Methods used to identify giftedness in gifted-underachievement research vary widely, with most studies relying on a single measure¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · review r3 · q3
Currency · newest study 2018 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? Six of nine reviewed studies used only one measure to identify intellectually gifted students, and cut-off criteria varied across studies. → White 2018

Evidence¶

White 2018¶

White, Sonia, Graham, Linda, & Blaas, Sabrina (2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, pp. 55-66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2018.03.001

q3 · i? · review · r3

Review of identification methods across the nine included articles (Table 2). The review reports "the majority of the nine articles (n=6)... relied on only one measure", with the remaining three using multiple measures or sources; cut-offs ranged from ≥115 to ≥130 IQ or percentile thresholds.

"The majority of the nine articles (n=6) meeting our inclusion criteria relied on only one measure to identify intellectually gifted students (e.g., WISC-R, Raven’s SPM, BIS-HB, CFT, OLSAT)."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• All reviewed studies conceptualize gifted underachievement with a discrepancy model, but achievement measures and cut-offs differ widely across studies — related
• Most studies of gifted underachievement do not use research designs capable of distinguishing gifted achievers from gifted underachievers — related