Review Reports - Underrepresented Students in Gifted and Talented Education: Using Positive Psychology to Identify and Serve

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report (Previous Reviewer 1)

I would like to thank the authors for their work in modifying the article, which has resulted in a significant improvement.

Author Response

Thank you for your feedback.

Reviewer 2 Report (New Reviewer)

The context of the research is clearly described and is appropriate to the research topic. The references and citations used in the theoretical framework are adequate, current and offer relevant information for the reader. The theoretical framework presents an adequate structure and relevant information on the contents framed in the document. However, there are certain headings such as 2.1. Solely Focusing on the Cognitive Domain, 2.2. Cultural, Language, and Disability Bias and 2.3. Instrument Bias and Static Assessment Schedule whose content is very important for the understanding of the document and which are presented in a very reduced form. It is recommended to expand these headings for an improvement of the document.

The document reflects both the objectives of the BEM-e model and the document presented. Both are well defined and fit the object of study. However, there is no mention in the document of the research questions, its inclusion being recommended to give greater contextualization and foundation in the empirical approach.

At the methodological level, there is no clear definition of the type of empirical model used in the work. Various results on the effectiveness of the BEM-e model are shown, but without a clear definition of whether these results come from other studies, understanding that the work is a bibliographic review, a description of the processes that have been carried out for the inclusion of the documents presented. Or, on the contrary, the results that are presented are carried out by the authors of the document, so it would be advisable to include more information on the methodology, instruments and sampling that have been used to obtain them. Further clarification on this aspect is recommended in the development of the methodological and results section.

The conclusions indicate that the work is shown as a theoretical review of the BEM-e model, with the approach of a future work. The conclusions are empty and it is recommended to give more empirical detail about this future work to be carried out. It is also recommended to include negative aspects of the model, since the work only mentions positive aspects of the BEM-e model, and it is necessary to include its limitations to guarantee its reproduction capacity by other researchers.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer #2,
Replies are in red following each comment.

Addressed. Content in these sections was meant to be abbreviated so the reader can find more information for each section from the references. This article is meant to introduce the BEM-e as a theoretical model. These sections are meant to provide the reader with context and stay within the word/page limit of the journal.

This is not a research study. It is a theoretical article.

Response: The BEM-e is a theoretical model, therefore, empirical evidence is non-extant at this time. Any mention of experimental methods or other empirical efforts have been clearly marked as future directions.

Response: As the reviewer noted in this paragraph, the conclusions indicate that this work is a theoretical review of the BEM-e model with an approach to future work. As noted in the Conclusions section (lines 553-556), “pilot studies are being conducted to evaluate the practical implementation and effectiveness of BEM-e. This will help refine the model, identify potential challenges, and validate its ability to address the representation gap in gifted and talented education.” The pilot study is underway; therefore, empirical data is unavailable to report. We recognize this model is not perfect, therefore, limitations exist to what we propose. Some limitations include the need for additional training of teaching staff, whereas current tests do not rely on teachers’ expertise.

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

This paper addresses an area that has been a prominent issue in gifted education for at least 75 years. The model described is compelling and has the potential to transform gifted identification practices.

The article is generally well-written but contains numerous errors that are somewhat distracting. The conclusion section is also lacking. I hope that my detailed comments below will improve this worthy article, which should be received well by practitioner and researchers in the field of gifted education.

Line 3: The use of an ampersand is appropriate in "Gifted & Talented Education"; however, I recommend replacing the ampersand in "Identify & Serve" with the word "and."

Line 11: The word "model" is not capitalized.

Line 65: Remove apostrophe in "1900's" (should be "1900s").

Line 66: Replace "greatly influence" with either "have greatly influenced" or "greatly influenced."

Line 85: Replace "2e" with "2E" (the latter is how the acronym appears in the rest of the paper).

Lines 96-97: Add period to "Ford et al" (should be "Ford et al.").

Lines 96-99: (1) This quotation does not appear anywhere in Ford et al. (2008), "Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students in Gifted Education: Recruitment and Retention Issues" https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001440290807400302; (2) The words "over refer" and "over refer" are either hyphenated or compound words; (3) the page number for the quotation was not included.

