No (Gifted) Child Left Behind

The United States has made remarkable progress in providing all its children with access to education, but it hasn’t been easy and it hasn’t yet been enough. Getting youngsters inside the doors of acceptable schools is only the beginning. To give them a well-aimed shot at the American dream, they need to acquire a full measure of knowledge and skills, which introduces issues of educational quality and effectiveness as well as access and equity. On these dimensions, we still have a considerable distance to travel. And the most recent group of kids to turn up as victims of education that’s less than they (and the nation) need is giftedstudents, particularly those with high potential but low family incomes.

The Access Agenda

The access trajectory is relatively easy to trace. In the country’s early days, primary-secondary education was essentially a private good, available to youngsters whose parents cared about—and could afford—it. For the most part, that meant boys from relatively prosperous families.

Beginning in New England as early as the 17th Century, however, towns started to take upon themselves the responsibility of providing a semblance of “public” education to the children who lived there, mostly at the primary level and often still limited to boys. It was optional for families, and of course it varied greatly in quality.

      

In the 1840’s, Massachusetts began to make primary education a state responsibility. Other states followed, as did “compulsory attendance” laws, though initially these required children to attend school for just a few years.

Publicly-funded high schools were the next stage, but “universal” attendance in them was neither required nor expected until after World War II—which is also when the United States began to fixate on “high school dropout” rates.

That sluggishness, however, was not a product of exclusion or parsimony so much as a corollary of an economy that for many years did fine without everyone acquiring a secondary education. Basic civic participation and parenting required near-universal literacy, but factory and farm work did not really demand the skills and knowledge that we associate with high school. So secondary schooling was long the preserve of those headed toward college and into the kinds of careers that called for it. Hence as high-school participation widened, so did the practice of multiple curricular “tracks” such that some students followed the “college prep” sequence while others took “vocational” classes (and still others were cast into a sort of educational no-mans-land called the “general” track).

Even as K-12 education gradually universalized, however, access to decent school opportunities remained a problem for many.

The Supreme Court began to tackle one of the biggest challenges with its Brown v Board of Education ruling in 1954, which commenced the dismantling of racial segregation. The following two decades brought a cascade of federal court orders, laws, rules and programs in the “civil rights” and “compensatory education” realms, as well as the requirement that handicapped youngsters (today we say “children with disabilities”) be afforded a “free, appropriate” public education rather than the attics and inferior offerings that many had been confined to. Additional legislation sought to provide suitable courses of study for recent immigrants (“bilingual” education) and to lower barriers that were believed to constrain educational opportunities for low-income children, homeless youngsters—and girls.

Many of these initiatives created unintended problems and few if any achieved all that they set out to do. But there is no denying that the pursuit of “educational equity” as it came to be known was the dominant preoccupation of American K-12 education from 1954 until 1983.

The Pursuit of Excellence

Then came A Nation at Risk, the clarion declaration by the National Commission on Excellence in Education that the United States faced a bleak future if it did not pull up its socks and pursue quality and performance in its schools with at least as much vigor as access and equality.

This was not a total surprise. Several other reports and studies that emerged in the early 1980’s contained similar warnings. And a few voices (my own included) had been cautioning for some time that American education was going overboard on access while neglecting results; that it had allowed “equality” to be mis-defined; and that it was substituting intentions, rules, programs and expenditures for evidence of actual learning.

A gradual shifting of gears and priorities commenced, led mostly by governors, many of them in the south, who had determined that the future prosperity of their states hinged on getting greater skills and knowledge into many more children’s heads than their current school systems were producing. (I was then living in Nashville, where I heard Governor Lamar Alexander declare perhaps a hundred times to various audiences that “Better schools mean better jobs for Tennesseans.”)

They knew, however—as the great social scientists James Coleman, Christopher Jencks and Daniel P. Moynihan had been pointing out for years—that simply pumping additional resources into the existing system would not yield better results. They knew that much must change in a system that was loath to change. And so they embarked on multiple efforts—invariably resisted by the “education establishment” and its myriad interest groups—to alter that system in spite of itself.

We haven’t space enough to describe in depth the many elements of the “excellence movement” as it came to be known. Suffice to say that it focused—and still does—on setting actual academic standards that students and schools are supposed to achieve; creating reliable measures of performance that are based on results; devising “accountability” regimens by which incentives induce stronger achievement and interventions are put in place where it flags; providing families with choices among multiple schools—and broadening the definition of schools to include “charters,” then “virtual” and “hybrid” schools and much else; strengthening school leadership; ensuring that classrooms are staffed by able, well-prepared, pedagogically competent instructors; and boosting both the quality and the results-based accountability of teachers, principals and others whose job it is to educate children.

Equity + Excellence?

The push for excellence did not displace America’s concern with equity. Though we struggle mightily in the abstract with John Gardner’s old question of whether we can be equal and excellent, too, in the real world of K-12 education policy these twin reform impulses more-or-less combined in such ambitious undertakings as Bill Clinton’s “Goals 2000” act, George W. Bush’s “No Child Left Behind” act, and Barack Obama’s “Race to the Top” program. Stronger achievement was the goal, but that goal was pursued mainly by setting minimum standards of “proficiency” and narrowing achievement gaps. Nor did any of the special programs and provisions for disabled, low income and non-English-speaking pupils go away.

The upshot: our pursuit of “excellence” has served primarily to benefit the same demographic segments for whom “access” to a decent education had long posed the greatest difficulty.

