><tr><td align="center">1st Grade</td><td>202</td><td>%20.7</td></tr><tr><td align="center">2nd Grade</td><td>219</td><td>%22.5</td></tr><tr><td align="center">3rd Grade</td><td>240</td><td>%24.6</td></tr><tr><td align="center">4th Grade</td><td>193</td><td>%19.8</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 1 shows that 69.3% of the participants are mothers, and 30.7% are fathers. Regarding the educational level of parents, the majority have completed high school or hold a bachelor's degree. The number of working mothers (49.3%) is nearly equal to that of nonworking mothers (50.7%). In contrast, the vast majority of fathers (97.3%) are employed. Among the parents, 47.3% have daughters, and 52.7% have sons. When examining the ages of the children, the least represented age group is 5 years old (7.5%), while the most represented is 9 years old (23.1%). Similarly, regarding the children's grade levels, the least represented is preschool (12.3%), and the most represented is the 3rd grade (24.6%), indicating their indirect participation in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-6">Data Collection Tools</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0186727887-7">Personal Information Form</hd> <p>To determine the sociodemographic characteristics of the participants in the study group, the researchers created a personal information form. The form is completed by the parent of the child included in the study and includes questions about the parent's age, parental role, educational level, and the age, gender, and grade level of the child included in the study.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-8">Scales for Identifying Gifted Students‐Home Rating Scale (SIGS‐2)</hd> <p>The Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2) is a norm‐referenced behavior rating scale designed to measure seven domains: general intellectual ability (10 items; e.g., "Can analyze an issue from many points of view."), language arts (10 items; e.g., "Reads or speaks with expression to creat meaning."), mathematics (10 items; e.g., "Is persistent in finding solutions to mathematical problems."), science (10 items; e.g., "Can quickly figure out cause‐effect relationships."), social studies (10 items; e.g., "Has an intense curiosity about world and current events."), creativity, (10 items; e.g., "Is attracted to the complex and unique.") and leadership (10 items; e.g., "Has an advanced level of ethical understanding.") (Ryser et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref50">76</reflink>]). The scale has two versions: the School Rating Scale and the Home Rating Scale, completed by teachers and parents/guardians, respectively. It is one of the most widely used nonperformance assessment tools for identifying gifted students, and research (e.g., McBee et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref51">58</reflink>]; Peters and Pereira [<reflink idref="bib67" id="ref52">67</reflink>]) has recognized it as one of the most reliable and valid tools for this purpose.</p> <p>Since its introduction in 2004, SIGS has been utilized for identifying students in gifted and talented education programs across all 50 states in the United States and in 22 countries worldwide (McBee et al. [<reflink idref="bib58" id="ref53">58</reflink>]; Ridgley et al. [<reflink idref="bib74" id="ref54">74</reflink>]; Ryser et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref55">76</reflink>]; Sanguras et al. [<reflink idref="bib77" id="ref56">77</reflink>]). The original version of SIGS demonstrated strong psychometric properties. Reliability evidence included average alpha internal consistency estimates ranging from 0.90 to 0.98, indicating excellent internal consistency. Interrater reliability, calculated from correlations between teacher and parent ratings, ranged from 0.43 to 0.59, showing moderate agreement. Test‐retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.58 to 0.93, demonstrating the scale's temporal stability. However, fairness data were not explicitly included in the initial technical manual (Ryser and McConnell [<reflink idref="bib75" id="ref57">75</reflink>]).</p> <p>The second edition, SIGS‐2, retains the original seven domains but has reduced the number of items per subscale from 12 to 10 to improve validity. The total scale now includes 70 items, rated on a 4‐point Likert scale. Confirmatory factor analyses show improved model fit indices for the subscales, with strong internal consistency (alpha coefficients of 0.84 or higher for all subscales). Fit indices, including TLI (0.87–0.96), CFI (0.90–0.97), RMSEA (0.06–0.09), and SRMR (0.03–0.05), are within acceptable ranges, supporting the scale's validity. Test‐retest reliability for SIGS‐2 ranges from 0.58 to 0.93, reflecting moderate to high consistency, while correlations between subscales range from 0.43 to 0.53, demonstrating reasonable subscale independence (Ryser et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref58">76</reflink>]).</p> <p>The Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2) demonstrates robust criterion validity across its subscales, supported by correlations with established measures of cognitive abilities, creativity, and academic performance. The General Intellectual Ability (GIA) scale shows an average correlation of r = 0.51 with external measures, including the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC‐III), and the Test of Cognitive Skills (TCS/2). Correlations for this subscale range from moderate to strong, with the highest correlation r = 0.73) observed with TCS/2. The Language Arts subscale has an average correlation of r = 0.49, with moderate to strong associations with the CogAT r = 0.59) and Woodcock‐Johnson Tests of Achievement (WJ‐IV; r = 0.55 for reading passage). Similarly, the Mathematics subscale shows an average correlation of r = 0.37, with notable associations with NNAT‐3 r = 0.38) and WJ‐IV math applied problems (r = 0.51). The Science subscale demonstrates an average correlation of r = 0.36, with moderate relationships observed with various external assessments, while the Social Studies subscale exhibits a slightly lower average correlation of r = 0.33. The Creativity subscale is supported by correlations with the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; r = 0.69) and the Renzulli Creativity Scale r = 0.86), resulting in an average correlation of r = 0.35. Finally, the Leadership subscale has an average correlation of r = 0.30, with moderate relationships such as NNAT‐3 r = 0.51) and TCS/2 r = 0.39). These results provide substantial evidence for the validity of SIGS‐2 across its seven subscales, demonstrating its utility as a reliable tool for identifying giftedness across multiple domains (Ryser et al. [<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref59">76</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-9">Candidate Notification Scale for Gifted Children in Pre‐School Period</hd> <p>This scale was developed as a tool for pre‐school teachers to evaluate and identify potentially gifted children aged 3–6 years. The scale consists of 13 items and three factors (general ability, creativity, and motivation). An examination of the distribution of items related to the dimensions revealed that the general ability dimension has five items, the creativity dimension has three items, and the motivation dimension has five items. These factors explain 83% of the total variance of the scale. The scale is a 5‐point Likert‐type scale with a minimum score of 13 and a maximum score of 65. After exploratory factor analysis, confirmatory factor analysis was conducted to verify the scale structure, and the RMSEA value was determined to be 0.078. This value indicates an "acceptable fit." At the end of the analysis, dividing the chi‐square value by the degrees of freedom yielded a value of 1.83. Values below 2 indicate good fit. The fit indices are within acceptable ranges (GFI: 0.90; AGFI: 0.85; CFI: 0.99; NFI: 0.97; NNFI: 0.98; SRMR: 0.03), confirming the three‐factor, 13‐item model of the "Nomination Scale for Gifted Children." The reliability coefficient of the scale was calculated as 0.95 (Bildiren and Bilgen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref60">6</reflink>]). The Candidate Notification Scale for Gifted Children in the Pre‐school Period demonstrates predictive validity through its significant correlations with established measures. The scale shows a correlation of r = 0.43 with Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM; Bildiren [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref61">5</reflink>]), indicating its ability to predict intellectual abilities. Additionally, its correlations with the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT; İnal [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref62">36</reflink>]) are as follows: r = 0.43 for verbal cognitive ability, r = 0.57 for quantitative cognitive ability, and r = 0.42 for nonverbal cognitive ability (Bildiren and Bilgen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref63">6</reflink>]). Furthermore, Bildiren et al. ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref64">7</reflink>]) reported a statistically significant correlation of r = 0.56 between the Candidate Notification Scale and the Bildiren Nonverbal Ability Test (BNV).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-10">Teacher Nomination Scale for Gifted Children in Primary Schools</hd> <p>This scale, completed by primary school teachers, was developed by Bildiren et al. ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref65">9</reflink>]) to contribute to identifying gifted children in primary school. The scale consists of 27 items and three sub‐dimensions (general ability, creativity, motivation), with nine items in each sub‐dimension. While the scale is three‐factor at the first level, it is single‐factor at the second level, allowing for a total score. The scale is a 5‐point Likert type and ranges between 27 and 135 points. The higher the score, the higher the likelihood that the student is a candidate for being gifted. Reliability analyses, including Cronbach's α, stratified Cronbach's α, McDonald's ω, composite reliability coefficients, and average variance extracted values, were conducted. All reliability coefficients for the total scale and its sub‐dimensions were above 0.95. Item‐total correlations ranged between 0.553 and 0.849 (Bildiren et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref66">9</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-11">Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT‐I)</hd> <p>Developed by Naglieri in 2003, this 72‐item nonverbal ability test assesses reasoning skills in participants aged 5–17. Internal consistency reliability analyses conducted during the U.S. standardization revealed Cronbach's Alpha reliability coefficients ranging between 0.89 and 0.95, with an average reliability coefficient of 0.91 (Naglieri [<reflink idref="bib64" id="ref67">64</reflink>]). The Turkish adaptation and standardization were conducted by Kavruk and Bildiren ([<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref68">45</reflink>]) with children aged 5–9. Cronbach's Alpha coefficients were found to range between 0.80 and 0.88, with an average reliability coefficient of 0.88. For Form B, reliability was found to be 0.93 for participants aged 5–9, and high correlations were found in test‐retest analyses (0.87, 0.88) (Kavruk and Bildiren [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref69">45</reflink>]). Percentile ranks from the Turkish norm study were used in this study. The intelligence level grouping in the study was based on percentile ranks (%24 and below: below average; %25–74: average; %75 and above: above average).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-12">TONI‐3</hd> <p>Developed by Brown et al. ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref70">11</reflink>]), this 45‐item ability test is used to assess general mental ability in individuals aged 6–89. Internal consistency reliability analyses conducted during the U.S. standardization revealed Cronbach's Alpha coefficients ranging between 0.89 and 0.97 for Forms A and B of the test. The Turkish adaptation and standardization were conducted by Korkmaz et al. ([<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref71">50</reflink>]) with 631 children aged 6‐11. In this study, the Kuder‐Richardson‐20 internal consistency reliability coefficient for TONI‐3 was found to range between 0.86–0.95 for Form A and 0.90–0.93 for Form B.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-13">Data Collection Process</hd> <p>After obtaining the necessary ethics committee approval for conducting the research, a rigorous translation and adaptation process was followed to ensure the linguistic and cultural validity of the Scales for Identifying Gifted Students – Home Rating Scale (SIGS‐2). This process was carried out in accordance with the recommended guidelines for cross‐cultural scale adaptation (Beaton et al. [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref72">3</reflink>]; Sousa and Rojjanasrirat [<reflink idref="bib83" id="ref73">83</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-14">Step 1 Forward Translation</hd> <p>The original English version of the SIGS‐2 was independently translated into Turkish by three bilingual experts fluent in both English and Turkish. These translators had professional backgrounds in educational sciences and psychology to ensure the conceptual accuracy of the scale items. Each translator worked separately to prevent bias and maintain the original meaning of the items.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-15">Step 2 Synthesis of Translations</hd> <p>The three independently translated versions were reviewed and compared by the research team. Discrepancies and inconsistencies were discussed, and a consensus was reached to create a synthesized Turkish draft version. This step aimed to ensure semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-16">Step 3 Back Translation</hd> <p>The synthesized Turkish draft was then back‐translated into English by two independent bilingual translators who were unfamiliar with the original scale. This step was critical to check whether the translated items preserved the original meaning and intent. Differences between the back‐translated and original versions were carefully examined, and necessary revisions were made to the Turkish version to ensure alignment.