The Validity of China’s College Entrance Examination for Early Identification of Top Innovative Talents

doi:10.16382/j.cnki.1000-5560.2026.09.002

Abstract

Abstract:

Early identification constitutes a pivotal stage in cultivating top innovative talents, bearing directly on the effectiveness of the innovation-oriented talent supply system. As China’s largest mechanism of educational selection, the college entrance examination (CEE) system, anchored in standardized testing and holistic admissions, plays an essential role in identifying talented students. Using longitudinal survey data of “Double First-Class” universities, this study systematically examines the validity of the CEE system in identifying talented students. The results reveal that although standardized CEE scores provide an initial screening signal for students’ academic performance, innovation-related capabilities, and academic aspirations, their validity in identifying talented students with outstanding comprehensive competence remains limited. Further analysis indicates that a combined selection system integrating standardized examinations with holistic admissions significantly enhances identification precision. Moreover, talented students’ development resists a linear interpretation based on initial conditions and instead follows a dynamic, stage-contingent, and context-dependent process. Instructional quality, close student-faculty interaction, and academic involvement during college emerge as decisive factors in talent formation. These results broaden the theoretical perspective on early identification and offer concrete implications for reforming the CEE and strengthening autonomous talent cultivation systems.

Key words: top innovative talents, college entrance examination, identification, talented student

CLC Number:

G645

Yuanhao He, Wei Bao. The Validity of China’s College Entrance Examination for Early Identification of Top Innovative Talents[J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(9): 14-26.

Figures/Tables 7

类型	名称	指标	操作化
因变量	综合素养	课业成绩	观测题项：百分制课业成绩（单位：分），根据院校、专业进行标准化处理
		创新潜质	观测题项：批判性思维、创新能力（低=1—高=6），是否参与学术竞赛、参与教师科研项目、主持自主科研项目次数（单位：次）；取因子得分
		学术志趣	观测题项：未来是否期望获得博士学位、是否期望从事学术科研职业（是=1，否=0）；取因子得分
自变量	高考体系	标准化高考分数	高考总分数（单位：分），按考生所在省市、传统高考与新高考区域进行标准化处理
自变量	高考体系	多元化综合招生	是否在参加统一高考的基础上，通过自主招生、“三位一体”综合评价等招生渠道入学；是=1，否=0
控制变量	学生个体特征	男性	男性=1，女性=0
	学生个体特征	农村生源	农村生源=1，城市生源=0
	家庭社会经济地位	家庭年收入	学生家庭年收入（单位：元），对数化处理
	家庭社会经济地位	第一代大学生	第一代大学生（父母双方均无高等教育就读经历）=1，第二代大学生=0
	课程教学质量		观测题项：课程教学重视出勤考评、重视预习复习、注重课堂互动与学生参与、提供案例讲解、要求学生独立或合作开展自主研究、给予及时有效反馈、提供课后辅导答疑、强调过程性评价（1=从不—6=经常）；取因子得分
	深度师生互动		观测题项：教师与我交流人生感悟与思考、鼓励我在学业方面不断进步（1=从不—6=经常）；取因子得分
	学生学业参与	规则性参与	观测题项：按时完成和提交作业、逃课（反向赋分）、课堂上做与课程无关的事（反向赋分）（1=从不—6=经常）；取因子得分
		过程性参与	观测题项：课后预复习、课堂上提问或主动回答问题、参与课堂讨论（1=从不—6=经常）；取因子得分
		自主性参与	观测题项：利用图书馆资源开展自主学习、与同学讨论课程内容相关问题、课后向老师个别请教（1=从不—6=经常）；取因子得分