This is no bad thing for America. It could even be described as “completing the equity agenda” and, for many of these kids, it has begun to do measurable good. Though overall test scores and graduation rates are still nowhere near where they should be, and our secondary schools are mostly still far from satisfactory (and some are truly abysmal), the past decade or two have witnessed measurable gains by younger students, particularly in math and especially among populations that had the farthest to go.

Worthy, surely, of a sincere huzzah. But we’re a long way from three cheers, both because progress has been halting and modest even for those making it, and because we’ve failed to pay suitable attention to students (and schools) that are already “above the proficient bar” yet far from achieving all they could.

The Education Outcasts of 2013

Barack Obama and Mitt Romney both attended elite private high schools, as did George W. Bush, Al Gore and John Kerry. Both are undeniably smart and well educated and owe much of their success to the strong foundation laid by excellent schools. Every motivated, high-potential young American deserves a similar opportunity. But the majority of smart kids lack the wherewithal to enroll in rigorous private schools. They depend on public education to prepare them for life. Yet American public education is failing to create enough opportunities for hundreds of thousands of these high-potential girls and boys.

In Ohio alone, some 250,000 current pupils—about fifteen percent of all children in public education there—have been identified by their school districts as “gifted” (using the several metrics that the Buckeye State employs for this purpose, including superior “visual or performing arts ability”), yet barely one-fifth of these youngsters actually receive “gifted education services” from their schools. (Such services take various forms but most commonly involve separate classrooms with more challenging curricula and specially prepared teachers, at least for core academic subjects.)

Imagine the outcry across the land if just one in five children identified as “disabled” was receiving “special education services” from their schools!

Yet gifted youngsters are widely neglected. Because they’re already above the “proficient” bar in academic achievement at a time when most federal and state policies are fixed on boosting low achievers over that bar, schools and teachers have little incentive to focus on their educational needs or to devote resources to their schooling. And if we can extrapolate from the Ohio data—that state accounts for about 3.7 percent of all K-12 students in the land—the U.S. may contain as many as six million high-ability youngsters that it is not educating to the max. (The National Association for Gifted Children estimates about half that number. The fact that nobody really knows also attests to the vagueness of these definitions and disputation even among advocates as to what exactly qualifies as giftedness.) 

This neglect isn’t just a matter of fairness and equal opportunity for kids. It’s also a matter of long-term societal wellbeing. America’s ability to compete economically on a shrinking planet, as well as our national security and cultural vitality, depend to a great extent on whether today’s ablest girls and boys are well prepared to become tomorrow’s scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs, engineers and civic leaders. Yes, it’s important to impart “proficiency” to every young person in the land. But it’s at least as important to equip those likely to be the next generation’s path breakers with all the learning they can absorb. Our education system at every level needs to view “human capital development” more comprehensively than we’ve been doing. The system also needs to be able to “walk and chew gum at the same time,” i.e. to tackle the challenge of underachievement even as it devotes concentrated attention to youngsters with enormous “high end” potential.

Compared with the rest of the world—at least the parts we’re most apt to compete with—we’re not yet doing this very well. Roughly six percent of U.S. students score at the “advanced” level in core subjects on the National Assessment of Educational Progress. When this is equated to other countries via the OECD’s “PISA” assessment, we find (in math, for the high-school graduating class of 2009) that sixteen other nations had at least twice as large a fraction of their 15-year-olds scoring at that level. World leader Taiwan was at 28 percent but even Germany clocked in around 13 percent. (To their credit, several U.S. states, led by Massachusetts, did notably better than the American average. Ohio—discussed above—was just a hair above that average. In the spirit of rising tides lifting boats,  states that did well overall also generally showed gains at the high and low ends of the achievement distribution.)

Most apt to be neglected are those who are smart but poor. Upper middle class families with educated parents, by and large, do an acceptable job of steering their high-ability daughters and sons through the education maze. It’s surely possible for smart kids to get a strong education in today’s America—but most of the time that requires adults in their lives who are education-minded, ambitious, pushy, well-enough connected (and confident enough) to “work the system,” and, in many cases, to buy their way into private schools or posh suburban districts.

Smart poor kids seldom have those assets at home. They are generally educated not according to how much they could learn but according to the norms of the public school in their neighborhood which, usually being a poor neighborhood, is apt to concentrate its energies and resources on large numbers of students below the “proficient” line.

Poor parents may not know what their children are capable of and probably lack the resources to purchase supplemental courses, educational software, weekend and summer programs, and much else that similarly gifted youngsters from more prosperous circumstances are apt to have showered upon them.

One consequence, as economist Caroline Hoxby and colleagues have shown, is that high-ability, high-achieving youngsters from poor and minority backgrounds tend not even to apply to the country’s elite colleges and universities, although they could likely gain admission, obtain financial aid, and thrive academically.

A Four-Part Problem

Today’s systemic failure takes four main forms:

—We’re weak at identifying “gifted and talented” children early unless their parents push for it. Without early identification, youngsters are apt to lose out on opportunities to accelerate, to get into such special classrooms and supplemental programs as do exist, to enroll in magnet or charter schools designed to challenge them, and to gain access (when they reach high school) to Advanced Placement courses, International Baccalaureate programs and other offerings that typically presuppose a solid education in the early grades. Those that do get spotted and invited into gifted/talented classes and such are less apt to be poor and minority. In Ohio, for example, where 48 percent of all public-school students qualify as “economically disadvantaged,” among those flagged as “gifted” that figure is 21 percent. As for race, while 18 percent of white youngsters in the Buckeye state are deemed gifted, along with a whopping 28 percent of Asian students, that’s true of just 5 percent of black pupils and 6 percent of Hispanic children.