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-17">Step 4 Expert Review</hd> <p>The revised Turkish version was evaluated by an expert committee consisting of two specialists in gifted education and one in child development. The experts assessed the scale in terms of cultural relevance, content validity, and linguistic clarity. Their feedback was incorporated to refine the scale further.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-18">Step 5 Pilot Study for Comprehensibility</hd> <p>To assess the comprehensibility and cultural appropriateness of the adapted scale, a pilot study was conducted with 15 parents of gifted children. Participants were asked to complete the scale and provide feedback on item clarity, ease of understanding, and overall format. Based on this feedback, minor adjustments were made to enhance the clarity and usability of the scale.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-19">Step 6 Finalization of the Turkish Version</hd> <p>After implementing revisions suggested by both expert feedback and the pilot study, the final Turkish version of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale was established for use in the main study (see Appendix A for the Turkish version of the scale). This comprehensive translation and adaptation process ensured that the scale maintained its psychometric integrity while being culturally and linguistically suitable for use in Türkiye.</p> <p>Following the completion of the translation and adaptation process and after obtaining the necessary permissions for data collection, appointments were scheduled with the administrators of the preschool and primary school institutions included in the sample group to provide information about the study. Random selection was used to choose suitable classes from preschools and primary schools that granted permission for participation. The researcher personally informed the children in these selected classes about the study in an age‐appropriate manner. Additionally, the parents of the selected children were contacted and informed about the study's purpose, procedures, and confidentiality measures.</p> <p>Parents who volunteered to participate in the study were asked to sign consent forms. The data collection tool, which the participating parents were asked to complete, was sent to them via their children. Additionally, the data collection tools (TONI‐3 and NNAT‐I) were individually administered to the children of these parents at their schools during a designated suitable time. Furthermore, scales to be completed by the teachers (the Candidate Notification Scale for Gifted Children in Pre‐school Period for preschool teachers and the Teacher Nomination Scale for Gifted Children in Primary Schools for primary school teachers) were delivered to the children's teachers. Completing the data collection tools took 25–30 min for each parent, 10–15 min for each teacher, and the TONI‐3 and NNAT‐I tests administered to the children took 20–30 min. The data collection process was carried out between April and June 2024.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-20">Data Analysis</hd> <p>Before starting the analysis of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale, the data set was examined for missing data and outliers. To evaluate the construct validity of the scale, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. Before this, an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted, and the results of the Kaiser‐Meyer‐Olkin (KMO = 0.98) and Bartlett's Test of Sphericity (χ² = 8507.974, df = 2324, <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) were analyzed. These results indicate that the data set is suitable for factor analysis (Field et al. [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref74">21</reflink>]). Following this, CFA was utilized. Due to the violation of multivariate normality assumptions (multivariate skewness: 1000.872; multivariate kurtosis: 6763.412; <emph>p</emph> < 0.001) (Kline [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref75">49</reflink>]) and the Likert nature of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale, the Diagonally Weighted Least Squares (DWLS) estimation method was used (Gana and Broc [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref76">23</reflink>]). In CFA, item factor loadings and various fit indices were examined, including Comparative Fit Index (CFI), Tucker‐Lewis Index (TLI), Goodness‐of‐Fit Index (GFI), Incremental Fit Index (IFI), Normed Fit Index (NFI), Non‐Normed Fit Index (NNFI), Relative Fit Index (RFI), Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR), and Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA). For the fit indices to be within acceptable limits, it is required that CFI > 0.90, GFI > 0.90, TLI > 0.90, IFI > 0.90, NFI > 0.90, NNFI > 0.90, RFI > 0.90, SRMR < 0.08, and RMSEA < 0.08 (Barrett [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref77">2</reflink>]; Kenny [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref78">47</reflink>]).</p> <p>The reliability of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale was assessed using Composite Reliability (CR), Cronbach's Alpha, and McDonald's Omega internal consistency coefficients. In social sciences, reliability coefficients vary depending on the type of research; however, a high reliability coefficient of around 0.85 is expected for scales used in studies that require abilities, interests, and skills, especially in scientific studies (Şencan [<reflink idref="bib80" id="ref79">80</reflink>]). Therefore, CR, Cronbach's Alpha, and McDonald's Omega coefficients of 0.70 or above are interpreted as an acceptable level of reliability (Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref80">28</reflink>]; Lavrakas [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref81">52</reflink>]; Liu [<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref82">53</reflink>]).</p> <p>The criterion validity of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale was evaluated by examining the Pearson correlation between the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale, the Nomination Scale for Gifted Children in the Preschool Period (general mental ability, creativity, and motivation), the Nomination Scale for Gifted Children in the Primary School Period (general mental ability, creativity, and motivation), and the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test. Additionally, the effects of the sub‐dimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale on intelligence levels were examined using the NNAT‐I Nonverbal Intelligence Test and One‐Way ANOVA/Scheffe analysis.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-21">Results</hd> <p>Table 2 shows the score distributions, including measures of central tendency and dispersion, using a stratified, representative sample. The mean and standard deviation for the subscales of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale—general ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership—are 28.54 ± 7.43, 23.93 ± 8.04, 23.72 ± 9.48, 23.99 ± 9.30, 22.72 ± 8.70, 25.41 ± 7.73, and 27.25 ± 8.29, respectively. Acceptable ranges for skewness and kurtosis values for normal distribution are reported as ± 2 by some sources (Field [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref83">20</reflink>]; Gravetter and Wallnau [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref84">27</reflink>]; George and Mallery [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref85">25</reflink>]; Trochim and Donnelly [<reflink idref="bib90" id="ref86">90</reflink>]), ± 1.5 by others (Tabachnick and Fidell [<reflink idref="bib87" id="ref87">87</reflink>]), and ± 1 according to other references (Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref88">29</reflink>]). As seen in Table 2, all subscales of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale fall within the normal distribution range.</p> <p>2 TABLE Descriptive statistics for SIGS Home Rating Scale in stratified sample.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale</th><th>X</th><th>SD</th><th>Skew</th><th>Kurtosis</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>28.54</td><td>7.43</td><td>−0.343</td><td>−0.436</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>23.93</td><td>8.04</td><td>0.001</td><td>−0.595</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>23.72</td><td>9.48</td><td>−0.091</td><td>−0.733</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>23.99</td><td>9.30</td><td>−0.621</td><td>−0.109</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>22.72</td><td>8.70</td><td>−0.049</td><td>−0.480</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>25.41</td><td>7.73</td><td>−0.278</td><td>−0.390</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>27.25</td><td>8.29</td><td>−0.237</td><td>−0.665</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186727887-22">Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and Reliability</hd> <p>Table 3 presents the fit indices obtained from the Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale, with the following results: CFI = 0.998, GFI = 0.994, IFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.998, and RFI = 0.993. Additionally, the RMSEA value obtained from the CFA is 0.017, indicating that the scale has acceptable fit. The fit indices for the subscales of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale also demonstrate acceptable fit.</p> <p>3 TABLE Goodness of fit CFA indices for SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale sub‐dimensions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>S‐Bχ2</th><th>df</th><th>TLI</th><th>CFI (ΔCFI)</th><th>GFI</th><th>IFI</th><th>NFI</th><th>NNFI</th><th>RFI</th><th>SRMR (ΔSRMR)</th><th>RMSEA (ΔRMSEA)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td align="left">CFA Models</td></tr><tr><td>Model 1<sup>t</sup></td><td>8507.974</td><td>2324</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.994</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.037</td><td>0.017</td></tr><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>187.796</td><td>35</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.994</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.023</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>248.508</td><td>35</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.990</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.994</td><td>0.991</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.988</td><td>0.043</td><td>0.039</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>203.582</td><td>35</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.010</td><td>0.024</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>412.281</td><td>35</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.996</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.043</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>716.939</td><td>35</td><td>0.985</td><td>0.988</td><td>0.991</td><td>0.988</td><td>0.986</td><td>0.985</td><td>0.981</td><td>0.063</td><td>0.061</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>334.516</td><td>35</td><td>0.984</td><td>0.988</td><td>0.992</td><td>0.988</td><td>0.983</td><td>0.984</td><td>0.978</td><td>0.051</td><td>0.053</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>201.248</td><td>35</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.995</td><td>0.997</td><td>0.993</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.036</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Abbreviations: CFI, Comparative Fit Index; GFI, Goodness of Fit Index; IFI, Incremental Fit Index; NFI, Normed Fit Index; NNFI, Non‐Normed Fit Index; RFI, Relative Fit Index; SRMR, Standardized Root Mean Square Residual; RMSEA, Root Mean Square Error of Approximation; t, Total; TLI, Tucker‐Lewis Index.</p> <p>Table 4 shows that the factor loadings for the items of the scale range from 0.36 to 0.89, and the item‐total correlations range from 0.32 to 0.79. Factor loading indicates the relationship between the items and the factor. Büyüköztürk ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref89">14</reflink>]) states that a factor loading value above 0.30 is considered acceptable, and a value of 0.45 or higher is considered good for item selection. Additionally, Büyüköztürk ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref90">14</reflink>]) notes that an item‐total correlation of 0.30 or higher indicates that the items distinguish individuals well. According to Crocker and Algina ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref91">16</reflink>]), an item‐total correlation coefficient of 0.20 or above indicates that the item is consistent with the overall test.