Lines 111-116: (1) The Sattler quote is one of the few in-text citations in the paper that includes the year of publication, and (2) the Sattler book cited does not appear in the reference list.

Lines 118-119: Apostrophe in wrong place - "an English learners’ abilities" should be "an English learner's abilities."

Lines 119-121: The sentence, "The United States, although diverse in makeup, is not included in the top ten of the most diverse nations which are in Africa" is unclear and somewhat misleading. The source cited is a 2013 article that employed "a balanced panel of 94 countries covering the period 1970 to 2004" and used a computer algorithm to determine diversity (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2255492). Would a different, more recent algorithm produce different results? Given the large number of countries in Africa and their relatively small populations compared with the US, this statement seems irrelevant. What does the diversity of African countries have to do with identifying gifted & talented students in the US?

Line 121: (1) Add a period to "Gonthier et al" (should be "et al."). (2) The years of publication appear for both articles, which is inconsistent with most of the paper. Delete them and replace with 42 and 43 in brackets.

Line 125: In Line 120, the word "ten" was written out; in Line 125, the numeral "10" was used.

Line 127: Assumption that all readers know what the Flynn effect is. Please explain.

Lines 118-129: In retrospect, I believe this entire paragraph should be revisited and rewritten. It is not clear why the WAIS was mentioned if "Most schools in the United States do not offer the WAIS as a means of identification."

Line 150: Extra comma and spaces in "bias, , and"

Lines 160-161: Add front parenthesis to "1)" and "2)" for consistency with numbered list on Lines 262-263.

Line 188: Capitalize "original" for consistency with other subtitles on same level.

Line 203: Not clear what "its" is referring to.

Lines 215-222: Recommend italicizing the bolded words for consistency with inputs in the following paragraph (bolded & italicized is okay).

Line 222: Not clear what is meant by "innate with world with meta."

Line 224: The acronym EPOCH was introduced in the abstract but not in the body of the article. Please write out "Engagement, Perseverance, Optimism, Connectedness, and Happiness model" followed by "(EPOCH)."

Line 225: "Agency" should be in bold italics.

Line 226: (1) The acronym "CHS" was never introduced (readers won't know what it stands for. (2) "Perseverance/Pathway" should be in bold italics.

Line 242: Shouldn't references 81, 64, 82, and 83 be in numerical order within brackets? If they are ordered in accordance with individual items/topics in the sentence (e.g., comorbid disabilities, racial and cultural diversity, socioeconomic disadvantages), each citation could appear after an individual item/topic.

Line 253: Add period at end of "et al."

Lines 254-256: The sentence that begins "Each of the inputs is dependent ..." does not seem to match Figure 1, where there is a line from each input to a specific ring on the target. Natural Affect appears to be associated with the outer ring, but the sentence states "The BEM rings that are flexible ... encompass all constructs except Natural Affect."

Line 257: (1) Shouldn't "that is" be deleted? (2) What does the acronym "PERMA" stand for? (3) The name of the book "Flourish" should be italicized.

Lines 263-264: Recommend clarifying #4 by adding "with gifted and talented abilities" at the end of the sentence.

Line 273: (1) At the end of this sentence, "academic support for students who have previously been disadvantaged" infers that the students who receive academic support are no longer disadvantaged. (2) What type of disadvantage are you referring to?

Lines 295-297: (1) The Hartman quote in this sentence is not verbatim. The passage from which the quote was taken from Hartman is "Metacognition is especially important because it affects acquisition, comprehension, retention and application of what is learned, in addition to affecting learning efficiency, critical thinking, and problem solving." (2) There are no end quotes on Line 297.

Lines 303-304: Reformat parenthetical material. Cannot open with a parenthesis and close with a bracket.

Lines 304-310: The five consecutive sentences that cite research findings resemble notes that were taken from the papers referenced. Each similarly constructed sentence appears to have been inserted and doesn't provide flow in the paragraph. Recommend rewriting.

Line 313: Add a comma between "small group" and "discussion-based."

Line 315: "Achievement Motivation Enhancement Curriculum (AME)" should be written as "Achievement Motivation Enhancement (AME) curriculum."

Line 323: Replace "establish" with "established."

