Evidence map›Paper›PMID 42645999›Full record

ReviewJournal of Intelligence2026

Approaches to Identifying STEM Talent in K-12 Gifted Education: A Systematic Review.

Jiaqi Tang, Huichao Bi, Jun Wei

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Journal of Intelligence, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Jiaqi TangSchool of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.ORCID 0009-0003-2243-0407
Huichao BiSchool of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.ORCID 0000-0002-9788-0424
Jun WeiSchool of Education, Tsinghua University, Beijing 100084, China.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In the era of digital transformation and artificial intelligence, strengthening STEM education is indispensable to technological innovation and social progress. However, the scarcity of effective strategies and empirical evidence for the early identification of STEM-gifted learners constitutes a critical research gap. This study employed a systematic review approach to synthesize existing identification strategies for K-12 STEM-talent learners. Following the PRISMA framework, 26 peer-reviewed empirical and review articles were retrieved and analyzed from nine databases. Findings revealed that the majority of studies originated in the United States, peaked in 2018, and predominantly comprised empirical designs targeting high school students. Identification methods demonstrated an observed shift from holistic to more individualized approaches, encompassing intelligence and spatial ability testing, academic achievement measures, creativity and problem-solving assessments, portfolio evaluations, subject-specific competitions, and teacher or parent recommendations. Cognitive reasoning, creativity, spatial ability, and problem-solving emerged as core indicators, whereas socioeconomic status, cultural background, teacher and parental support, and gender expectations significantly influenced identification processes and talent development. Future research should empirically validate existing identification framework, account for cross-cultural variability, and examine the longitudinal efficacy of emerging artificial intelligence applications. This review synthesizes existing scholarship on K-12 STEM talent identification and delivers evidence-based recommendations to refine identification and assessment frameworks across diverse educational contexts.

Indexed as

gifted learnersidentificationK-12 STEM talentSTEM education

Identifiers

PMID42645999
PMCPMC13514602

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.