—We don’t have enough gifted-education classrooms and specialized schools (with suitable teachers and curricula) to serve even the existing demand, much less what might be induced by more thorough talent identification. Faced with budget crunches and federal and state pressure to close achievement gaps and turn around awful schools, many districts are cutting their advanced classes. In political, policy and philanthropic circles alike, educating high-potential children ranks low on the priority list. It seems faintly elitist—and there’s a widespread believe that “these kids will do fine anyway.”

—Surprisingly little is known about what strategies, structures and programs work best in educating high-ability youngsters to the max. Educators and parents alike tend to assume that if it carries the “gifted” label or is academically selective at the front end, it must be effective. Yet the (all too meager) research and evaluation that have been conducted in this realm—both in the U.S. and overseas—yield a mixed picture when it comes to the academic “value added” by gifted-and-talented programs and selective-admission schools. This poses a challenge for scholars, advocates and policymakers alike, a challenge that is deepened by the immense variability of programs dubbed “gifted” within American public education.

—When students finally reach high school, especially if they live in poor neighborhoods, they may find just a smattering of honors or A.P. classes, nothing like the ample course offerings of well-resourced suburban districts and elite private schools. Although some public high schools focus exclusively on high-ability, highly motivated students, when Jessica Hockett and I searched for them in connection with a Hoover-Fordham study that led to our book, Exam Schools, we found just 165 that met our criteria within a public-school universe of more than 20,000 high schools. These specialized institutions educate about 1 percent of students. Nineteen states have none. Only three big cities have more than five such schools (Los Angeles has zero). Almost all of these schools have far more qualified applicants than they can accommodate. Hence they practice selective admissions, turning away thousands of students who could benefit from what they have to offer. Northern Virginia’s acclaimed Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, for example, gets some 3,300 applicants a year — two-thirds of them academically qualified—for 480 places.

Many such schools are urban—a few are even statewide residential schools—and they’re free, making them terrific opportunities for high-ability youngsters from straitened circumstances. Critics call them elitist, but we found the opposite. These are great schools accessible to families who can’t afford private alternatives or pricey suburbs. We learned that 37 percent of their pupils qualify for the federal subsidized lunch program, almost the same as the 39 percent in the national public-high school population.

The schools we studied, by and large, are educational oases for families with smart kids but few alternatives.  They’re safe havens, too — schools where everyone focuses on teaching and learning, not maintaining order. Yes, they even have sports teams, but their orchestras are better. Yes, some have had to crack down on cheating, but in these schools it’s fine to be a nerd. You’re surrounded by kids like you — some smarter than you — and taught by capable teachers who welcome the challenge, teachers more apt to have Ph.D.’s or experience at the university level than high school instructors elsewhere. You aren’t searched for weapons at the door. And you’re pretty sure to graduate and go on to a good college. Many more students could benefit from schools like these — and the numbers would multiply if our education system did right by such youngsters in the early grades. But that will happen only when we acknowledge that leaving no child behind means paying as much attention to those who’ve mastered the basics — and have the capacity and motivation for much more — as we do to those who cannot yet read or subtract.

It’s time to end the bias in American education against gifted and talented pupils and quit assuming that every school must be all things to all students, a simplistic formula that ends up neglecting all sorts of girls and boys, many of them poor and minority, who would benefit more from more challenging classes and schools. Smart kids shouldn’t have to go to private schools or get turned away from Bronx Science or Thomas Jefferson simply because there’s no room for them.

The Role of Research & Advocacy

Even getting the “gifted student problem” onto the policy radar screen is a heavy lift, due to its political incorrectness and the belief that smart kids don’t need special attention. Because upper-middle class parents, as noted above, often succeed at navigating the education system on behalf of their own progeny, the loudest “squeaky wheel” doesn’t squeak very loudly—and, when it does, it sounds like special pleading on behalf of the already-privileged. Though states have advocacy organizations on behalf of “gifted and talented” education—loosely joined under the National Association for Gifted Children—mostly they agitate for more money and do so in old-fashioned ways. This is not a sophisticated, modern lobbying operation.

Despite all the alarm over international economic competitiveness, essentially nobody in Washington—certainly nobody at the Education Department or White House—is paying attention to this problem (save for boosting “STEM” education, though not necessarily for smart kids).

Nor have the business and scientific communities made it a priority. They are likelier to focus on immigration laws that determine the difficulty of importing advanced talent from abroad.

One might expect higher education leaders to focus, but the elite universities have plenty of smart, qualified applicants—huge proportions of them from the upper middle class, of course—and many other campuses accept all who apply, then “remediate” them as needed.

Into this vacuum have come a handful of scholars, studies, think tanks and private funders. Research undertaken at Brookings, Hoover, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute and the American Psychological Association has documented the problem. International assessments have added worrisome statistics. Education Next has published revealing articles. Individual scholars with strong track records of research, analysis and advocacy in this realm include at least half the members of the Hoover Institution’s Task Force on K-12 Education. And a few private funders—perhaps most notably the Kern Family Foundation—have helped with these and other endeavors.

But much heavy lifting lies ahead and the “think tank” world is probably best situated to engage in it. This isn’t the sort of politically correct topic that professors of education favor; when it’s docketed for discussion at national education-research symposia and conclaves of private funders, such sessions draw sparse attendance. It is, in fact, particularly well-suited to entities with natural linkages across economics, public policy, research and advocacy, and places that are adept at bringing issues like this into the spotlight in compelling ways. (A vivid recent example was the front-page New York Times treatment of Hoxby’s and Christopher Avery’s meticulously documented revelation of the failure of high-ability 12th graders even to apply to the nation’s best colleges and universities.)

