Historically, the scientific literature has shown that over the years the concept of intelligence has changed from a single-factor (factor g) and twofactor (fluid and crystallized intelligence) views to a multidimensional concept (Almeida & Primi, 2010; Ekinci, 2014; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008). This fact has brought about important changes in the concept of giftedness, especially in terms of understanding that intellectual abilities alone are not enough to define this complex phenomenon (Plucker & Callahan, 2014).

Unlike the longstanding conception of the exclusive association between giftedness and intelligence (measured by Intelligence Quotient tests only), a practice that excluded many talents, the interaction between emotional characteristics and the recognition of the influence of the cultural and social contexts on the formulation and promotion of this concept have been considered to understand individuals’ behaviors (Jones, Greenberg, & Crowley, 2016; Plucker & Callahan, 2014). Therefore, important theoretical models explaining giftedness have been developed based on a multidimensional view of the phenomenon, together with an important review of intelligence models. These models include the Differentiating Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné, 2014), the Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness (Renzulli, 2012; 2014), and the Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity Synthesized Model (Sternberg, 2003; 2005).

Based on this expanded conception, Brazilian education policies, especially the Secretariat of Education, Resolution nº 81/2012, consider gifted individuals “those who have high abilities in one or more areas of human knowledge, such as the intellectual, academic, psychomotor ability, and leadership and creativity, including the motivation to learn and perform tasks in subjects of their interests” (Secretaria da Educação Especial, 2012, p.2). Characteristics found in gifted individuals can be cognitive or may include social behaviors, attributes and abilities, and can be called noncognitive characteristics; the attributes in these two categories are not mutually exclusive (Jones et al., 2016).

Based on this conception, three important aspects of giftedness have been recognized by researchers as being essential to understand the phenomenon: (1) it is a complex concept that encompasses the cognitive, emotional, social, motivational, and other spheres (2) it has many facets and their manifestation will be characterized by the individuality and exceptionally particular combination in each individual, and (3) the criterion used to evaluate the phenomenon may differ with respect to the attempt to understand all aspects involved in the construct (Panov, 2002).

In terms of the first aspect discussed above, features related to intelligence alone are no longer enough to understand gifted individuals. Thus, the so-called non-cognitive competencies have also been recognized as constituent elements of the phenomenon (Olszewski-Kubilius, Subotnik, & Worrell, 2015). Therefore, it has been noticed that non-intellectual traits (motivation, persistence, empathy, perfectionism, ethical concerns, responsibility, curiosity, and sense of humor, among others) have been considered as important as the commonly measured cognitive traits for promotion and full development of Giftedness (Almeida, Fleith & Oliveira, 2013; G. A. Davis, Rimm, & Siegle, 2011; Johnsen, 2011; Lima, 2008; Ourofino & Guimarães, 2007; Renzulli, 2012; Sabatella, 2012).

The second aspect refers to the importance of recognizing different forms of expression of Giftedness. This has been detected in most of the theoretical models that explain the phenomenon or in theories of intelligence that also support this conception. Among the previously mentioned models and theories, Gagné (2014) conceptualizes gift or talent as four aptitude domains: intellectual, creative, socio-affective, and sensorimotor. Similarly, Sternberg (2003) considers wisdom, intelligence, and creativity as essential elements and, finally, Renzulli (2012) recognizes the existence of two types of giftedness: academic and creativeproductive. Although it cannot be characterized as a model of giftedness, the model proposed by Gardner (1998) includes eight different types of Intelligence (linguistic, logical-mathematical, spatial, musical, naturalist, body-kinesthetic, interpersonal, and intrapersonal), which, due to their comprehensiveness, offer important contributions to the areas of giftedness.

Thus, it is observed that all models and theories consider the existence of manifestations of different types of high abilities, emphasizing the heterogeneity of the phenomenon by recognizing the individual differences in its expression. The recognition of this differentiation is important to highlight the degree of asynchrony that can vary from individual to individual, as well as the recognition that gifted behaviors are present in different areas and should be considered in all realms of performance, and not separately, including both Intellectual and emotional areas (Folsom, 2009).

