Nonverbal Tests Identify the Gifted?

Giftedness may be viewed as an innate potential waiting to be discovered and nurtured. But who gets to decide who is gifted? And what if the tools we use to make that decision are flawed?

Identifying gifted students is a process fraught with complexity. Traditionally, standardised ability tests have been the primary route to selection. Yet research shows this method often overlooks students from minoritised, multilingual, or economically disadvantaged backgrounds (Peters et al., 2019; Plucker et al., 2013). Could nonverbal tests, often promoted as "culture fair" alternatives, provide a more equitable path?

The Appeal of Nonverbal Testing

Nonverbal ability tests like figural reasoning assessments have gained traction as an alternative to traditional language-heavy tools. They’re often marketed as unbiased or “culture free” (Naglieri & Ronning, 2000; National Association for Gifted Children, 2010), supposedly levelling the playing field for English language learners, students with special educational needs, and those from varied cultural or socioeconomic backgrounds.

The idea is simple: remove language, and you remove bias.

The Myth of "Culture-Free" Testing

Though well-intentioned, the assumption that removing words removes bias doesn’t hold up under scrutiny.

The very concept of a “culture-free” test has been debated for over a century. As early as the 1900s, psychologists attempting to remove linguistic bias from tests quickly found their assessments still contained culturally loaded assumptions (Lohman & Gambrell, 2012).

And the pattern continues.

Modern research shows that students from minoritised groups—including Black, Latinx, and Native American pupils, those from low-income families, and students with special educational needs—still perform worse on nonverbal tests like the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) and the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), even when language demands are removed (Giessman et al., 2013; Edmonds, 2015).

One reason may be that while nonverbal tests reduce linguistic bias, they do not necessarily reduce cultural bias. Problem-solving styles, prior exposure to visual puzzles, and educational opportunities all influence performance—factors deeply shaped by culture and environment (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997).

Do Nonverbal Tests Really Help?

Unfortunately, the evidence doesn’t offer much hope. When comparing students' performance across various identification tools, researchers have consistently found that nonverbal-only approaches do not substantially close the gifted identification gap.

In one study of over 13,000 students, nonverbal tests failed to eliminate performance differences across gender, ethnicity, language, and income (Edmonds, 2015). Even when schools used both verbal and nonverbal scores, students from underrepresented groups were still less likely to be identified as gifted (Carman et al., 2018; Giessman et al., 2013).

In fact, sometimes verbal or quantitative measures predicted academic potential better than nonverbal ones (Lakin, 2012).

It’s Not Just the Test—It’s How You Use It

How schools implement identification processes matters just as much as which tests they choose.

Some districts in the US use tests as gatekeepers: only those who hit a certain score move forward in the selection process (McBee et al., 2016). Others use more holistic matrices, considering achievement scores, teacher recommendations, and classroom performance alongside ability scores.

Another promising approach involves applying different "norming" strategies. Instead of comparing every child to a national average, some schools compare students to peers from similar socioeconomic or educational backgrounds. This can result in a more accurate and fair evaluation of potential (Carman et al., 2018; Peters & Engerrand, 2016).

Conclusion

The push to identify gifted students more equitably is far from over. While nonverbal tests are not the magic solution many hoped for, they can still be useful—if used thoughtfully and in conjunction with broader, inclusive measures.

As educational psychologist David Lohman once put it: “Fairness includes using procedures for comparing students’ scores with those of other students who have had roughly similar opportunities to develop the abilities measured by the test” (Lohman, 2012).

Until we truly account for opportunity—not just ability—giftedness will remain an unevenly distributed label, too often missing the very children it was meant to uplift.

Two of the tests

Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT)

Purpose: Assesses general reasoning and problem-solving abilities using only nonverbal content.

Key Features: Nonverbal format: No reading, writing, or language skills are required.

Designed to reduce cultural and linguistic bias, making it popular for identifying gifted students from diverse backgrounds.

Format: Pattern completion, analogy-based tasks, spatial reasoning (e.g., puzzles or sequences).

Strengths: Suitable for learners with limited English proficiency or language-related learning differences. Quick to administer (approx. 30 minutes).

Limitations: Doesn’t provide insight into verbal or quantitative reasoning. May not fully capture a learner's academic potential when used alone.

Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT)

Purpose: Measures learned reasoning abilities in verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal domains.

Key Features: Multidimensional: Three batteries—Verbal, Quantitative, and Nonverbal. Often used for academic placement, gifted identification, and understanding student learning profiles.

Format: Multiple-choice questions (can be paper-based or online).

Strengths: Offers a broader picture of a learner’s cognitive strengths and weaknesses. Correlates more closely with academic achievement.

Limitations: Language-heavy sections may disadvantage learners with limited English proficiency or language processing issues. Longer test time compared to NNAT.

References

Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing (7th ed.). Prentice Hall.Callahan, C. M., et al. (2013). What works in gifted education? Psychology in the Schools, 50(7), 665–678.Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen instruments used to identify gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24(1), 52–70.Carman, C. A., & Taylor, D. K. (2010). An examination of the reliability and validity of the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test in a screening process for gifted programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(1), 43–54.Carman, C. A., et al. (2018). Identification of giftedness in diverse populations. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(1), 5–29.Edmonds, J. C. (2015). An empirical comparison of NNAT2 and CogAT7 for identifying gifted students (Doctoral dissertation).Giessman, B. C., Gambrell, J. A., & Stebbins, M. S. (2013). The use of nonverbal tests in gifted identification. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(1), 55–62.Lakin, J. M. (2012). Universal screening and giftedness: The case for ability tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(2), 103–114.Lohman, D. F., & Gambrell, J. L. (2012). Use of nonverbal tests in the identification of academically gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(3), 135–145.Lohman, D. F., & Lakin, J. M. (2007). Nonverbal tests and the identification of academically gifted children. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 219–230.Lohman, D. F., Korb, K. A., & Lakin, J. M. (2008). Identifying academically gifted English-language learners using nonverbal tests. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(4), 275–296.Matthews, M. S., & Kirsch, L. (2011). Evaluating gifted identification and assessment practices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34(4), 498–526.McBee, M. T., et al. (2016). The role of testing in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171.Naglieri, J. A., & Ronning, M. E. (2000). Comparison of Black and White children on the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test. Journal of School Psychology, 38(4), 321–337.National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Position Statement: Identifying and serving culturally and linguistically diverse students.Peters, S. J., & Engerrand, K. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171.Peters, S. J., et al. (2019). Talent development as a framework for identification and service. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(3), 171–187.Plucker, J. A., Burroughs, N., & Song, R. (2013). Mind the (other) gap! High Ability Studies, 24(1), 147–157.