Among many questions that deserve deeper probing and tracking in the years ahead:

• Just how effective are the various forms of “gifted & talented” education at “adding value” to their students, both in the short run and over time? Programs range widely, from separate classes and schools to ability grouping within classrooms to “enrichment” activities of various kinds. Their impacts are likely as diverse as their approaches.
• Insofar as programs show positive effects, what elements matter? Curriculum? Instructors? Culture? Peer influence? Resources? Other?
• What are the advantages and disadvantages of various ways of “identifying” children for participation in gifted-education programs and how do these differ with children’s age or education level?
• How successful is “differentiated instruction” at meeting the educational needs of high-ability students within conventional classrooms? What determines its success (e.g. teacher quality, teacher preparation, technology, relatively homogeneous classes)?
• What are the pros and cons—and effectiveness—of accelerating children’s progress through K-12 education? How well does “mastery” (instead of traditional grade-levels) work?
• What can be learned from other countries about the successful education of high-ability students?

Research and evaluation alone won’t solve the neglect problem, but they can surely contribute to the development and implementation of workable solutions, provided that the political and policy will is there. This much is already clear: without that will and in the absence of focused attention, the United States is destined to continue under-educating  vital parts of its human capital that could make enormous contributions to the country’s future well-being. 

• Hoover Institution

Gifted child, left behind

By Amy Crawford

In 1971, researchers at Johns Hopkins University embarked on an ambitious effort to identify brilliant 12-year-olds and track their education and careers through the rest of their lives. The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth, which now includes 5,000 people, eventually became the world’s longest-running longitudinal survey of what happens to intellectually talented children (in math and other areas) as they grow up. It has generated seven books, more than 300 papers, and a lot of what we know about early aptitude.

David Lubinski is a psychologist at Vanderbilt University, where the project has been based since the 1990s. He and his wife, fellow Vanderbilt professor Camilla Benbow, co-direct the study and have dedicated their careers to learning about this exceptional population.

“This is like putting a magnifying glass on the tippy, tippy top of the distribution,” he says.

In a recent paper, Lubinski and his colleagues caught up with one cohort of 320 people now in their late 30s. At 12, their SAT math or verbal scores had placed them among the top 1/100th of 1 percent. Today, many are CEOs, professors at top research universities, transplant surgeons and successful novelists.

That outcome sounds like exactly what you’d imagine should happen: Top young people grow into high-achieving adults. In the education world, the study has provided important new evidence that it really is possible to identify the kids who are likely to become exceptional achievers in the future, something previous research has not always found to be the case. For that reason, perhaps surprisingly, it has also triggered a new round of worry.

Lubinski’s unusually successful cohort was also a lucky group from the start — they participated in the study in the first place because their parents or teachers encouraged them to take the SAT at age 12. Previous research into gifted children has shown that many, or even most of them, aren’t so lucky: They aren’t identified early, and they don’t necessarily get special attention from their schools. Even among Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth participants, the Vanderbilt researchers have previously found that those who weren’t challenged in school were less likely to live up to the potential indicated by their test scores. Other research has shown that understimulated gifted students quickly become bored and frustrated — especially if they come from low-income families that are not equipped to provide them with enrichment outside of school.

“What the study underscored is the tremendous amount of potential here — they’re a national resource,” Lubinski says. “But it’s hard to separate the findings of this study from what we know about gifted kids in general. The genuine concern is, we know we’re not identifying all of this population. We’re not getting nearly enough, and we’re losing them.”

To people more worried about kids who are falling through the cracks altogether, doing slightly less than we could for the most gifted might not seem like a pressing problem. But if the study is right that exceptional youthful ability really does correlate directly with exceptional adult achievement, then these talented young kids aren’t just a challenge for schools and parents; they’re also demonstrably important to America’s future. It means that if, in education, we focus on steering all extra money and attention toward kids who are struggling academically, or even just to the average student, we risk shortchanging the country in a different way.

“We are in a talent war, and we’re living in a global economy now,” Lubinski says. “These are the people who are going to figure out all the riddles. Schizophrenia, cancer — they’re going to fight terrorism, they’re going to create patents and the scientific innovations that drive our economy. But they are not given a lot of opportunities in schools that are designed for typically developing kids.”

Given all the pressures our education system faces, it seems almost indecent to worry about the travails of a small minority of very smart children. Understandably, federal and state education policy has long focused on more obvious problems that education can help address — problems such as the yawning gaps between the test scores of rich and poor students and between different racial groups. Tax dollars disproportionately go to help kids with learning disabilities and other disadvantages, because society generally agrees that they are most in need of help.

In 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act, which penalizes public schools that don’t bring the lowest-performing students up to grade level. The federal Individuals With Disabilities Education Act regulates special education and provides schools with more than $11 billion annually. A provision of federal education law called Title I allocates some $14 billion to schools that have a higher proportion of students from low-income families, to pay for programs designed to keep them from falling behind.

The smartest kid in class, by contrast, is not an expensive problem. A boy or girl who finishes an assignment early can be handed a book and told to read quietly while the teacher works on getting other children caught up. What would clearly be neglect if it happened to a special-needs child tends to look different if the child is gifted: Being left alone might even feel like a reward, an acknowledgment of being a fast learner.

Not surprisingly, programs oriented toward gifted children get barely any federal funding. The Javits Act, the only federal law aimed at gifted students, pays for research and pilot education programs and is currently funded at $5 million, down from a peak of $11 million several years ago.