</p> <p>4 TABLE Factor loadings of CFA for SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Item</th><th>Factor loading</th><th>Corrected Item‐Total Correlation</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>M1</td><td>0.795</td><td>0.692</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M2</td><td>0.525</td><td>0.680</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M3</td><td>0.598</td><td>0.662</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M4</td><td>0.787</td><td>0.664</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M5</td><td>0.794</td><td>0.605</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M6</td><td>0.782</td><td>0.638</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M7</td><td>0.762</td><td>0.464</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M8</td><td>0.766</td><td>0.521</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M9</td><td>0.697</td><td>0.681</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M10</td><td>0.734</td><td>0.690</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>M11</td><td>0.654</td><td>0.597</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M12</td><td>0.716</td><td>0.591</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M13</td><td>0.671</td><td>0.645</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M14</td><td>0.714</td><td>0.604</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M15</td><td>0.562</td><td>0.641</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M16</td><td>0.763</td><td>0.516</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M17</td><td>0.666</td><td>0.693</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M18</td><td>0.724</td><td>0.605</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M19</td><td>0.770</td><td>0.654</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M20</td><td>0.662</td><td>0.698</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>M21</td><td>0.829</td><td>0.695</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M22</td><td>0.845</td><td>0.704</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M23</td><td>0.808</td><td>0.668</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M24</td><td>0.836</td><td>0.695</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M25</td><td>0.845</td><td>0.708</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M26</td><td>0.867</td><td>0.724</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M27</td><td>0.863</td><td>0.718</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M28</td><td>0.891</td><td>0.746</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M29</td><td>0.842</td><td>0.702</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M30</td><td>0.780</td><td>0.655</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>M31</td><td>0.768</td><td>0.708</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M32</td><td>0.820</td><td>0.757</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M33</td><td>0.849</td><td>0.780</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M34</td><td>0.821</td><td>0.756</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M35</td><td>0.835</td><td>0.768</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M36</td><td>0.833</td><td>0.768</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M37</td><td>0.853</td><td>0.786</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M38</td><td>0.780</td><td>0.721</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M39</td><td>0.841</td><td>0.772</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M40</td><td>0.814</td><td>0.750</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>M41</td><td>0.713</td><td>0.627</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M42</td><td>0.780</td><td>0.687</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M43</td><td>0.704</td><td>0.621</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M44</td><td>0.768</td><td>0.674</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M45</td><td>0.772</td><td>0.679</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M46</td><td>0.773</td><td>0.678</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M47</td><td>0.616</td><td>0.543</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M48</td><td>0.710</td><td>0.625</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M49</td><td>0.809</td><td>0.709</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M50</td><td>0.759</td><td>0.665</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>M51</td><td>0.796</td><td>0.696</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M52</td><td>0.865</td><td>0.754</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M53</td><td>0.675</td><td>0.591</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M54</td><td>0.356</td><td>0.315</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M55</td><td>0.407</td><td>0.360</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M56</td><td>0.725</td><td>0.635</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M57</td><td>0.668</td><td>0.584</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M58</td><td>0.664</td><td>0.584</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M59</td><td>0.567</td><td>0.497</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M60</td><td>0.709</td><td>0.622</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>M61</td><td>0.716</td><td>0.610</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M62</td><td>0.692</td><td>0.588</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M63</td><td>0.675</td><td>0.574</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M64</td><td>0.741</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M65</td><td>0.751</td><td>0.637</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M66</td><td>0.830</td><td>0.707</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M67</td><td>0.810</td><td>0.690</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M68</td><td>0.796</td><td>0.674</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M69</td><td>0.713</td><td>0.603</td></tr><tr><td align="center">M70</td><td>0.681</td><td>0.587</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 5 shows that as a result of the CFA analyses, the Average Variance Extracted (AVE) values for the subdimensions range from 0.44 to 0.71, Composite Reliability (CR) values range from 0.88 to 0.96, Cronbach's alpha coefficients range from 0.87 to 0.96, and McDonald's Omega coefficients range from 0.88 to 0.96.</p> <p>5 TABLE AVE CR Cronbach's alpha and McDonald's omega coefficients.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale</th><th>AVE</th><th>CR</th><th>McDonald Omega</th><th>Alpha Coefficient</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.90</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.96</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.95</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.87</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.92</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>2 Abbreviations: AVE, Average Variance Extracted; CR, Composite Reliability.</p> <p>Table 6 shows the reliability coefficients calculated according to age groups. The alpha values for the subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale range from 0.87 to 0.96 across different age groups.</p> <p>6 TABLE Alpha coefficients of the subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale by age groups.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Age groups</th><th>N</th><th align="center">Alpha coefficient</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th>General ability</th><th>Language arts</th><th>Mathematics</th><th>Science</th><th>Social studies</th><th>Creativity</th><th>Leadership</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>5 years</td><td>73</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.91</td></tr><tr><td>6 years</td><td>147</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.91</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>7 years</td><td>205</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>8 years</td><td>218</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.92</td></tr><tr><td>9 years</td><td>225</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.93</td></tr><tr><td>10 years</td><td>106</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.92</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0186727887-23">Criterion Validity</hd> <p>Table 7 shows that there were no significant differences in the subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale—general ability [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref92">972</reflink>) = 0.31, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], language arts [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref93">972</reflink>) = 0.50, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], science [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref94">972</reflink>) = 0.21, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], social studies [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref95">972</reflink>) = 0.09, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], creativity [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref96">972</reflink>) = 0.43, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], and leadership [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref97">972</reflink>) = 0.89, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01]—based on parenting role. However, a significant difference was found in the mathematics subdimension [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref98">972</reflink>) = 0.03, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01]. Fathers scored higher (x̄ = 24.74) than mothers (x̄ = 23.27) on the mathematics subscale.</p> <p>7 TABLE T‐Test results of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale sub‐dimensions according to parenting role.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Parenting role</th><th>N</th><th>x̄</th><th>s</th><th>sd</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>28.37</td><td>7.43</td><td>972</td><td>1.02</td><td>0.31</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>28.90</td><td>7.43</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>23.82</td><td>8.03</td><td>972</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>24.20</td><td>8.08</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>23.27</td><td>9.44</td><td>972</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>24.74</td><td>9.50</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>23.74</td><td>9.22</td><td>972</td><td>1.25</td><td>0.21</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>24.55</td><td>9.47</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>22.41</td><td>8.69</td><td>972</td><td>1.72</td><td>0.09</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>23.44</td><td>8.68</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>25.28</td><td>7.72</td><td>972</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.43</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>25.71</td><td>7.75</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>Mother</td><td>675</td><td>27.28</td><td>8.27</td><td>972</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.89</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Father</td><td>299</td><td>27.20</td><td>8.35</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 8 indicates that there were no significant differences in the subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale—general ability [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref99">972</reflink>) = 0.13, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], mathematics [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref100">972</reflink>) = 0.06, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], science [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref101">972</reflink>) = 0.74, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], social studies [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref102">972</reflink>) = 0.52, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01], and creativity [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref103">972</reflink>) = 0.07, <emph>p</emph> > 0.01]—based on the children's gender. However, significant differences were found in the subdimensions of language arts [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref104">972</reflink>) = 0.00, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05] and leadership [t(<reflink idref="bib972" id="ref105">972</reflink>) = 0.02, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05]. Female children had higher scores in language arts (x̄ = 24.77) and leadership (x̄ = 26.90) compared to male children (x̄ = 23.19; x̄ = 26.68).</p> <p>8 TABLE T‐Test results of the sub‐dimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale according to the gender of the children.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Gender</th><th>N</th><th>x̄</th><th>s</th><th>sd</th><th>t</th><th>p</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>28.92</td><td>7.36</td><td>972</td><td>1.53</td><td>0.13</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>28.19</td><td>7.49</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>24.77</td><td>8.00</td><td>972</td><td>3.07</td><td>0.00</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>23.19</td><td>8.01</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>23.12</td><td>9.13</td><td>972</td><td>1.87</td><td>0.06</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>24.26</td><td>9.76</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>23.88</td><td>9.38</td><td>972</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.74</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>24.08</td><td>9.24</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>22.92</td><td>8.59</td><td>972</td><td>0.65</td><td>0.52</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>22.55</td><td>8.80</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>25.89</td><td>7.74</td><td>972</td><td>1.81</td><td>0.07</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>24.99</td><td>7.70</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>Female</td><td>461</td><td>27.90</td><td>8.22</td><td>972</td><td>2.29</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Male</td><td>513</td><td>26.68</td><td>8.32</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 9 shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between all subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale completed by parents and the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale completed by teachers. As seen in Table 9, while there is a low‐level correlation between the creativity subdimension of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the leadership subdimension of the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale (r = 0.29, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), a moderate‐level correlation is observed between the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale.</p> <p>9 TABLE Pearson correlation analysis results for the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale sub‐dimensions and the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale sub‐dimensions.