References

	边新灿. (2015). 新一轮高考改革对大学教育的影响. 中国高等教育, (02), 7- 9.
	冯成火. (2017). 高考新政下高中课改的评价、问题与策略——基于浙江省的实践与探索. 教育研究, 38 (02), 123- 131.
	景安磊, 周海涛, 施悦琪. (2024). 推进拔尖创新人才的一体化选育. 教育研究, 45 (4), 17- 27.
	李茂菊, 朱益明. (2022). “高考”分数可免何以可能?——美国一流大学“可免试入学”政策的价值考量及其保障机制. 外国教育研究, 49 (09), 18- 34.
	李木洲, 孙艺源. (2024). 世界强国拔尖创新人才选拔培养的多元模式与中国选择. 教育研究, 45 (04), 40- 51.
	刘海峰, 唐琴. (2021). 高考数学文理分科的历史考察与现实思考. 国家教育行政学院学报, (12), 67- 77.
	刘清华. (2025). 我国高校拔尖创新人才选拔探索的基本经验、理论逻辑与政策建议. 中国考试, (06), 27- 36.
	陆一, 卜尚聪. (2025). 我国高考体系对拔尖创新人才的识别效果评估. 教育研究, 46 (02), 86- 100.
	马莉萍, 倪奥华, 赵书艺, 等. (2024). “择智”与“择志”: 对强基计划人才选拔效果的实证研究. 国家教育行政学院学报, (01), 58- 68.
	王新凤. (2023). 我国高校拔尖创新人才选拔政策变迁与机制优化. 北京师范大学学报(社会科学版), (04), 29- 39.
	张伟. (2025). 论智力测试神话的现实建构及其教育祛魅——兼论拔尖创新人才如何涌现. 北京社会科学, (04), 118- 128.
	郑若玲, 徐东波. (2020). 高考科目改革向何处去——基于70年高考科目设置变迁与困境的分析. 复旦教育论坛, 18 (03), 91- 97.
	Abdelfattah, F. A., Obeidat, O. S., Salahat, Y. A., et al. (2022). The predictive validity of entrance scores and short-term performance for long-term success in engineering education. Journal of Applied Research in Higher Education, 14 (04), 1272- 1285.
	Almeida, L. S., Araújo, A. M., Sainz-Gómez, M., et al. (2016). Challenges in the identification of giftedness: Issues related to psychological assessment. Anales de Psicología, 32 (03), 621- 627.
	Atkinson, R. C., & Geiser, S. (2009). Reflections on a century of college admissions tests. Educational Researcher, 38 (09), 665- 676.
	Bai, C. E., Chi, W., & Qian, X. (2014). Do college entrance examination scores predict undergraduate GPAs? A tale of two universities. China Economic Review, 30, 632- 647.
	Cao, T. H., Jung, J. Y., Lee, J., et al. (2017). Assessment in gifted education: A review of the literature from 2005 to 2016. Journal of Advanced Academics, 28 (03), 163- 203.
	Cleveland, C., & Scherer, E. (2025). Are students on track? Comparing the predictive validity of administrative and survey measures of cognitive and noncognitive skills for long-term outcomes. Educational Researcher, 54 (04), 213- 225.
	Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15 (06), 373- 378.
	Gagné F. (2004). Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Theory. High Ability Studies, 15 (02), 119- 147.
	Galton, F. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences. Macmillan.
	Güllich, A., Barth, M., Hambrick, D. Z., & Macnamara, B. N. (2025). Recent discoveries on the acquisition of the highest levels of human performance. Science, 390(6779).
	Hodges, J., Tay, J., Maeda, Y., et al. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62 (02), 147- 174.
	Koenig, K. A., Frey, M. C., & Detterman, D. K. (2008). ACT and general cognitive ability. Intelligence, 36 (02), 153- 160.
	Kuh G. D., Kinzie J. L., Buckley J. A., et al. (2006). What matters to student success: A review of the literature. Washington, DC: National Postsecondary Education Cooperative.
	Lawrence, I. M., Rigol, G. W., Van Essen, T., & Jackson, C. A. (2003). A historical perspective on the content of the SAT (ETS Research Report No. RR-03-10). Educational Testing Service.
	Mabel, Z., Hurwitz, M. D., Howell, J. S., et al. (2022). Can standardizing applicant high school and neighborhood information help to diversify selective colleges? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 44(03), 505—531.
	Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Shaw, E. J., et al. (2021). Examining the stability of SAT predictive relationships across cohorts and over time. College Board.
	Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Young, L., et al. (2019). Differential validity and prediction of the SAT: Examining first-year grades and retention to the second year. College Board.
	Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Young, L., et al. (2020a). Examining the validity of the SAT at higher education institutions outside of the U. S. College Board.
	Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Young, L., et al. (2020b). Validity of the SAT for enrollment-related decisions: Focus on international students attending college in the U. S. College Board.
	Marini, J. P., Westrick, P. A., Young, L., et al. (2024). SAT score relationships with college GPA: First-year through fourth-year cumulative GPA. College Board.
	Mönks F. J. (1990). Development of Gifted Children: The Issue of Identification and Programming. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 13 (02), 145- 155.
	Olin College of Engineering Admissions. (2020). A guide to candidates’ weekend, if you’re not the candidate! https://www.olin.edu/blogs/guide-candidates-weekend-if-youre-not-candidate.
	Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60 (03), 180- 184,261.
	Spearman, C. (1904). “General intelligence, ” objectively determined and measured. The American Journal of Psychology, 15(02), 201—293.
	Sternberg, R. J. (1999). The theory of successful intelligence. Review of General Psychology, 3 (04), 292- 316.
	Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (01), 3- 54.
	Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius: Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (Vol. 1). Stanford University Press.
	VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in gifted education. The Communicator, 31, 1- 5.
	Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youths: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97 (03), 484- 492.
	Wang, X. B. (2006). An introduction to the system and culture of the college entrance examination of China (Report No. RN-28). College Board.
	Westrick, P. A., Marini, J. P., Shaw, E. J., et al. (2022). An updated look at SAT score relationships with college degree completion. College Board.
	Westrick, P. A., Marini, J. P., Young, L., et al. (2019). Validity of the SAT for predicting first-year grades and retention to the second year. College Board.
	Yao, Y., Zhang, Z., Cui, H., et al. (2019). The influence of student abilities and high school on student growth: A case study of Chinese National College Entrance Exam. IEEE Access, 7, 148254- 148264.
	Zhang, C. (1995). The National University Entrance Examination and its influence on secondary school physics teaching in China. Physics Education, 30 (02), 104- 108.