Gifted students do have their own advocacy group, the National Association for Gifted Children. This coalition of parents and educators is pushing a bipartisan bill called the Talent Act, which would require states and school districts to set policies for gifted education and report on the performance of advanced students. (In a concession to reality, the act does not seek any new funding.) The group’s former president, Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, says that in an ideal world the federal government would require that gifted students be identified early and would fund schools’ efforts to train teachers and provide enrichment or accelerated learning programs.

Olszewski-Kubilius, an education professor at Northwestern University, considers the latest Vanderbilt finding important to the cause. “It’s probably the best research we have that connects childhood giftedness with adult achievement,” she says. She chalks up the current disparity to an otherwise well-intentioned attitude, one that seems to be ingrained in American culture.

“There’s a fundamental belief, not just among educators but in general in our society — and the word gifteddoesn’t help — that, well, they lucked out by virtue of genetics. They’ve got something other people don’t have, and so they should just be satisfied with that. They don’t need any more.”

Research, however, suggests that they do — or at least that they benefit from extra investment. Two recent papers based on data from the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth and published in the Journal of Educational Psychology found that, among young people with off-the-charts ability, those who had been given special accommodations — even modest ones, like being allowed to skip a grade, enroll in special classes or take college-level courses in high school — went on to publish more academic papers, earn more patents and pursue higher-level careers than their equally smart peers who didn’t have these opportunities. In one of the studies, the Vanderbilt researchers matched students who skipped a grade with a control group of similarly smart kids who didn’t. The grade-skippers, it turned out, were 60 percent more likely to earn doctorates or patents and more than twice as likely to get a doctoral degree in science, math or engineering.

“If you look at the control group” in the grade-skipping study, Lubinski says, “they’ll say, ‘The curriculum was moving too slow, I felt bored, I was frustrated.’ Those kids still do better than the norm, but the ones who have their developmental needs met, they do much better.”

But providing these smart kids with an education that matches their abilities is not as straightforward as it sounds. Politically, it raises the fraught question of whether our education system should be in the business of identifying and segregating elite students — an idea that has been tried and rejected before, for good reasons.

For most of the 20th century, schools routinely divided students into advanced, average and remedial categories, a practice called tracking that was largely discredited by research showing it only exacerbated inequality, especially inequality linked to race and class.

“The original basis was the idea that some people are born to lead and others are born to follow, so you identify the leaders early and train them to lead,” says Samuel Lucas, a Berkeley sociologist whose research has focused on inequality in education. Those who were groomed to be followers, he notes, consistently wound up with worse teachers, scarcer supplies and a weaker curriculum than their more advanced peers.

“It’s difficult to introduce stratification into the system without introducing inequality in how people get into those stratifications,” Lucas says. “Students at the bottom should be getting the best of resources so they can catch up. They certainly shouldn’t be getting worse resources, and the research shows that this is what happens.”

While he is not opposed to programs that identify and serve gifted children, Lucas warns that any such effort will be gamed by more well-to-do parents, angling to get their children in, then fighting to ensure the gifted group gets better teachers, newer technology and other advantages. Great care would be required, he says, so as not to “end up with another system for those at the top to reinforce that they belong there.”

While equity at the classroom level is important, Lubinski and others who study the gifted say that the issue goes beyond education to national competitiveness. “We’re living in a global economy now,” Lubinski says, “and there are only very few people of any discipline who push the frontiers of knowledge forward. This is the population who you’d do well to bet on.”

Other countries are already making that bet. Korea, Taiwan and Singapore have national laws requiring that children be screened for giftedness, with top scorers funneled into special programs. China is midway through a 10-year National Talent Development Plan to steer bright young people into science, technology and other in-demand fields. In a 2010 speech announcing the scheme, former President Hu Jintao called talent “the most important resource and ... a key issue that concerns the development of the party and country.”

In a democracy, such central planning may be as distasteful as the notion of shifting resources away from kids who need them. Advocates for the gifted, aware of those concerns, are trying to find ways for us to develop our own native talent without exacerbating inequality.

One fix they tend to focus on is investing in early childhood education for all: Olszewski-Kubilius points out that expanding access to preschool would allow teachers to identify kids with the most potential before they even get to kindergarten. Requiring regular screening of all kids from elementary to high school would catch those whose talents emerge later than their peers’, as well as smart kids whose parents aren’t savvy enough to advocate for them.

Other education researchers propose gearing the entire curriculum toward the highest-achieving students, with extra time outside of class for their less-talented peers to catch up. It’s an idea that Adam Gamoran, president of the youth-focused William T. Grant Foundation and a former University of Wisconsin sociologist, says could address the issue of inequality without holding back high achievers.

Regardless of how we choose to deal with the gifted, it’s a challenge that seems more acute as we learn more about this population.

“How many people can become an astrophysicist or a Ph.D. in chemistry?” Lubinski says, comparing it with playing in the NFL or playing at Carnegie Hall. “We really have to look for the best — that’s what we do in the Olympics, that’s what we do in music, and that’s what we need to with intellectual capital.”

Amy Crawford has written for Smithsonian and Slate. Follow her on Twitter at @amymcrawf. A version of this essay first appeared in the Boston Globe.