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale</th><th align="center">SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale (<italic>N</italic> = 69)</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="center">General ability</th><th>Language arts</th><th>Mathematics</th><th>Science</th><th>Social studies</th><th>Creativity</th><th>Leadership</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>r</td><td>0.554<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.556<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.580<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.568<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.527<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.574<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.520<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>r</td><td>0.570<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.602<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.597<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.579<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.533<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.569<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.511<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>r</td><td>0.702<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.694<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.697<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.689<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.664<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.699<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.640<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>r</td><td>0.548<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.569<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.570<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.556<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.518<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.572<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.524<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>r</td><td>0.424<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.434<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.466<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.417<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.403<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.468<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.353<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.003</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>r</td><td>0.429<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.397<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.417<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.366<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.383<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.418<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.290<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.016</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>r</td><td>0.572<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.547<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.559<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.536<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.534<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.564<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.524<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>3 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05.</p> <p>Table 10 shows that there is a positive and significant relationship between all subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale completed by parents and the subdimensions of both the Preschool Candidate Notification Scale completed by preschool teachers and the Primary School Screening Scale completed by primary school teachers. As seen in Table 10, there is a low‐level correlation between the social studies subdimension of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the general ability subdimension of the Preschool Screening Scale (r = 0.25, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and between the creativity subdimension of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the general ability (r = 0.29, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), creativity (r = 0.28, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05), and motivation (r = 0.26, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) subdimensions of the Preschool Candidate Notification Scale. A moderate‐level correlation is observed between the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the other subdimensions of both the Preschool Candidate Notification Scale and the Primary School Teacher Nomination Scale.</p> <p>10 TABLE Pearson correlation analysis results regarding the sub‐dimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the sub‐dimensions of the pre‐school and primary school candidate notification scales.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">SIGS‐2 Home rating scale</th><th>Candidate notification scale for gifted children in pre‐school period (<italic>n</italic> = 72)</th><th align="center">Teacher nomination scale for gifted children in primary schools (<italic>n</italic> = 102)</th></tr><tr valign="bottom"><th align="center">General Ability</th><th>Creativity</th><th>Motivation</th><th>Total</th><th>General Ability</th><th>Creativity</th><th>Motivation</th><th>Total</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>r</td><td>0.541<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.531<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.475<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.597<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.534<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.471<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.524</td><td>0.527<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>r</td><td>0.436<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.442<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.312<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.450<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.479<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.452<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.469<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.482<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.008</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>r</td><td>0.319<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.355<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.375<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.406<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.498<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.450<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.501<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.499<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>r</td><td>0.319<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.403<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.414<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.446<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.500<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.457<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.510<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.505<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>r</td><td>0.252<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.331<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.372<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.369<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.435<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.397<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.433<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.435<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>r</td><td>0.287<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.278<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.260<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.319<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.348<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.345<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.332<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.352<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.015</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.027</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>r</td><td>0.379<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.341<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.428<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.456<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.439<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.385<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.429<ext-link href="*" /></td><td>0.432<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.003</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>4 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.05</p> <p>Table 11 reveals that there is a positive and significant relationship between all subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the scores on the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test. As shown in Table 11, there is a weak correlation between the scores on the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test and the social studies (r = 0.26, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) and creativity (r = 0.22, <emph>p</emph> < 0.05) subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale. However, a moderate‐level correlation is found between the scores on the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test and the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale.</p> <p>11 TABLE Pearson correlation analysis results for the sub‐dimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th align="left">SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale</th><th>TONI‐3 (<italic>n</italic> = 95)</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>r</td><td>0.333<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.001</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>r</td><td>0.354<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>r</td><td>0.428<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>r</td><td>0.419<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>r</td><td>0.261<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.011</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>r</td><td>0.219<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.033</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>r</td><td>0.405<ext-link href="*" /></td></tr><tr><td align="center">p</td><td>0.000</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 * <emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</p> <p>Table 12 shows that for all subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale, the mean scores increase as the level of intelligence rises. The One‐Way ANOVA analysis revealed significant differences in the scores of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale subdimensions across different levels of intelligence. To identify which groups differ in terms of intelligence levels, Scheffe's post‐hoc test results indicate that individuals with above‐average intelligence (x̄ = 33.29; x̄ = 28.47; x̄ = 28.81; x̄ = 29.03; x̄ = 26.16; x̄ = 29.53; x̄ = 31.72) have higher scores on the general ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership subdimensions compared to individuals with average (x̄ = 27.37; x̄ = 22.50; x̄ = 20.35; x̄ = 22.85; x̄ = 20.33; x̄ = 24.37; x̄ = 25.43) and below‐average intelligence (x̄ = 22.67; x̄ = 18.89; x̄ = 16.37; x̄ = 18.52; x̄ = 17.63; x̄ = 21.15; x̄ = 23.44).</p> <p>12 TABLE Descriptive analyses of intelligence levels based on the sub‐dimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the NNAT‐I Nonverbal Intelligence Test scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th /><th>Intelligence level</th><th>n</th><th>x̄</th><th>sd</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>22.67</td><td>8.47</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>27.37</td><td>7.51</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>33.29</td><td>5.67</td></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>18.89</td><td>7.38</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>22.50</td><td>7.71</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>28.47</td><td>6.92</td></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>16.37</td><td>8.59</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>20.35</td><td>8.68</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>28.81</td><td>7.59</td></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>18.52</td><td>9.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>22.85</td><td>8.83</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>29.03</td><td>6.28</td></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>17.63</td><td>6.96</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>20.33</td><td>8.23</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>26.16</td><td>7.03</td></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>21.15</td><td>8.80</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>24.37</td><td>7.46</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>29.53</td><td>5.55</td></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>Below Average</td><td>27</td><td>23.44</td><td>7.81</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Average</td><td>46</td><td>25.43</td><td>8.50</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Above Average</td><td>32</td><td>31.72</td><td>5.97</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 13 shows that the scores children receive on the subdimensions of general ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership significantly differ according to their intelligence levels (F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref106">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref107">102</reflink>) = 15.86; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref108">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref109">102</reflink>) = 12.89; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref110">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref111">102</reflink>) = 17.72; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref112">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref113">102</reflink>) = 12.06; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref114">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref115">102</reflink>) = 10.14; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref116">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref117">102</reflink>) = 10.01; F(<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref118">2</reflink>,<reflink idref="bib102" id="ref119">102</reflink>) = 9.98, <emph>p</emph> < 0.01). This indicates that the scores on the subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale significantly vary based on the children's intelligence levels. The calculated eta‐squared values for general ability, language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, creativity, and leadership are 1678.661/7075.848 = 0.24; 1408.855/6982.990 = 0.20; 2465.442/9561.048 = 0.26; 1667.118/8718.762 = 0.13; 1160.767/6997.390 = 0.17; 1074.535/6548.629 = 0.16; 1163.808/7110.248 = 0.16. Thus, it can be stated that the observed variance in the scales of general ability (24%), language arts (20%), mathematics (26%), science (13%), social studies (17%), creativity (16%), and leadership (16%) is dependent on intelligence level.