Rethinking Giftedness: A Systematic Review of Research on Identification, Assessment, and Inclusion in Gifted Education

moderate quality, reflecting generally sound designs with minor methodological or reporting limitations; and scores below 0.6 were deemed low quality, indicating notable weaknesses such as small sample sizes, limited transparency, or insufficient control of bias. Strategy of data synthesisA standardised data extraction protocol was developed and pilot-tested on a random sample of five studies to ensure clarity and consistency.The extraction form captured both descriptive and analytic data, including: (i) Author(s), year of publication, and country; (ii) Study type and methodological design; (iii) Objectives and hypotheses; (iv) Sample size and characteristics (e.g., age range, gender, identification criteria for giftedness); (v) Data collection methods and instruments used; (vi) Primary variables and measured outcomes; (vii) Key findings and statistical or thematic results; (viii) Practical implications, limitations, and authors' conclusions; (ix) MMAT quality score.Subgroup analysis Analysis were made on first author and publication year, study design and methodological type, research purpose, and country of origin.Additionally, methodological and empirical characteristics of the studies included in t h e s y s t e m a t i c re v i e w, d e t a i l i n g s a m p l e composition, instruments and measures used, psychometric properties, item formats, principal findings, and reported practical applications. Sensitivity analysisTwo reviewers independently extracted all data, followed by cross-checking and reconciliation of discrepancies.All extracted data were compiled into a centralised master spreadsheet, from which summary tables were generated.The final synthesis grouped studies according to both methodological approach (e.g., qualitative, quantitative, mixed) and thematic domain (e.g.