Gifted Children and Adults—Neglected Areas of Practice

by James T. Webb, PhD

Working with gifted and talented children and their families and with gifted adults is a neglected area of practice for psychologists. Two widespread myths among educators, pediatricians, and psychologists, is that gifted children and adults are quite rare, and that bright minds have few issues and seldom need special help. In fact, gifted children and adults are defined as those in the upper three to ten percent of the population in any of several intellectual domains (NAGC, 2010). Clinical and educational practice usually focuses on disadvantaged persons and obvious psychopathology. Many are unaware that talented and gifted children are at risk for underachievement, peer relationship issues, power struggles, perfectionism, existential depression, and other problems, and that bright adults often have job difficulties, problems with peers, spouses or children, and existential depression that stem from giftedness. In addition, few psychologists understand that special issues can arise when a child or adult is twice-exceptional—that is, gifted as well as having diagnosable condition such as a learning disability, vision difficulties, auditory issues, ADHD, etc. As a result, many gifted children and adults are being overlooked, misdiagnosed, and receiving treatment that may be inappropriate (SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative, 2014).

The association of high ability with emotional or social difficulties has been, in some ways, counter-intuitive. A primary and generally accepted key facet of the construct of “intelligence” is that intelligence includes problem-solving abilities in various areas, including related areas such as forethought, planning, reasoning ability, capacity to see cause-effect relations, attention to details, memory for relevant data, and a wide array of knowledge upon which the individual might draw (Sattler, 2008). To the extent that a person possesses more of these cognitive qualities, it might seem that such an individual would then have fewer—not more—social and emotional problems. Using this logic, such individuals should be able to anticipate, avoid, and/or solve more interpersonal problems than others and should have more self-understanding.

Such assumptions and implications regarding the impact of intelligence on emotional and interpersonal functioning are not always valid. Authors periodically have written of individuals who were highly able cognitively, but who demonstrated significant emotional or interpersonal deficits (e.g., Piirto, 2004). Other authors (e.g., Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Kerr, 2014), however, have suggested that intelligence does seem related to interpersonal adaptiveness.

Historically, controversy has existed about the extent to which intellectually gifted children and adults are prone to social and emotional problems. Looking back to the early 1900s, the prevailing notion within Western cultures was that intellectually gifted children were constitutionally more prone to insanity or to becoming social misfits, and that early cognitive development was likely to result in early atrophy, as was expressed in the then-popular saying of “Early ripe; early rot.” The classic Terman longitudinal studies of gifted children disproved this general notion and found that the identified gifted children were, as a group, no more likely to experience social or emotional difficulties than were children in general (Terman, 1925; Terman & Oden, 1947). In fact, these children seemed to have fewer problems, although retrospective consideration suggested that Terman’s sample was probably biased in ways that favored environmentally advantaged, teacher-favored children, many of whom received advice and guidance as they grew (Kerr, 1991; Webb, Amend, Webb, Goerss, Beljan, & Olenchak, 2005).

Voices subsequent to Terman sometimes differed. Hollingworth (1926, 1942; Klein, 2002) agreed with Terman’s findings with regard to most gifted children, but noted that children of unusually high intelligence seemed more prone to certain types of problems. Using the then-new IQ tests, Hollingworth concluded that there was an “optimum intelligence” range of about 120-145, in which range children generally had fewer social and emotional problems. However, children above that range, in her opinion, were more at risk for various personal and interpersonal difficulties.

In the 1940s and 1950s, little professional emphasis was placed on social or emotional problems of gifted children, although a few authors (e.g., Strang, 1951; Witty, 1940) wrote about the psychology of gifted students. In the 1960s and 1970s, a very few programs were available to counsel and guide gifted students, usually such programs were affiliated with universities (Kerr, 1991), but few published studies concerned social-emotional needs.

In the 1980s, a surge of interest occurred in this topic stimulated by Guiding the Gifted Child(Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan, 1982), an APA award-winning book about social and emotional issues of gifted children, and by a new program called Supporting Emotional Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org). SENG continues as a nationwide non-profit organization that focuses on social and emotional issues of bright children and adults. Subsequently, the National Association for Gifted Children created a Counseling and Guidance Division. Limited research was available at that time, and information came primarily from the experiences of numerous therapists, educators, parents, and counselors.

In the last few decades, new issues, perspectives, and substantial research have emerged, and particular attention has been given to reconceptualizing the concepts of “intelligence” and “giftedness,” as well as the methods used to identify such children (Worrell, Subotnik, & Olszewski-Kubilius, 2013). The National Association for Gifted Children Gifted has noted that “individuals are those who demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains” and that “The development of ability or talent is a lifelong process.” (NAGC, 2010). Prior to that time, educational and psychological practice almost exclusively identified gifted children in terms of intellectual ability and/or specific academic aptitude, despite the conceptual breadth of legislative or textbook definitions. In particular, “giftedness” was often treated as though it were synonymous with intelligence test scores and/or academic achievement test scores or educational achievements (Webb & Kleine, 1993).

As a result, most of the research and observations concerning social and emotional needs of gifted children is based on gifted children who were considered gifted in those traditional ways. That is, the existing knowledge about possible social and emotional difficulties is derived from children who showed unusual aptitude and performance in academic areas—i.e., children who were already functioning pretty well in school. Highly able students who were unwilling or unable to show their abilities academically (e.g., underachievers or those who also had a learning disability or emotional problems) were not studied, nor were children with high aptitude in other areas such as music or art.

It is important to recognize that the literature concerning social-emotional needs of gifted children and adults can be grouped into two basic categories. One group of authors views gifted and talented persons as being prone to problems and in need of special interventions to prevent or overcome their unique difficulties (e.g., Altman, 1983; Delisle, 2005; Hayes & Sloat, 1989a; Lovecky, 2003; Silverman, 1991). The other group of authors views gifted children as generally being able to fare quite well on their own, and gifted children with problems needing special interventions are seen as a relative minority (e.g., Janos & Robinson, 1985; Neihart, Reis, Robinson, & Moon, 2002; Robinson, Shore & Enerson, 2006).