</p> <p>13 TABLE ANOVA results of intelligence levels created according to sub‐dimensions of SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and NNAT‐I Nonverbal Intelligence Test scores.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead valign="bottom"><tr valign="bottom"><th>Sub‐dimension</th><th>Source of variance</th><th>Total squares</th><th>sd</th><th>Mean of squares</th><th>F</th><th>p</th><th>Significant difference</th></tr></thead><tbody valign="top"><tr><td>General Ability</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1678.661</td><td>2</td><td>839.331</td><td>15.862</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Average‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>5397.186</td><td>102</td><td>52.914</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>7075.848</td><td>104</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Language Arts</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1408.855</td><td>2</td><td>704.428</td><td>12.890</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>5574.135</td><td>102</td><td>54.648</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>6982.990</td><td>104</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Mathematics</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>2465.442</td><td>2</td><td>1232.721</td><td>17.720</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>7095.606</td><td>102</td><td>69.565</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>9561.048</td><td>104</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Science</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1667.118</td><td>2</td><td>833.559</td><td>12.057</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>7051.644</td><td>102</td><td>69.134</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>8718.762</td><td>104</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Social Studies</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1160.767</td><td>2</td><td>580.383</td><td>10.143</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>5836.624</td><td>102</td><td>57.222</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>6997.390</td><td>104</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>Creativity</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1074.535</td><td>2</td><td>537.268</td><td>10.011</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>5474.094</td><td>102</td><td>53.668</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>6548.629</td><td>104</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Leadership</td><td>Between Groups</td><td>1163.808</td><td>2</td><td>581.904</td><td>9.981</td><td>0.000</td><td>Below average‐ Above averageAverage‐ Above average</td></tr><tr><td align="center">Within Groups</td><td>5946.440</td><td>102</td><td>58.298</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td align="center">Total</td><td>7110.248</td><td>104</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>6 <emph>Note: N</emph> = 105.</item> <item>7 **<emph>p</emph> < 0.01.</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0186727887-24">Discussion</hd> <p>In Türkiye, the identification process for gifted children is often limited to teacher observations and standardized intelligence tests (MoNE [<reflink idref="bib62" id="ref120">62</reflink>]). Bildiren et al. ([<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref121">8</reflink>]) emphasized that teachers lack sufficient training regarding gifted children, highlighting the limitations of relying solely on teacher observations in the identification process. This underscores the importance of incorporating multiple assessment methods, as frequently emphasized in the literature (Lohman and Foley Nicpon [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref122">54</reflink>]; McBee et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref123">59</reflink>]). Integrating parental observations into the process can significantly enhance the multi‐assessment strategy (Besnoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref124">4</reflink>]; Mun et al. [<reflink idref="bib63" id="ref125">63</reflink>]; Wellisch [<reflink idref="bib91" id="ref126">91</reflink>]). Tools like the SIGS‐2 allow for the inclusion of parental insights, enabling a more accurate and comprehensive evaluation of children's abilities. In line with these needs, this study aimed to adapt the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2) into Turkish and evaluate its validity and reliability. Data were collected from parents for reliability analyses and from teachers and children for validity analyses to examine the structure and psychometric properties of the scale.</p> <p>Initially, Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) was performed. The CFA results yielded fit indices of CFI = 0.998; GFI = 0.994; IFI = 0.998; NFI = 0.993; NNFI = 0.998; and RFI = 0.993. According to Çokluk et al. ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref127">15</reflink>]), the acceptable fit value for GFI, CFI, NFI, NNFI, IFI, and RFI is 0.90, while a perfect fit is considered to be 0.95 or higher. Based on these values, the fit indices of the scale, including CFI = 0.998, GFI = 0.994, IFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.998, and RFI = 0.993, demonstrate excellent fit. Additionally, the RMSEA value obtained from the CFA is 0.017, indicating that the scale has an acceptable level of fit. In the literature, an RMSEA value of 0.08 or below is considered acceptable (Davcik. [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref128">17</reflink>]; Sarmento and Costa [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref129">78</reflink>]; Sümer [<reflink idref="bib86" id="ref130">86</reflink>]). Thus, it can be concluded that the scale generally provides a good fit.</p> <p>Factor loadings reveal the relationship between items and their respective factors. Büyüköztürk ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref131">14</reflink>]) indicates that a factor loading value greater than 0.30 is considered acceptable. Moreover, a factor loading value of 0.45 or higher is suggested as a good criterion for item selection. It has also been noted that a total item correlation of 0.30 or higher indicates that items effectively discriminate among individuals and align well with the overall test (Büyüköztürk [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref132">14</reflink>]; Hair et al. [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref133">28</reflink>]). According to Crocker and Algina ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref134">16</reflink>]), an item‐total correlation coefficient value of 0.20 or higher indicates that the item is consistent with the test as a whole. In the current study, the factor loadings for the items of the scale ranged from 0.36 to 0.89, and item‐total correlations ranged from 0.32 to 0.79, demonstrating that the scale items effectively differentiate among individuals and align well with the overall test.</p> <p>Reliability coefficients increase as consistency and confidence in scoring improve (Bujang et al. [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref135">13</reflink>]; Karasar [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref136">44</reflink>]; Sarmento and Costa [<reflink idref="bib78" id="ref137">78</reflink>]). In this context, the reliability results of the Turkish version of SIGS‐2 were examined using Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Composite Reliability (CR). The analyses revealed that the AVE values for the subdimensions ranged from 0.44 to 0.71, CR values ranged from 0.88 to 0.96, Cronbach's alpha values ranged from 0.87 to 0.96, and McDonald's Omega values ranged from 0.88 to 0.96. For convergent validity, AVE values should be smaller than internal consistency reliability values, and each AVE value should be greater than 0.5 (Ab Hamid et al. [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref138">1</reflink>]; Shrestha [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref139">81</reflink>]). The values in this study show that the AVE values for language arts and creativity subdimensions are smaller than the internal consistency reliability values. According to the literature, if AVE is less than 0.5 but CR is above 0.6, the construct is considered to have adequate convergent validity (Lam [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref140">51</reflink>]; Shrestha [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref141">81</reflink>]). Therefore, it can be said that all dimensions of the scale possess convergent validity. A study by Ryser et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref142">76</reflink>]) found that reliability values for the subdimensions ranged from 0.84 to 0.93. The results of this study align with the original values of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale. Furthermore, examining the reliability coefficients calculated by age groups, the alpha values for the scale's subdimensions range from 0.87 to 0.96. Various reports indicate that Cronbach's alpha values ranging from 0.70 to 0.95 are acceptable for internal consistency (DeVellis and Thorpe [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref143">18</reflink>]; Kiliç. [<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref144">48</reflink>]; Shrestha [<reflink idref="bib81" id="ref145">81</reflink>]). In line with the literature, it can be said that the alpha values of the scale across age groups are within an acceptable range.</p> <p>Criterion validity is assessed by comparing the results of a test to those of one or more other tests that measure the same performance or ability, determining how well the test measures what it is intended to measure (Kane [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref146">41</reflink>]). This process involves evaluating how well the test results align with an external criterion. In this context, the criterion‐related validity of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale was examined through correlations and One‐Way ANOVA analyses with the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale, the Preschool Nomination Scale, the Primary Nomination Scale, the TONI‐3, and the NNAT‐I. According to the literature, if the absolute value of the correlation coefficient is between 0.00 and 0.30, the relationship between variables is considered low; between 0.30 and 0.70, it is considered moderate; and between 0.70 and 1.00, it indicates a high level of relationship (Büyüköztürk [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref147">14</reflink>]; Prinsen et al. [<reflink idref="bib71" id="ref148">71</reflink>]). In this study, the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale's creativity subscale showed a low level of correlation with the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale's leadership subscale, while moderate correlations were found between the other subscales of both scales. Thus, the generally moderate correlation coefficients between the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the SIGS‐2 School Rating Scale suggest that the criterion validity between the two scales is at an acceptable level.</p> <p>The findings of this study are significant for evaluating the level of relationship between the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the Preschool Nomination Scale and the Primary Nomination Scale. The results indicate low correlations, particularly in the social studies and creativity subscales. This suggests that while there is some overlap between the two scales in measuring similar constructs, this overlap is limited. Specifically, the low correlations between the creativity subscale and the general ability, creativity, and motivation subdimensions suggest that these dimensions may emphasize different components in each scale, or that the traits measured may manifest differently in different contexts. This implies that scales used to assess abstract and complex constructs like creativity may show limited criterion validity (Ercan and Kan [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref149">19</reflink>]; Long and Wang [<reflink idref="bib55" id="ref150">55</reflink>]). On the other hand, the moderate correlations observed between the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the Preschool and Primary Nomination Scales suggest a more consistent validity between the two scales. This indicates that some abilities and skills are assessed similarly by both scales, resulting in higher criterion validity in these areas. Additionally, the acceptable level of relationships between the Turkish‐developed scales (Bildiren and Bilgen [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref151">6</reflink>]; Bildiren et al. [<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref152">9</reflink>]) and the adapted scale supports the local validity of these scales and suggests that the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale can be reliably used within Türkiye's educational system.</p> <p>Another important finding is the generally positive and significant relationship between the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the TONI‐3 Nonverbal Intelligence Test scores. The weak correlation between the social studies and creativity subscales of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the TONI‐3 scores suggests that there may be limitations in measuring intelligence in these areas or that these subscales might be influenced by factors other than intelligence. Abstract and multidimensional constructs like creativity and social studies may depend on a broader range of skills and abilities beyond nonverbal intelligence. However, the moderate correlations between the other subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale and the TONI‐3 scores suggest that these subdimensions are more directly related to intelligence and that the measurements are consistent in this context. This indicates that these subdimensions could be more closely aligned with intelligence tests like the TONI‐3.