变量	人才初步识别成效
变量	(1)课业成绩	(2)创新潜质	(3)学术志趣	(4)综合素养
标准化高考分数	0.017 （0.027）	0.054** （0.023）	0.013** （0.007）	0.024 （0.015）
男性	−0.162*** （0.031）	−0.107*** （0.032）	0.015 （0.009）	−0.091*** （0.022）
农村生源	−0.202 （0.039）	−0.034 （0.036）	0.010 （0.010）	−0.013 （0.024）
家庭年收入	0.027 （0.019）	0.051*** （0.015）	0.009* （0.004）	0.039*** （0.012）
第一代大学生	0.064** （0.030）	−0.041 （0.025）	−0.009 （0.008）	0.030 （0.018）
课程教学质量	0.074*** （0.019）	0.098*** （0.020）	0.002 （0.006）	0.073*** （0.016）
深度师生互动	0.027* （0.016）	0.032** （0.015）	0.050*** （0.005）	0.051*** （0.011）
规则性参与	0.077*** （0.023）	0.075*** （0.021）	0.036*** （0.006）	0.092*** （0.017）
过程性参与	0.084*** （0.017）	0.053** （0.021）	0.025*** （0.005）	0.061*** （0.011）
自主性参与	0.154*** （0.025）	0.256*** （0.026）	0.154*** （0.012）	0.150*** （0.016）
院校固定效应	√	√	√	√
专业固定效应	√	√	√	√
Adjusted R²	0.398	0.183	0.215	0.344
N	4114	5049	5096	4045