These divergent views are not as contradictory as they first appear. Those authors who find that gifted children are doing relatively well on their own usually have focused on students from academic programs specifically designed for gifted children. Such children, by the very nature of the selection process, are typically functioning well in school, which then generally implies also that they would not be experiencing major social or emotional problems. Such selection procedures are likely to limit the representativeness of the sample of the gifted children being studied and would exclude gifted children who are academically underachieving because of social or emotional problems and who are not being served educationally in special programs for gifted children. An underestimate of social and emotional issues is likely. By contrast, those authors who find frequent problems among gifted children often rely on data gathered in clinical settings and from individual case studies where the population is self-selecting. As a result, there is likely a sample bias that would prompt an over-estimate of the incidence of social and emotional difficulties.

Both views have at least partial validity. Gifted children who are able to function sufficiently in school settings such that they can be identified as such are likely also to be functioning generally well in other areas of life, and thus do not appear to be at major risk for developing social and emotional problems, particularly if these children are also being served by some school program which is attempting to meet their needs. On the other hand, high potential gifted children who have not been identified and are not in school programs appear to be more at risk for certain social and emotional difficulties. The latter group has been the subject of fewer empirical studies, however, probably because of the difficulties in locating subjects in ways that fit with accepted experimental designs, as well as because of the emphasis on considering children as gifted only when they overtly have achieved.

Most of the research has focused on gifted children, and little has been done on gifted adults. Some researchers have supposed a link between creativity and bipolar and/or depressive conditions (e.g., Piirto, 2004; Andreason, 2008; Ludwig, 1995; Jamison, 1996). Others, however, have found significant shortcomings in the research designs of those researchers (Kaufman, 2013; Schlesinger, 2013). Others have written about their observations of higher frequencies in gifted adolescents and adults of existential depressions (Webb, 2014), alcohol consumption (Kanazawa & Hellberg, 2010), eating disorders (Kerr & Kurpius, 2004), interpersonal problems (Jacobsen, 2000; Stryznewski, 1999), and marital issues (Kerr, 2014; Kerr & Cohn, 2001).

It should also be recognized, though, that there are exceptions to both groups. Some unidentified and unserved gifted children and adults function quite well personally and socially; conversely, some gifted children and adults in excellent school or work settings experience notable problems. The following discussion describes key dimensions that appear to be factors in these exceptions, some of the more common reasons why gifted children and adults are unable to function and need psychological guidance, and ways in which psychologists and other mental health professionals can provide help.

Exogenous versus Endogenous Problems

A clear distinction must be made to consider contextual aspects as separate from internal personal characteristics of gifted persons so that social and emotional difficulties of gifted children and adults can be divided into two categories—exogenous and endogenous. Exogenous problems are those that arise, or are caused, primarily because of the interaction of the child or adult with the environmental setting (e.g., family or the cultural milieu). Endogenous problems are those that arise primarily from within the individual essentially regardless of environment; that is, endogenous problems stem from the very characteristics of the gifted child or adult. The endogenous-exogenous distinction has seldom been used explicitly with regard to the emotional functioning of gifted individuals, though it appears to have considerable merit in conceptualizing the social and emotional needs of gifted children.

Relatively few characteristics of gifted children and adults inherently make them more likely to experience social and emotional problems. Instead, difficulties most often arise as exogenous problems from the interaction of these characteristics with the cultural settings, attitudes, and value-milieu within which they may find themselves. Nevertheless, there are some characteristics of gifted children and adults that do seem to increase the probability of social and emotional difficulties essentially regardless of the influence by the cultural milieu. These are:

• Drive to use one’s abilities
• Drive to understand, to search for consistency
• Ability to see possibilities and alternatives
• Emotional intensity (focus; intrinsic motivation; persistence)
• Concern with social and moral issues (idealism; sensitivity)
• Different rates or levels of physical and emotional development

Ironically, the characteristics of gifted individuals that are their greatest strengths are also likely to be their Achilles’ heel. Here are some common strengths, along with associated difficulties that are likely to result (Clark, 2012; Seagoe, 1974; Webb, 1993).

• Acquires information quickly vs. impatient with slowness of others
• Inquisitive attitude vs. asks embarrassing questions; strong willed
• Seeks systems and strives for order vs. seen as bossy or domineering
• Creative and inventive vs. may disrupt plans of others
• Intense concentration vs. resists interruption; seen as stubborn
• High energy vs. frustration with inactivity
• Diverse interests vs. seen as scattered
• Strong sense of humor vs. humor may disrupt classroom or work
• Keen observer vs. sees inconsistencies and may become disillusioned

Even these characteristics are seldom inherently problematic by themselves. More often it is combinations of these characteristics and interactions with situational factors that lead to problematic behavior patterns. Some common patterns from such interactions are as follows.

Intensity and Sensitivity (Overexcitabilities)

Kasimierz Dabrowski, a Polish psychologist and psychiatrist, developed a theory that has vastly improved our understanding of bright children and adults, particularly his concept of overexcitabilities, which refers to a person’s heightened response to stimuli (the exact translation of Dabrowski’s term from the Polish is superstimulatability). Understanding the overexcitabilities allows us to comprehend how bright people—particularly the more highly gifted—often experience life much more idealistically, intensely, and sensitively than others. (Mendaglio, 2008; Tucker & Hafenstein, 1997).