</p> <p>Furthermore, the increase on average scores across all subdimensions of the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale with increasing intelligence levels on the NNAT‐I test demonstrates that the scale is sensitive to intelligence levels and maintains consistency in evaluating children's intelligence levels. According to the results of the One‐Way ANOVA analysis, the significant differences observed suggest that the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale is capable of reflecting changes in children's intelligence levels and can be used as a valid measurement tool in this context. These findings indicate that the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale provides measurements consistent with intelligence, particularly in certain subdimensions, and can be used as a valuable tool for evaluating children's intelligence levels in educational settings. However, it is important to consider that other factors may also be significant in more abstract areas like social studies and creativity, which may require additional assessment tools and methods. The SIGS‐2 scale's original study by Ryser et al. ([<reflink idref="bib76" id="ref153">76</reflink>]) also showed consistent moderate relationships with other student performance measures commonly used in identifying and assessing gifted and talented students, such as the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT‐3), Otis‐Lennon School Ability Test (OLSAT), Test of Cognitive Skills, Second Edition (TCS/2), Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Third Edition (WISC‐III), Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children, Fourth Edition (WISC‐IV), and Woodcock‐Johnson IV. These results underscore the scale's reliability in providing unique and valid data to complement other data sources in the educational assessment process for gifted students.</p> <p>Studies in the literature indicate statistically significant correlations between parents' nominations of their children and the children's scores on intelligence tests (Furnham and Bunclark [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref154">22</reflink>]; Sommer et al. [<reflink idref="bib82" id="ref155">82</reflink>]). Similarly, the current study identified significant correlations between parents' nominations and their children's intelligence test scores. Findings from international research further demonstrate the significance of parental observations in assessing children's cognitive abilities. For instance, Keli and Mojca ([<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref156">46</reflink>]) conducted a study in Slovenia with parents of preschool children aged 4–6, showing that parents play a crucial role in identifying and nurturing their children's talents and strengths. Similarly, Jabůrek et al. ([<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref157">37</reflink>]) examined parental assessments in the Czech Republic and found moderate positive correlations between a parental nomination scale and intelligence measures, including Cattell's Fluid Intelligence Test, Scale 2, and the Woodcock‐Johnson International Edition II ‐ Tests of Cognitive Abilities. This suggests that structured parental nomination tools can serve as a useful supplement to standardized intelligence assessments. Meanwhile, Mollenkopf et al. ([<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref158">60</reflink>]) emphasized the naturalistic aspect of parental recognition, showing that most parents identify their children's exceptional abilities by the age of 2 and frequently guide the identification process. Together, these studies illustrate how both structured assessment tools (Jabůrek et al. [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref159">37</reflink>]) and natural parental observations (Mollenkopf et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref160">60</reflink>]) contribute to early gifted identification, supporting a more holistic approach.</p> <p>The findings of this study reinforce the growing body of evidence highlighting the value of parental insights in identifying gifted children. Given that parents often observe their children's cognitive and behavioral traits in diverse settings, their input can serve as a crucial component in the identification process (Hertzog et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref161">34</reflink>]; Marsili and Pellegrini [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref162">57</reflink>]; Olszewski‐Kubilius et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref163">66</reflink>]). However, relying solely on parental reports may present limitations, as studies suggest that parental nominations can be influenced by factors such as socioeconomic background, cultural perceptions of giftedness, and parental expectations (McBee et al. [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref164">59</reflink>]; Pfeiffer and Petscher [<reflink idref="bib70" id="ref165">70</reflink>]). These potential biases further underscore the importance of incorporating multiple assessment strategies to ensure accuracy and inclusivity in the identification process (Johnsen [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref166">39</reflink>]; Lohman and Foley Nicpon [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref167">54</reflink>]; McBee [<reflink idref="bib59" id="ref168">59</reflink>]; Pfeiffer [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref169">68</reflink>]).</p> <p>Building on this perspective, previous research emphasizes the critical importance of multiple assessment strategies in accurately identifying gifted children (Johnsen [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref170">38</reflink>]; Pfeiffer [<reflink idref="bib68" id="ref171">68</reflink>]). The literature frequently highlights that integrating various assessment methods allows for a more comprehensive evaluation of children's abilities and enhances the reliability of the identification process (Johnsen and VanTassel‐Baska [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref172">40</reflink>]). In this regard, incorporating the SIGS‐2 scale into the early identification process in Türkiye could address a significant gap in the current assessment framework. Utilizing SIGS‐2 alongside traditional measurement tools could expand the evaluation process by incorporating structured parental observations. This approach would systematically integrate parents' natural advantage in observing their children's potential, thereby improving both the accuracy and comprehensiveness of the identification process.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-25">Conclusion</hd> <p>This study aimed to adapt the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS‐2) into Turkish and examine its validity and reliability. The findings indicate that the SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale offers high validity and reliability and can be an effective tool for evaluating children's special abilities in educational settings. However, in more abstract and complex areas such as social studies and creativity, it is recommended to use additional assessment tools and methods considering factors beyond intelligence. This may provide a more comprehensive and balanced evaluation process, helping to more accurately identify children's abilities.</p> <p>Parents' in‐depth knowledge of their children provides a significant advantage in recognizing and guiding their potential (Besnoy et al. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref173">4</reflink>]; Hertzog et al. [<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref174">34</reflink>]; Olszewski‐Kubilius et al. [<reflink idref="bib66" id="ref175">66</reflink>]; Marsili and Pellegrini [<reflink idref="bib57" id="ref176">57</reflink>]; Mollenkopf et al. [<reflink idref="bib60" id="ref177">60</reflink>]). The SIGS‐2 Home Rating Scale is anticipated to include parents in the identification process and facilitate more accurate early identification of children's abilities. Therefore, the use of the SIGS‐2 scale is expected to make a significant contribution to the identification process in Türkiye and represent an important step in recognizing and supporting gifted children at an early stage. This way, the potential of gifted children can be supported from an early age by ensuring they receive appropriate education tailored to their needs.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-26">Ethics Statement</hd> <p>Before the study, ethical approval was obtained from Hacettepe University Social and Human Sciences Research Ethics Committee (dated 02.04.2024 and numbered 2024/07). The study was conducted with participants who signed the informed consent form. Additionally, the study adhered to ethical guidelines that ensure the protection of participants' rights, confidentiality, and safety throughout the research process. This article does not contain any material reproduced from other sources.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-27">Conflicts of Interest</hd> <p>The authors declare no conflicts of interest.</p> <hd id="AN0186727887-28">Data Availability Statement</hd> <p>The authors have nothing to report.</p> <p>GRAPH: Supporting information.</p> <ref id="AN0186727887-29"> <title> Footnotes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref138" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> This study was produced from the doctoral thesis of the first author.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0186727887-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Ab Hamid, M. R., W. Sami, and M. M. Sidek. 2017. " Discriminant Validity Assessment: Use of Fornell & Larcker Criterion Versus HTMT Criterion." Journal of Physics: Conference Series 890 : 012163.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref77" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Barrett, P. 2007. " Structural Equation Modelling: Adjudging Model Fit." Personality and Individual Differences 42, no. 5 : 815 – 824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2006.09.018.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref72" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Beaton, D. E., C. Bombardier, F. Guillemin, and M. B. Ferraz. 2000. " Guidelines for the Process of Cross‐Cultural Adaptation of Self‐Report Measures." Spine 25, no. 24 : 3186 – 3191. https://doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref26" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Besnoy, K. D., N. C. Swoszowski, J. L. Newman, A. Floyd, P. Jones, and C. Byrne. 2015. " The Advocacy Experiences of Parents of Elementary Age, Twice‐Exceptional Children." Gifted Child Quarterly 59, no. 2 : 108 – 123. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215569275.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref61" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Bildiren, A. 2017. " Reliability and Validity Study for the Coloured Progressive Matrices Test Between the Ages of 3‐9 for Determining Gifted Children in the Pre‐School Period." Journal of Education and Training Studies 5, no. 5 : 13 – 20. https://doi.org/10.11114/jets.v5i11.2599.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref24" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bildiren, A., and Ö. B. Bilgen. 2019. " Okul öncesi Dönem üstün Yetenekli çocuklar Için Aday Bildirim ölçeği: Geçerlik ve güvenirlik çalışması." Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi 20, no. 2 : 269 – 289. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.475278.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref64" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Bildiren, A., Ö. Bıkmaz Bilgen, and M. Korkmaz. 2021. " National Non‐Verbal Cognitive Ability Test (BNV) Development Study." Sage Open 11, no. 3. https://doi.org/10.1177/21582440211046945.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref121" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Bildiren, A., G. Gür, A. S. Sağkal, and Y. Özdemir. 2020. " Okul Öncesi Öğretmenlerinin Üstün Yetenekli Çocukların Tanılanması ve Eğitimlerine İlişkin Algıları." Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi 21, no. 2 : 329 – 356. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.572326.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref25" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Bildiren, A., N. Kirişçi, S. Z. Kavruk, Y. Yıldırım, Ö. Bıkmaz‐Bilgen, and B. Dildeğmez. 2024. " İlkokul dönemi üstün yetenekli çocuklar için aday bildirim ölçeği (İDABÖ) geliştirme çalışması." Ankara University Faculty of Educational Sciences Journal of Special Education 25, no. 3 : 297 – 311. https://doi.org/10.21565/ozelegitimdergisi.1359061.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Borland, J. H., and L. Wright. 2004. " Identifying Young, Potentially Gifted, Economically Disadvantaged Students." Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs 2 : 25 – 42.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Brown, L., R. J. Sherbenou, and S. K. Johnsen 1997. TONI‐3, Test of Nonverbal Intelligence: A Language‐Free Measure of Cognitive Ability. Austin, TX: Pro‐Ed.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bryman, A., and D. Cramer. 2001. Quantitative Data Analysis With SPSS Release 10 for Windows: A Guide for Social Scientists. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203471548.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Bujang, M. A., E. D. Omar, and N. A. Baharum. 2018. " A Review on Sample Size Determination for Cronbach's Alpha Test: A Simple Guide for Researchers." Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences 25, no. 6 : 85 – 99.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Büyüköztürk, Ş. 2014. Sosyal Bilimler için Veri Analizi el Kitabı. Ankara : Pegem A Yayıncılık.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Çokluk, Ö., G. Şekercioğlu, and Ş. ve Büyüköztürk. 2012. Sosyal Bilimler için çok değişkenli Istatistik: SPSS ve Lisrel Uygulamaları. Ankara : Pegem Akademi Yayıncılık.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Crocker, L., and J. Algina. 2006. Introduction to Classical and Modern Test Theory. Thomson Learning.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Davcik, N. S. 2014. " The Use and Misuse of Structural Equation Modeling in Management Research: A Review and Critique." Journal of Advances in Management Research 11, no. 1 : 47 – 81.