Although the types of giftedness are not mutually exclusive, they can occur isolated or combined in an individual or even along with a disability (in cases called dual exceptionality, in which there is an area where a high ability is present together with a disability), the distinction is essential for determining the path of development of gifted behaviors and to meet the specific needs of gifted individuals, according to their particularities. Such diversity has attracted researchers’ interest in investigating how these individuals differ from their peers and in understanding their different profiles and interests (Wellisch & Brown, 2012). This perception refers to the third aspect, as emphasized by Panov (2002), i.e., the need to use different criteria in the evaluation of the phenomenon as an attempt to understand all aspects involved in the construct.

The scientific literature has repeatedly recommended the adoption of a comprehensive process that considers a combination of quantitative and qualitative measures, case studies and observations, parents and teachers’ recommendations, and selfnomination by the child; each one with its due importance (Heller, 2013). This can take place by combining objective and subjective techniques, whose range may help in ensuring the recognition of these behaviors (Renzulli, 2012). Thus, it is hoped that this process can consider both, students with traditional high academic and cognitive performance and those who demonstrate skills developed in a variety of other areas (Renzulli, 2014). Considering this, it can be said that the identification process is challenging because it results from the evaluation of the presence of the intensity and consistency in the behaviors associated with the phenomenon. It should be a continuous process which is not based only on a report indicating whether the individual is gifted (Pérez & Freitas, 2014).

The recognized importance of the combining techniques and instruments for the identification of the gifted individuals (Mun, 2016) has created an international scenario in which the assessment has been carried out using a variety of methods and techniques based mainly on the investigation of intellectual domain, performance scales, achievement, creativity, nominations by parents and teachers, and behavior verification (McClain & Pfeiffer, 2012). In Brazil, however, the situation is quite different. Although, according to the Ministry of Education (Ministério da Educação, 1999) guidelines, the assessment should aim at aspects such as divergent thinking, intellectual level, self-concept, and aptitude and creativity and could be complemented by the use of questionnaires of Interests, social and emotional adjustment rating scales, and interviews and personality assessment tools, as emphasized by Mettrau and Reis (2007), there are different challenges to be faced. One of them is the lack of specific tests that have been developed and approved for identification and evaluation of giftedness.

The lack of instruments, whether objective (performance tests) or subjective (external evaluation or self-report scales) developed specifically to evaluate the particularities of gifted individuals, can be confirmed by searching the Psychological Testing Evaluation System of the Conselho Federal de Psicologia (CFP, Federal Council of Psychology) (http://satepsi.cfp.org.br/listaTesteFavoravel.cfm). Accordingly, it should be pointed out that although other tests that evaluate isolated constructs, such as intelligence, creativity, or motivation, which are available and authorized by the CFP, can be used to identify giftedness, the lack of studies investigating their psychometric properties for this population cannot be ignored. Therefore, the Brazilian scenario is still characterized by the use of non-specific tests to identify this phenomenon (Nakano, Campos, & Santos, 2016). This justifies the need for efforts aimed at the development of psychological assessment of this specific topic, considering some aspects that deserve to be highlighted.

The first aspect concerns the fact that although psychological tests cannot be used as the only method to identify gifted individuals, the use of a multifactor comprehensive process encompassing a variety of information sources and multiple criteria established in different psychometric tests, observation, parents and teachers’ evaluation, questionnaires, schoolwork done at school, and portfolios, among others, has been recommended (Nakano, Gozolli, Alves, Zaia, & Campos, 2016; Nakano, Primi, Ribeiro, & Almeida, 2016; Pfeiffer & Blei, 2008). The aims are to encompass a wide range of characteristics involved in the high abilities (Calero & García-Martin, 2014; Hernández-Torrano, Férrandiz, Ferrando, Prieto, & Férnandez, 2014) and provide information that can support the decision about the presence characteristics indicative of giftedness (Davis, Christodoulou, Seider, & Gardner, 2011a; Milligan, 2010).

