I think this is what you're referring to:
Contrary to the myth that "every parent thinks her child is gifted," (whether he or she is gifted, or not) parents are highly effective identifiers of high ability in their children (Robinson and Robinson 1992); indeed, they are significantly more accurate than teachers, who are rarely trained in how to identify and respond to gifted students and who may not notice high academic ability if they present the gifted child only with work set at the level and pace of the average child in the class (Jacobs 1971).
Read more: Gifted and Talented Children - Identification Of Gifted Children - development
http://family.jrank.org/pages/711/G...ation-Gifted-Children.html#ixzz0keXKL0IfThis Robinson & Robinson paper is much quoted in support of the "parents who think their DC are gifted are almost always right" meme, but has anyone here actually read the paper? I haven't been able to get hold of it, but the closest I can come to a description of what's actually in it is this quote from Miraca Gross (
http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10124.aspx)
Robinson and Robinson (1992) reported that almost half of 550 young children aged 2-5, who were volunteered by their parents for a longitudinal study of high ability children, and who were subsequently tested, had IQs of 132 or higher.
I don't doubt that this is, as she says, "statistically remarkable" given how rare IQs of 132+ are - but this still means that
more than half of the children concerned did
not have IQs over 132. This is hardly resounding support for the accuracy of parents' identification...
I have seen several other sources for similar claims, but I haven't yet found one that stood up to even cursory examination. E.g. Gross's book cites a paper from Gifted Children Quarterly (vol 18 pp202-09) which does indeed say that parents were effective at identifying gifted children - in the sense that most children who turned out to be gifted had been identified as such by their parents; but unfortunately, more than half of all the children had been identified as such by their parents! (So you could say parents were effective, but not efficient. Teachers missed more gifties, but they nominated far fewer children overall.)