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> DeVellis, R. F., and C. T. Thorpe. 2021. Scale Development: Theory and Applications. Sage publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ercan, İ., and İ. Kan. 2004. " Ölçeklerde güvenirlik ve geçerlik." Uludağ Üniversitesi Tıp Fakültesi Dergisi 30, no. 3 : 211 – 216.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A. 2013. Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Field, A., J. Miles, and Z. Field. 2012. Discovering Statistics Using R. Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Furnham, A., and K. Bunclark. 2006. " Sex Differences in Parents' Estimations of Their Own and Their Children's Intelligence." Intelligence 34, no. 1 : 1 – 14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2005.05.005.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gana, K., and G. Broc. 2019. Structural Equation Modeling With lavaan. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Geiser, C., S. D. Mandelman, M. Tan, and E. L. Grigorenko. 2016. " Multitrait–Multimethod Assessment of Giftedness: An Application of the Correlated Traits–Correlated (Methods–1) Model." Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal 23, no. 1 : 76 – 90.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> George, D., and M. Mallery. 2010. SPSS for Windows Step by Step: A Simple Guide and Reference, 17.0. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gorsuch, R. L. 2014. Factor Analysis: Classic Edition. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315735740.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gravetter, F., and L. Wallnau. 2014. Essentials of Statistics for the Behavioral Sciences. Wadsworth.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., W. C. Black, B. J. Babin, and R. E. Anderson. 2014. Multivariate Data Analysis. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hair, J. F., G. T. M. Hult, C. M. Ringle, and M. Sarstedt. 2022. A Primer on Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modeling (PLS‐SEM) (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA : Sage.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Harrison, C. 2004. " Giftedness in Early Childhood: The Search for Complexity and Connection." Roeper Review 26, no. 2 : 78 – 84.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hartas, D., G. Lindsay, and D. Muijs. 2008. " Identifying and Selecting Able Students for the NAGTY Summer School: Emerging Issues and Future Considerations." High Ability Studies 19, no. 1 : 5 – 18.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, K. A. 2004. " Identification of Gifted and Talented Students." Psychology Science 46, no. 3 : 302 – 323.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Heller, K. A., C. Perleth, and T. K. Lim. 2005. " The Munich Model of Giftedness Designed to Identify and Promote Gifted Students." In Conceptions of Giftedness, edited by R. J. Sternberg and J. E. Davidson, (2nd ed., 147 – 170. New York, NY : Cambridge University Press). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511610455.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hertzog, N. B., R. U. Mun, B. DuRuz, and A. A. Holliday. 2018. " Identification of Strengths and Talents in Young Children." In APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, edited by S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy‐Dedrick, and M. Foley‐Nicpon, 301 – 316. APA Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hodges, J., J. Tay, Y. Maeda, and M. Gentry. 2018. " A Meta‐Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices." Gifted Child Quarterly 62, no. 2 : 147 – 174. https://<ulink href="http://www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Definition%20of%20Giftedness%20%282019%29.pdf">www.nagc.org/sites/default/files/Position%20Statement/Definition%20of%20Giftedness%20%282019%29.pdf</ulink>.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> İnal, G. 2011. Bilişsel Yetenekler Testi Form‐6'nın Geçerlik Güvenirlik çalışması ve altı yaş çocuklarının Bilişsel Yeteneklerine Muhakeme Eğitim Programının Etkisinin Incelenmesi [The Validity and Reliability Study of the Cognitive Abilities Test Form‐6 and the Effect of the Disciplinary Education Program on the Cognitive Abilities of the six‐year‐old Children] (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Gazi University Institute of Educational Sciences, Ankara.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Jabůrek, M., A. Ťápal, Š. Portešová, and S. I. Pfeiffer. 2021. " Validity and Reliability of Gifted Rating Scales‐School Form in Sample of Teachers and Parents–A Czech Contribution." Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 39, no. 3 : 361 – 371. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282920970718.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnsen, S. K. 2005. Identifying Gifted Students: A Step‐by‐Step Guide. Prufrock Press Inc.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnsen, S. K. 2022. " The Assessment Standard in Gifted Education: Identifying Gifted Students." In NAGC pre‐k–Grade 12 Gifted Education Programming Standards, edited by S. K. Johnsen, 94 – 127. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Johnsen, S. K., and J. VanTassel‐Baska. 2022. " Introduction to Part I on Assessments for Identification." In Handbook on Assessments for Gifted Learners, 21 – 28. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kane, M. T. 2013. " Validating the Interpretations and Uses of Test Scores." Journal of Educational Measurement 50, no. 1 : 1 – 73. https://doi.org/10.1111/jedm.12000.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karaçam, Z. 2019. " Ölçme araçlarının Türkçeye uyarlanması." Ebelik ve Sağlık Bilimleri Dergisi 2, no. 1 : 28 – 37. https://dergipark.org.tr/en/pub/esbder/issue/47180/570514.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karadağ, F. 2015. Okul öncesi Dönemde üstün zekâlı çocukların Belirlenmesi [The Determination of Potentially Gifted Children in Preschools]. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation) Dokuz Eylül University Institute of Educational Sciences, İzmir.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Karasar, N. 2020. Bilimsel Araştırma Yöntemi: Kavramlar, Ilkeler, Teknikler (35th ed., 278 – 280. Anı Publishing).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kavruk, S. Z., and A. Bildiren. 2022. " Norm and Standardization Study for Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test, 5‐9 Age Group." Alpha Psychiatry 23, no. 5 : 237 – 242. https://doi.org/10.5152/alphapsychiatry.2022.21799.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Keli, G., and K. Mojca. 2021. " Parents Nominating Gifted Children in Their Early Years—The Case of Slovenia." New Educational Review 66 : 170 – 181. https://doi.org/10.15804/tner.21.66.4.14.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kenny, D. A. 2015. Measuring Model Fit. (<ulink href="http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm">http://davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm</ulink>).</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kiliç, S. 2016. " Cronbach's Alpha Reliability Coefficient." Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences 6, no. 1 : 47. https://doi.org/10.5455/jmood.20160307122823.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kline, R. B. 2011. " Convergence of Structural Equation Modeling and Multilevel Modeling." In SAGE Handbook of Innovation in Social Research Methods, edited by M. Williams and W. Paul Vogt, 562 – 589. SAGE Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Korkmaz, M., A. Bildiren, N. Demiral, and D. Culha. 2018. " TONI‐3 Sözel Olmayan Zeka Testinin 6‐11 yaş örneklemi norm ve standardizasyon çalışması." Anadolu Psikiyatri Dergisi 19, no. 1 : 76 – 83. https://doi.org/10.5455/apd.292332.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lam, L. W. 2012. " Impact of Competitiveness on Salespeople's Commitment and Performance." Journal of Business Research 65, no. 9 : 1328 – 1334. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jbusres.2011.10.026.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lavrakas, P. J. 2008. Encyclopedia of Survey Research Methods. Sage Publications.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Liu, Y. 2003. " Developing a Scale to Measure the Interactivity of Websites." Journal of Advertising Research 43 : 207 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021849903030204.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lohman, D. F., and M. Foley Nicpon. 2023. " Ability Testing and Talent Identification." In Identification: The Theory and Practice of Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Education Services, edited by S. Hunsaker, 283 – 335. Taylor & Francis.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Long, H., and J. Wang. 2022. " Dissecting Reliability and Validity Evidence of Subjective Creativity Assessment: A Literature Review." Educational Psychology Review 34, no. 3 : 1399 – 1443. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-022-09679-0.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mack, E., V. Scherrer, and F. Preckel. 2025. " How Smart Is My Child? The Judgment Accuracy of Parents Regarding Their Children's Cognitive Ability." Child Development 96 : 122 – 140. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14156.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marsili, F., and M. Pellegrini. 2022. " The Relation Between Nominations and Traditional Measures in the Gifted Identification Process: A Meta‐Analysis." School Psychology International 43 : 321 – 338. https://doi.org/10.1177/01430343221105398.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBee, M. T., S. J. Peters, and E. M. Miller. 2016. " The Impact of the Nomination Stage on Gifted Program Identification: A Comprehensive Psychometric Analysis." Gifted Child Quarterly 60, no. 4 : 258 – 278. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216656256.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> McBee, M. T., S. J. Peters, and C. Waterman. 2014. " Combining Scores in Multiple‐Criteria Assessment Systems: The Impact of Combination Rule." Gifted Child Quarterly 58, no. 1 : 69 – 89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mollenkopf, D. L., J. Matyo‐Cepero, J. D. Lewis, B. A. Irwin, and J. Joy. 2021. " Testing, Identifying, and Serving Gifted Children With and Without Disabilities: A Multi‐State Parental Perspective." Gifted Child Today 44, no. 2 : 83 – 92. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217520986589.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MoNE. 2023. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education National Education Statistics Formal Education 2022/2023 (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Millî Eğitim İstatistikleri Örgün Eğitim 2022/2023). https://sgb.meb.gov.tr/www/icerik_goruntule.php?KNO=508.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> MoNE. 2024. Republic of Türkiye Ministry of National Education Science and Art Centers Directive (Türkiye Cumhuriyeti Milli Eğitim Bakanlığı Bilim ve Sanat Merkezleri Yönergesi) 2024/2 794. https://dhgm.meb.gov.tr/meb_iys_dosyalar/2024_01/10220042_2794ocak2024.pdf.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mun, R. U., M. D. Ezzani, and G. Yeung. 2021. " Parent Engagement in Identifying and Serving Diverse Gifted Students: What Is the Role of Leadership? " Journal of Advanced Academics 32, no. 4 : 533 – 566. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211021836.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Naglieri, J. A. 2003. Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test—Individual Administration. San Antonio, TX : PsychCorp, A brand of Harcourt Assessment.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> National Association for Gifted Children. 2019. A Definition of Giftedness that Guides Best Practice. https://nagc.org/page/position-statements.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., F. C. Worrell, and R. F. Subotnik. 2018. " The Role of the Family in Talent Development." In APA Handbook of Giftedness and Talent, edited by S. I. Pfeiffer, E. Shaunessy‐Dedrick, and M. Foley‐Nicpon, 465 – 477. APA Books.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, S. J., and N. Pereira. 2017. " A Replication of the Internal Validity Structure of Three Major Teaching Rating Scales." Journal of Advanced Academics 28, no. 2 : 101 – 119. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X17701940.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer, S. I. 2015. Essentials of Gifted Assessment. John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer, S. I., and T. Jarosewich. 2003. GRS: Gifted Rating Scales. Psychological Corporation.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Pfeiffer, S. I., and Y. Petscher. 2008. " Identifying Young Gifted Children Using the Gifted Rating Scales— Preschool/Kindergarten Form." Gifted Child Quarterly 52, no. 1 : 19 – 29. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311055.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prinsen, C. A. C., L. B. Mokkink, L. M. Bouter, et al. 2018. " COSMIN Guideline for Systematic Reviews of Patient‐Reported Outcome Measures." Quality of Life Research 27 : 1147 – 1157. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-018-1798-3.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renzulli, J. S. 2000. " The Identification and Development of Giftedness as a Paradigm for School Reform." Journal of Science Education and Technology 9, no. 2 : 95 – 114.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Renzulli, J. S. and Reis, S. M., ed. 2004. Identification of Students for Gifted and Talented Programs. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ridgley, L. M., L. DaVia Rubenstein, and W. H. Finch. 2019. " Issues and Opportunities When Using Rating Scales to Identify Creatively Gifted Students: Applying an IRT Approach." Gifted and Talented International 34, no. 1–2 : 6 – 18. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2020.1722041.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryser, G., and K. McConnell. 2004. SIGS: Scales for Identifying Gifted Students. Prufrock Press.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Ryser, G. R., K. McConnell, L. Y. Sanguras, and T. Kettler. 2021. Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (2nd ed. Prufrock Press). https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237792.