The second aspect is based on the fact that although this phenomenon is susceptible to the influence of many variables involving social, psychological, biological, educational, and environmental aspects, and it involves other important constructs, such as personality characteristics, interests, self-concept, and motivation (Gallagher, 2008; Heller, 2013; Kaufman & Sternberg, 2008), the difficulty in identifying these individuals persists. This may due to the lack of adequate evaluation instruments, the difficulty in establishing criteria, and lack of specific identification measures, which leads to the false expectations and false negative or false positive diagnoses (Bracken & Brown, 2006).

The third aspect to be highlighted is that regardless of the existence of many federal laws related to intervention actions aimed at the care of gifted children, there have been difficulties in identifying them and, mainly, in developing methods to evaluate them properly. These difficulties and challenges have hindered the access of many children to programs designed to motivate and promote the development of their abilities (Nakano et al., 2015).

The specificities of this area have motivated the development of a self-report scale to evaluate characteristics associated with giftedness. This type of measure has been seen as an instrument for screening gifted behaviors and have been used to complement assessments (Pfeiffer & Petscher, 2008), due to its ease of administration. The best known instruments include the Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students, developed by Renzulli and his collaborators, designed for teachers (Renzulli, Siegle, Reis, & Gavin, 2009); the Scale for Identifying Gifted Students, developed by Riser and McConnell (Ryser, 2011); and the Gifted Rating Scales, developed by Pfeiffer and Jarosewisch (2003). Similar instruments have been adapted or developed for use in Brazil (Cardoso & Becker, 2014; Farias, 2012; Nakano et al., 2016; Nakano & Siqueira, 2012). However, it is worth mentioning that only preliminary and isolated studies with these instruments have been carried out, and they have not yet been published or made available for professional use.

Another important issue to be addressed concerns the fact that the criteria and definitions that will determine whether an individual will be considered gifted depends on each culture and its values. However, the majority of these definitions include the recognition of the influence of cognitive, emotional, personality traits, and environmental conditions on the development of these behaviors (Mosquera, Stobäus, & Freitas, 2014). Therefore, studies of the characteristics that would be common to these individuals have gained prominence, and these characteristics are usually investigated using external evaluation or self-report scales.

A number of characteristics that would be common to gifted individuals are available in the literature (Almeida et al., 2013; Davis et al., 2011a; Reis & Renzulli, 2010; Sainz, Fernandés, & Soto, 2012). These characteristics can grouped into four dimensions: cognitive ability (high level of abstract thought, adaptation to novel situations, observation, curiosity, reasoning, memory, flexibility); learning (early and rapid learning, intense interest, broad knowledge, verbal fluency, and mathematics and reading skills, among others); motivation (intrinsic, task-involvement, interest, and enthusiasm); and personality traits (leadership, persistence, self-confidence, imagination, creativity, and perfectionism). It has been observed that several personality traits associated with giftedness permeate the intellectual, social, emotional, and educational spheres in these individuals (Rotigel, 2003), and that it is important to understand how the grouping of all traits can result in gains in their development (Plucker & Callahan, 2014; Russell, 2016).

Based on the discussions above and especially considering that difficulties still exist in the evaluation and identification of gifted individuals in the Brazil, whose scenario is marked by the challenges faced, among other things, and by the lack of instruments developed or adapted specifically for the Brazilian population, an instrument denominated Escala de Identificação de Características de Altas Habilidades/ Superdotação (EICAH/S, Scale for Identification of Characteristics of Giftedness) is under development.

The instrument was designed to be a selfreport scale since this format is easy to apply and it can be used as a screening instrument. Moreover, the knowledge of the individuals’ perceptions of their own abilities and behaviors may be essential for their full understanding, and this is not a regularly used method; external observations, usually parents and teachers’ evaluation are more commonly used (Freeman, 1996; Ona, 2016). This is the distinctive characteristic of the instrument being developed; it can be used to complement findings from other performance assessment procedures. Therefore, the present study aimed to investigate evidence of validity based on the internal structure of the scale that is being developed using exploratory factorial analysis and investigation of the reliability of its factors. The results are presented below.