Lines 327-329: "Thus, emphasizing the need to move away from the long-standing paradigm of cognitive development as the central and sole tenet of gifted education" is not a complete sentence.

Line 345: It could clarify the statement if "many" was placed between "However," and "researchers."

Line 359: "(e.g.," is unnecessary. Please delete "(e.g.,"

Line 361: What were the "other school variables"? Suggest adding "such as" and provide two "other school variables."

Line 384: Insert "point" between "1.5" and "increase."

Line 388: Replace "minorities" with “people of color” or "underrepresented students." Although the words "minority" and "minorities" have been widely used, many publications no longer use these terms because they are offensive. Please refer to https://www.npr.org/sections/publiceditor/2011/08/29/140040441/on-race-the-relevance-of-saying-minority and https://nahj.org/2020/08/04/nahj-asks-newsrooms-to-drop-the-use-of-minority/ as well as https://www.forbes.com/sites/rashaadlambert/2020/10/08/there-is-nothing-minor-about-us-why-forbes-wont-use-the-term-minority-to-classify-black-and-brown-people/?sh=678c401c7e21

Line 397: (1) Can you state with certainty that mindfulness has "not at all" been studied in gifted education? (2) There appears to be an extra space between "quasi-" and "experi-."

Line 398: In "10-min-per-day" the word "minute" should be written out.

Line 409: Replace "one of" with "among" because "Froh et al." means there was more than one researcher.

Lines 422-424: (1) Do the school personnel who reviewed the model work at the same four schools at which the BEM-e is being applied? Regardless, please clarify who they are. (2) "Middle grades" in U.S. schools generally refers to grades 6-8 (middle school) and not grades 4-8. Grades 4-5 are generally considered upper elementary grade. (3) What were the results of the blind review, thorough evaluation, and review by school personnel at four schools? Were they positive? Did you make any adjustments to the model based on feedback?

Lines 425-427: This is the first mention of a "research team." Who are they? What credentials do these individuals hold that allow you to claim they "are among the most qualified in the United States"? You stated that two are licensed counselors, but you left readers hanging about the qualifications of the other members of the research team.

Line 428-440: Readers (including me) will be intrigued about the "more inclusive tool" you refer to in this sentence. Are you developing an instrument or instruments based upon the BEM-e model "to identify and support gifted and talented 429 individuals from diverse backgrounds"? Again, we are left hanging because you have not described what will happen next or any other future steps. Please explain more about "future research and pilot studies [that] are being conducted."

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Use of acronyms: The acronyms "PA" (Line 59), "CLED" (Line 92), "ELs" (Line 110), "DIF" (Line 122), and "ME" (Line 195) are introduced in text but do not appear subsequently in the article.

Research shows: On Lines 280, 338, and 367, you wrote "research shows." Suggest replacing at least one of these with "research indicates."

Overuse of thus: "Thus" was used eight times from Line 287 through Line 400. Suggest replacing some of these with synonyms.

Reference list: There are numerous formatting errors in the reference list.

Mostly minor errors but errors nonetheless.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,
Thank you for your detailed feedback. Responses to comments are in red.

Line 3: The use of an ampersand is appropriate in "Gifted & Talented Education"; however, I recommend replacing the ampersand in "Identify & Serve" with the word "and."

Addressed

Line 11: The word "model" is not capitalized.

Addressed

Line 65: Remove apostrophe in "1900's" (should be "1900s").

Addressed

Line 66: Replace "greatly influence" with either "have greatly influenced" or "greatly influenced."

Addressed with “greatly influenced”.

Line 85: Replace "2e" with "2E" (the latter is how the acronym appears in the rest of the paper).

Addressed

Lines 96-97: Add period to "Ford et al" (should be "Ford et al.").

Addressed

Addressed. The quote was removed.

Lines 111-116: (1) The Sattler quote is one of the few in-text citations in the paper that includes the year of publication, and (2) the Sattler book cited does not appear in the reference list.

Addressed

Lines 118-119: Apostrophe in wrong place - "an English learners’ abilities" should be "an English learner's abilities."

Addressed

Addressed. This section was rewritten for clarity.