毕业时点综合素养排名		招生入学渠道
毕业时点综合素养排名		(1)多元化综合招生	(2)标准化考试招生
资优学生	前5%	5.87%	4.68%
资优学生	前6%-10%	4.90%	4.16%
非资优学生	前11%-50%	39.61%	36.10%
非资优学生	后50%	49.61%	55.06%
总计		100.00%	100.00%
N		385	6220

变量	资优学生识别成效
变量	(1)综合素养前5%	(2)综合素养前10%
多元化综合招生×标准化高考分数	0.009*** （0.002）	0.010*** （0.002）
多元化综合招生	0.022*** （0.006）	0.018*** （0.003）
标准化高考分数	0.028* （0.017）	0.052*** （0.017）
Pseudo R²	0.255	0.375
N	4265	4265

[1]	Jia Qian, Xiaonan Cui. What Shapes the Innovative Ability of Primary and Secondary School Students: An Empirical Study Based on Machine Learning [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2026, 44(7): 61-75.
[2]	Jianhua Zhou, Zhengyi Shan, Hongxia Qin. Has the New College Entrance Examination Promoted Students’ Independent Subject Selection: Empirical Analysis Based on CatBoost Regression Tree model [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2024, 42(3): 12-25.
[3]	Haifeng Liu, Huafeng Wei. An Empirical Study on the Evaluation of College Entrance Examination System by Different Stakeholders [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2024, 42(3): 1-11.
[4]	Muzhou Li, Sixin Zeng. Research on the Adaptability Model of Senior High School Teachers under the Background of New College Entrance Examination: From the Perspective of Personal-environmental Fit Theory [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2024, 42(3): 26-37.
[5]	David Yun Dai. Theoretical Foundations and Practical Strategies of Developing Creative Talent [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2024, 42(1): 1-23.
[6]	Jianzhen Zhang, Xiaoyu Liang. Analysis of the Influence of Family Background on Students’ Subject Choices under the New College Entrance Examination System: Empirical Investigation Based on Survey Data in Zhejiang Province [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2023, 41(6): 47-58.
[7]	Shuhui Li, Shang Li, Lianghuo Fan. Should Calculators Be Allowed to Use in College Entrance Examinations in Mathematics: An International Comparison of 30 Countries and Regions’ Calculator Use Policies and Practices in College Entrance Examinations [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2023, 41(4): 83-92.
[8]	Shoudeng Zhang, Congbin Guo. Paper-setting of China’s College Entrance Examination: National or Provincial? Study on County-and Municipal-level Senior High School Students’ Fair Opportunities to Be Admitted into Elite Universities [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(6): 99-111.
[9]	Jinlong Wang, Zhihui Wu. Research on the Influence of “Double First-Class” Policy on the Quality of Undergraduate Students [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2021, 39(4): 64-72.
[10]	Wen Zhonglin. A Discussion on Scoring and Adjusting Methods for Elective Subjects of College Entrance Examination in China [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(6): 34-42.
[11]	Bao Wei, Jin Honghao. The Influence of the College Entrance Examination Reform on Freshman’s Academic Adaptation: Inhibition or Promotion? [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educational Sciences), 2020, 38(6): 20-33.
[12]	HAN Ping, FANG Hongfeng, REN Xuebao, QIAN Wanjun, WANG Xiaoping. Innovation and Exploration in the Pilot Reform of Entrance Examination in Zhejiang [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2018, 36(3): 158-165+171.
[13]	LIU Shiqing, CUI Haili. The Autonomy of College Enrollment: Evolution and Predicament [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2018, 36(3): 125-134+170.
[14]	YOU Chang, WANG Yang, ZHU Xiaochao, SONG Keji, HE Xin, HUANG Xiaoping, CHEN Changan, ZHENG Fangxian, DING Guanghong. The Ideas, Methods and Effects: An Introduction to the Comprehensive Admissions of Fudan University, 2006-2017 [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2018, 36(3): 115-124+170.
[15]	QIN Chunhua. Colleges and Universities as the Subject in Enrolling Students [J]. Journal of East China Normal University(Educationa, 2018, 36(3): 99-114+169+170.