本研究針對我國現行之資優學生的鑑定方式，以訪談、座談等方式蒐集相關文獻、編製「資優學生鑑定製度調查問卷」，並選取66名學者專家及設有資優班之83所學校778名中小學工作人員及家長，以調查法探討各級學校鑑定資優學生之流程、標準、參與人員、使用之工具、以及決策過程，並分析其對現行制度之意見及建議。調查結果發現:
1.各校主要以客觀化的量表數據為篩選與鑑定之工具，有少數學校以單一標準鑑定資優學生名單，而教師及行政人員、家長與專家學者的意見明顯偏向多變化，更強調教師觀察資料、甚至面試的方法。
2.資優學生名單之確定並無齊一的模式，多數學校為免遺珠之憾，仍留有若干彈性遞補之。惟其他樣本多贊成依標準不必取足名額。
3.大部分樣本均肯定其對鑑定工作的重要性 高中方面較偏向性向測驗，而國中、國小則較注重個別智力測驗與非語文測驗，而專家學者及各級學校教師對創造力測驗的重視更突顯各校在鑑定上對創造思考的忽視。
4.鑑定工作的困難相當普遍，觀念的偏差或誤導、工具之不足與用等均受到注意。教育學者對測驗問題最為重視，亦反應對個別差異及內在差異之忽視，而國小樣本普遍感受條件較差、困難較多的情況。
5.各類樣本對鑑定制度的建議頗為相近，最強烈的建議是宣導正確資優教育理念，次為重視個別差異的存在避免鑑定僵化，至於測驗工具的編製與運用則為承辦人員、教師及教育學者所強調之重點，科教界學者則希望鑑定過程中更重視教師及專家學者的推薦。
根據本研究之發現與結論，疌出下列建議:
1.教育行政機關或各級學校內部及家長之間應開闢多元溝通管道，以減少彼此間認知上的差距，並適時宣導正確的理念。
2.鑑定標準與決策模式的統一或彈緎之間求取平衡，可在程序上做原則性的統一規定，同時禁止單一標準決定資優學生的各單，但亦要求各級學校自行選擇多變化的甄選標準，特別考慮教師觀察資料的重要性。
3.重視弱勢族群學生的權益，可以特別立法給予適當的照顧，給予更多參活動、表現的機會，經由面試、現場實作等方法，確實掌握其潛能。
4.測驗之使用有待落實，應以具有前性的整體規劃，加速委託專家學者致力於測驗編製之工作，並輔導各縣市心理評量小組，定期辦理各項測驗研習活動。
5.資優教育之型態應更多樣化，資優學生的確定不受名額之限制。
6.追蹤研究在現行鑑定制度下獲選的學生是否與所提供之資優教育目標對象相符?是否獲得當的資優教育服務?對落選學生進行了解發展與表現，用以反應先前的鑑定工作確實性。

　　　　　The purpose of this study was to examine the identification system for gifted students in Taiwan. Depth interview was first used to collect original materials to explore the states of the art, and also develop a questionnaire accordingly. A total of 66 experts and 778 school personnels and parents were selected for investigation their responses.
The major findings of the study were as follows:
(1) Most schools used objective instruments as identification tools, some of them used single criteria to identify gifted students. There were significant differences from parents and education experts who emphasized using teacher observation and nomination as well as method of interview n the identification process.
(2) There was no uniform mode of decision-making on results of the identification. Most schools preferred filling the vacancy for the gifted class.
(3) senior high schools used aptitude tests more often and junior high and elementary schools preferred individual and non-verbal intelligence tests. Experts and school teachers emphasized the importance of creativity test.
(4) Many difficulties were indicated in the identification process, including inadequate conception of the giftedness and abuse of the assessment instruments. Elementary schools experienced greater difficulties among other samples.
(5) The most vigorous suggestion put on advocating correct concepts of gifted education Others included paying more attention on individual and intra-differences, test construction, and more teachers and experts involved in the identification process.