Addressed

Line 125: In Line 120, the word "ten" was written out; in Line 125, the numeral "10" was used.

Addressed

Line 127: Assumption that all readers know what the Flynn effect is. Please explain.

Addressed. This was removed from the article.

This paragraph was updated to reflect another reviewer’s comments that we must include this information. We did not feel it was particularly germane to the overall article. It has been revisited and rewritten.

Line 150: Extra comma and spaces in "bias, , and" Lines 160-161: Add front parenthesis to "1)" and "2)" for consistency with numbered list on Lines 262-263.

Addressed

Line 188: Capitalize "original" for consistency with other subtitles on same level.

Addressed

Line 203: Not clear what "its" is referring to.

Addressed. Replaced “its” with “the”.

Lines 215-222: Recommend italicizing the bolded words for consistency with inputs in the following paragraph (bolded & italicized is okay).

Addressed. The bolded words were italicized to maintain consistency. (Lines 213-220)

Line 222: Not clear what is meant by "innate with world with meta." (LINE 230)

Addressed. The definition for Niche was updated to reflect “…(innate with both world contexts and with meta affects)” (Line 220)

Addressed

Line 225: "Agency" should be in bold italics.

Addressed

Line 226: (1) The acronym "CHS" was never introduced (readers won't know what it stands for. (2) "Perseverance/Pathway" should be in bold italics.

Addressed

Addressed. The citations (in brackets) appear after each item in the list instead of grouped together at the end of the sentence. (Lines 240-241)

Line 253: Add period at end of "et al."

Addressed. The period was added at the end of “et al”. Line 252

Addressed. A sentence was added to clarify that although Figure 1 appears to have static boundaries, the rings are fluid and therefore do not have well-defined boundaries. (Lines 255-256)

Line 257: (1) Shouldn't "that is" be deleted? (2) What does the acronym "PERMA" stand for? (3) The name of the book "Flourish" should be italicized.

Addressed. “that is” was deleted from Line 257 and PERMA was spelled out on Line 258.

Lines 263-264: Recommend clarifying #4 by adding "with gifted and talented abilities" at the end of the sentence.

Addressed. “with gifted and talented abilities” was added to the end of the sentence to provide greater clarification. Line 265.

Addressed. This has been clarified to reduce confusion.

Addressed. The quote was corrected, and end quotes were added. Lines 297-298

Lines 303-304: Reformat parenthetical material. Cannot open with a parenthesis and close with a bracket.

Addressed. Closed parentheses were added at the end of (r = .72, p<0.001). Line 305

Addressed. This section has been rewritten for clarity and flow. Lines 305-316

Line 313: Add a comma between "small group" and "discussion-based."

Addressed. Comma was added. Line 314

Line 315: "Achievement Motivation Enhancement Curriculum (AME)" should be written as "Achievement Motivation Enhancement (AME) curriculum."

Addressed. Line 316

Line 323: Replace "establish" with "established."

Replaced. Line 324

Lines 327-329: "Thus, emphasizing the need to move away from the long-standing paradigm of cognitive development as the central and sole tenet of gifted education" is not a complete sentence.

Addressed. A comma was added to connect the previous sentence. Line 328

Line 345: It could clarify the statement if "many" was placed between "However," and "researchers."

Addressed. “many” was added. Line 346

Line 359: "(e.g.," is unnecessary. Please delete "(e.g.,"

Addressed. It was deleted. Line 360.

Line 361: What were the "other school variables"? Suggest adding "such as" and provide two "other school variables."

Addressed. Line 362

Line 384: Insert "point" between "1.5" and "increase."

Addressed. Line 384

Addressed. “people of color” replaced “minorities”. Line 388

Line 397: (1) Can you state with certainty that mindfulness has "not at all" been studied in gifted education? (2) There appears to be an extra space between "quasi-" and "experi-."

To our knowledge at this time, mindfulness has not been studied with children in gifted education.
Addressed.

Line 398: In "10-min-per-day" the word "minute" should be written out.

Addressed.

Line 409: Replace "one of" with "among" because "Froh et al." means there was more than one researcher.

Addressed.