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sanguras, L. Y., T. Kettler, S. Gibson, A. Torres, and H. Haqqi. 2023. " Improving Equity in Gifted Education: Analyzing the Fairness of the Scales for the Identification of Gifted Students (SIGS‐2)." Gifted and Talented International 38, no. 1 : 31 – 44. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2023.2237555.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarmento, R. P., and V. Costa 2019. Confirmatory Factor Analysis—A ‐Case Study. arXiv preprint arXiv:1905.05598. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1905.05598.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sarstedt, M., and E. Mooi. 2014. A Concise Guide to Market Research. The Process, Data, and Methods Using IBM SPSS Statistics (2nd ed. Springer). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-53965-7.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Şencan, H. 2005. Sosyal ve Davranışsal ölçümlerde Güvenilirlik ve Geçerlilik. Seçkin Yayınevi.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Shrestha, N. 2021. " Factor Analysis as a Tool for Survey Analysis." American Journal of Applied Mathematics and Statistics 9, no. 1 : 4 – 11. https://doi.org/10.12691/ajams-9-1-2.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sommer, U., A. Fink, and A. C. Neubauer. 2008. " Detection of High Ability Children by Teachers and Parents: Psychometric Quality of New Rating Checklists for the Assessment of Intellectual, Creative and Social Ability." Psychology Science 50, no. 2 : 189.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sousa, V. D., and W. Rojjanasrirat. 2011. " Translation, Adaptation and Validation of Instruments or Scales for Use in Cross‐Cultural Health Care Research: A Clear and User‐Friendly Guideline." Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice 17, no. 2 : 268 – 274. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2010.01434.x.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sternberg, R. J. 2018. " 21 Ideas: A 42‐Year Search to Understand the Nature of Giftedness." Roeper Review 40, no. 1 : 7 – 20. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1393609.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subotnik, R. F., P. Olszewski‐Kubilius, and F. C. Worrell. 2012. " A Proposed Direction Forward for Gifted Education Based on Psychological Science." Gifted Child Quarterly 56 : 176 – 188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456079.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Sümer, N. 2000. " Yapısal Eşitlik Modelleri: Temel Kavramlar ve örnek Uygulamalar." Türk Psikoloji Yazıları 3, no. 6 : 49 – 74.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tabachnick, B. G., and L. S. Fidell. 2013. Using Multivariate Statistics. Pearson.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tavşancıl, E. 2002. Tutumların ölçülmesi ve spss ile veri analizi, [Measurement of attitudes and data analysis with SPSS]. Ankara: Nobel Yayıncılık.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Tezcan, S. 2017. Temel Epidemiyoloji. Hipokrat Kitabevi, 305 – 316.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Trochim, W. M., and J. P. Donnelly 2006. The Research Methods Knowledge Base. Atomic Dog.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wellisch, M. 2021. " Parenting With Eyes Wide Open: Young Gifted Children, Early Entry and Social Isolation." Gifted Education International 37, no. 1 : 3 – 21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429419899946.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, B., A. Onsman, and T. Brown. 2010. " Exploratory Factor Analysis: A Five‐Step Guide for Novices." Australasian journal of paramedicine 8 : 1 – 13. https://doi.org/10.33151/ajp.8.3.93.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Wu, E. 2010. " Screening and Identifying Gifted Children: What All Educators and Parents Should Know." Gifted Education Press Quarterly 24, no. 2 : 1 – 6.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Sevinc Zeynep Kavruk and Figen Turan</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib73" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib72" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib84" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib85" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib62" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib69" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib70" firstref="ref13"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref14"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref16"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib59" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib68" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib63" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib65" firstref="ref28"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib91" firstref="ref29"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib66" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib60" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib56" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib93" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib89" firstref="ref41"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib61" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref44"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref45"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib92" firstref="ref46"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib79" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib88" firstref="ref49"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib76" firstref="ref50"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib58" firstref="ref51"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib67" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib74" firstref="ref54"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib77" firstref="ref56"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib75" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl46" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref62"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl47" bibid="bib64" firstref="ref67"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl48" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref68"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl49" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl50" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl51" bibid="bib83" firstref="ref73"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl52" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref74"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl53" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref75"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl54" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref76"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl55" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref78"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl56" bibid="bib80" firstref="ref79"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl57" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref80"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl58" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl59" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl60" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl61" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref84"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl62" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref85"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl63" bibid="bib90" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl64" bibid="bib87" firstref="ref87"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl65" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref88"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl66" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl67" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref91"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl68" bibid="bib972" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl69" bibid="bib102" firstref="ref107"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl70" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref127"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl71" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref128"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl72" bibid="bib78" firstref="ref129"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl73" bibid="bib86" firstref="ref130"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl74" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref135"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl75" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref136"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl76" bibid="bib81" firstref="ref139"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl77" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref140"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl78" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref144"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl79" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref146"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl80" bibid="bib71" firstref="ref148"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl81" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref149"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl82" bibid="bib55" firstref="ref150"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl83" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref154"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl84" bibid="bib82" firstref="ref155"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl85" bibid="bib57" firstref="ref162"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl86" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref166"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1477345
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2) in a Türkiye Sample
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Sevinc+Zeynep+Kavruk%22">Sevinc Zeynep Kavruk</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8611-492X">0000-0001-8611-492X</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Figen+Turan%22">Figen Turan</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9785-105X">0000-0002-9785-105X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Psychology+in+the+Schools%22"><i>Psychology in the Schools</i></searchLink>. 2025 62(8):2345-2361.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 17
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Foreign+Countries%22">Foreign Countries</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Rating+Scales%22">Rating Scales</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academically+Gifted%22">Academically Gifted</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychometrics%22">Psychometrics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Parents%22">Parents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Children%22">Children</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Reliability%22">Test Reliability</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Test+Validity%22">Test Validity</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Geographic Terms
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Turkey%22">Turkey</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1002/pits.23470
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 0033-3085<br />1520-6807
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This study adapts the "Scales for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2)" into Turkish for use from preschool onward, specifically during the candidate nomination stage. Conducted with 974 parents (675 mothers, 299 fathers) of children aged 5-10, it employs Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) to evaluate the scale's structure and reliability. CFA results show excellent fit indices (CFI = 0.998, GFI = 0.994, IFI = 0.998, NFI = 0.993, NNFI = 0.998, RFI = 0.993) and an RMSEA of 0.017, indicating good model fit. Factor loadings ranged from 0.36 to 0.89, and item-total correlations were between 0.32 and 0.79, demonstrating effective discrimination. Reliability coefficients were high, with Cronbach's alpha, McDonald's omega, and Composite Reliability (CR) ranging from 0.87 to 0.96. The SIGS-2 Home Rating Scale aligns well with existing measures and reflects changes in IQ levels, showing its suitability for assessing gifted children in Türkiye. While parental nominations are valuable, they may be less reliable than test results in identifying giftedness.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2025
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1477345
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1477345
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1002/pits.23470
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 17
        StartPage: 2345
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Foreign Countries
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Rating Scales
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academically Gifted
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychometrics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Parents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Children
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Reliability
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Test Validity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Turkey
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Examining the Psychometric Properties of the Home Rating Scale for Identifying Gifted Students (SIGS-2) in a Türkiye Sample
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Sevinc Zeynep Kavruk
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Figen Turan
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 08
              Type: published
              Y: 2025
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 0033-3085
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1520-6807
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 62
            – Type: issue
              Value: 8
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Psychology in the Schools
              Type: main
ResultId 1