The school personnel who reviewed the model do not work at the same four schools. They have not given permission to provide their identifying information. Blind reviewers in the US Department of Education thoroughly evaluated this model.
Updated
Addressed
Addressed

Addressed. We initially elaborated based on reviewer comments, but after careful consideration, we have determined not to share details about future studies. Empirical studies are underway.

Addressed. See Lines 429-431

ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:

Use of acronyms: The acronyms "PA" (Line 59), "CLED" (Line 92), "ELs" (Line 110), "DIF" (Line 122), and "ME" (Line 195) are introduced in text but do not appear subsequently in the article.

Deleted.

Research shows: On Lines 280, 338, and 367, you wrote "research shows." Suggest replacing at least one of these with "research indicates."

Replaced on line 339.

Overuse of thus: "Thus" was used eight times from Line 287 through Line 400. Suggest replacing some of these with synonyms.

Deleted from Lines 288, 328, 333, 350, 371, and 392

Reference list: There are numerous formatting errors in the reference list.

Addressed.

Reviewer 4 Report (New Reviewer)

Very relevant topic. Innovative idea and very well written. I am excited to read about the follow up studies! So nice to see a focus on affective development, particularly for underserved gifted students and 2E. Well done.

Author Response

Dear Reviewer,

Thank you for your feedback.

Round 2

Reviewer 3 Report (New Reviewer)

While this version is an improvement, "Model" is still capitalized on Line 11. The author's comments stated that this was addressed.

I strongly recommend that the authors take another look to make sure every error has been corrected.

Author Response

The capitalized "Model" was shifted to lowercase on Line 11.

All authors have reviewed this manuscript for grammar, quotes, alignment, and reference accuracy.

This manuscript is a resubmission of an earlier submission. The following is a list of the peer review reports and author responses from that submission.

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The title of the article is very promising, as it envisages a focus on under-represented giftedand talented students.

However, a reading of the article highlights several major problems :

1. It would be necessary to clarify when the authors of HPI vs. HP. In fact, the scientific literature is mainly based on an IQ score, since the main focus is on High Intelligence Potential. In fact, depending on the perspective taken into consideration, different psychological constructs may be taken into account to determine, for example, high potential in terms of leadership or creativity.

2. The authors criticize the use of psychometric tools, without providing precise justification (line 94-107). It's a fact that all psychometric tools have their limitations, and that's why psychometric qualities are evaluated in order to have the most objective vision possible, while being aware of the limitations, notably cultural. On this point, recent articles by Gonthier et al. (Gonthier, C., & Grégoire, J. (2022). Flynn effects are biased by differential item functioning over time: A test using overlapping items in Wechsler scales. Intelligence, 95. Gonthier, C., Grégoire, J., & Besançon, M. (2021). No negative Flynn effect in France: Why variations of intelligence should not be assessed using tests based on cultural knowledge. Intelligence, 84.) would be essential reading.

3. The description of the BEM model is interesting, but not well supported by recent scientific literature (in indexed journals). For example, the metacognition construct would benefit from a more precise definition, and the authors should explain their reasons for focusing on self-efficacy and self-perception (in relation to theoretical models).

4. The section on positive psychology interventions has no real connection with what has gone before. It's not easy to understand why the authors focus on certain elements rather than others. What's more, the authors don't give any details on the characteristics of the interventions, which is problematic in terms of getting things right (because implicitly, the idea is certainly to replicate this research with (intellectually) gifted / talented children).

Reviewer 2 Report

Will this model be applied? Has this model been evaluated by actual practitioners i.e. professionals who identify the gifted and talented? Has this model been proposed for use in an institution?

Reviewer 3 Report

This is an interesting study; the author(s) were in the endeavor of addressing the underrepresentation issue in the field of gifted education. They tried to develop a model to identify those underrepresented populations. However, as a theoretical model, this study lacks of the theoretical foundation of the model. They tried to expand an existing model by adding some other concepts. All existing models in the field consider cognitive (intellectual) skills a crucial factor in giftedness. They asserted that giftedness models do not take conative domains but there are some models including for instance motivation (Renzulli). The model claims that it is an alternative identification model but I don’t see anything for identification procedures.

I wish the authors the best of luck in their ongoing work

It was hard to keep up with the language.