Dabrowski recognized that certain individuals seem instinctively drawn to certain kinds of stimulation. He also noted that their excitability tends to be in one or more of five different areas: intellectual, imaginational, emotional, sensual, and psychomotor. Some people show their excitable passion and intensity in all areas, others in fewer areas, perhaps only one or two.

Dabrowski and others after him have observed that very bright children and adults are particularly prone to experience these overexcitabilities, and as a result, their passion and intensity lead them to be so reactive that their feelings and experiences far exceed what one would typically expect (Daniels & Meckstroth, 2009).

These individuals are frequently accused by those around them of being excessive persons with “too much”of one trait or another and often hear negative comments such as, “You are just toosensitive,” or, “You’re over-thinking this!” or, “You are too much of an idealist!” Being extremely intense or sensitive can bring with it a sharp awareness of being different or of being disappointed in the lack of idealism in the world, and sometimes their overexcitabilites are misdiagnosed as psychological disorders (Webb et al., 2005). On the other hand, these heightened experiences also can be positive ones that can provide a richness of experience and allow a person to experience life in ways that others cannot even imagine. As such, the overexcitabilities are both a major source of strength and also often a cause of substantial stress, personal frustration, and criticism. Bright people often feel that they are different from mainstream society simply by virtue of their high intellect, but those with overexcitabilities find that it is even harder to feel “normal.” Other people are likely to see these intense, sensitive idealists as quirky—and they often are. Their intensity can prompt others to become irritated and to criticize them. Or their intensity may cause them difficulty in controlling their behaviors so that they overreact to situations in ways that alienate others. Some of these individuals are so excessive that others find them exhausting to be around and avoid them. Their “over the top” behaviors, their intense focus on their activities and goals, and the accompanying self-absorption can be hard for others to live with. As one woman described her spouse, “It seems for him that anything worth doing is worth doing to excess!”

Table 1 shows how the overexcitabilities can work in both positive and negative ways for the people who exhibit them.

Table 1

Positives and Negatives of Overexcitabilities (Webb, 2013)

Overexcitability	Description of intense behaviors
	Positive manifestations of sensitivities	Negative manifestations of sensitivities
Intellectual	Thirst for knowledge; discovery; questioning; love of ideas/theories; constant searching for truth; detailed visual recall; detailed planning; keen observation; thinking about thinking; introspection	Sometimes very critical; argumentative
Imaginational	Vivid imagination; frequent use of image and metaphor; richness of association; frequent and vivid dreaming; imaginary friends; inventions; gives inanimate objects personalities; preference for the unusual and unique; creation of private worlds; love of poetry, music, and drama	Mixes truth and fiction; preference for imaginary over real friends; need for novelty and variety; low tolerance for boredom
Emotional	Great depth and intensity of emotional life expressed in a wide range of feelings, from great happiness to profound sadness or despair; strong emotional attachments; compassion; sense of responsibility; constant self-examination; responds at an advanced level to spiritual experiences	Timidity; shyness; difficulty adjusting to new environments; depressive moods; feelings of guilt
Sensual	Enhanced refinement of the senses: sight, hearing, smell, taste, touch; delight in beautiful objects, sounds of words, music, nature	Easily distracted by sounds or the feel of clothing seams or tags; wants to be the center of attention; may be inclined to overindulging behaviors like overeating or shopping sprees; intense dislike of certain textures, visual images, smells
Psychomotor	Constantly moving; fast talking; intense drive; augmented capacity for being active and energetic	Restless; compulsive talking/chattering; nervous habits, such as tics, nail-biting, and hair pulling

Asynchronous Development

Motor skills, particularly fine-motor, often lag behind a gifted child’s cognitive conceptual abilities, particularly in pre-school children (Gilman, 2008; Webb & Kleine, 1993). When the lag is substantial, and when it is combined with their intensity, the result is often emotional outbursts like temper tantrums: That is, the child may see in his “mind’s eye” what he wants to do or construct or draw; however, his motor skills do not allow him to achieve his goal. The more intensely he tries, the more frustration he experiences, often resulting in an emotional outburst which may be labeled by others as immaturity.

Another internal dyssynchrony is the lag of judgment or emotional maturity behind intellect (Roedell, 1980; Webb, Gore, Amend, & DeVries, 2007). Significant stress in the lives of gifted youngsters occurs when they attempt to deal with emotions or social or interpersonal concepts that are simply beyond their capacity (Hayes & Sloat, 1989; Kerr, 1991). Many aspects of life cannot be “reasoned out” and can be understood only through the accumulation of experience (Webb & Kleine, 1993). Advanced reasoning abilities do not necessarily help in weighing emotions. This lag of judgment is often mislabeled as an emotional disorder when really it is a developmental process where the judgment usually catches up to the intellect as the child grows older.

Internal dyssynchrony can likewise occur between the emotions and intellect of gifted youngsters or adults, or within areas of emotions. Since gifted persons tend to have more intense overexcitabilities, they are more driven toward self-knowledge and disillusionment, and hopefully later toward self-actualization. However, the progress toward self-knowledge and self-actualization often involves times of intense emotional growth, turmoil, and “positive disintegration” or “positive maladjustment” where acute self-examination and change are undertaken, and which constitute a necessary step in personal growth and development (Mendaglio, 2008).

These endogenous aspects, however, do also have exogenous consequences. The stronger one’s overexcitabilities, the less welcome they are among peers and teachers (Daniels & Piechowski, 2008), as well as among coworkers or even spouses and friends (Fiedler, 2008). Further, overexcitabilities in some areas (e.g., sensual) may not be welcomed.

Perfectionism and Avoidance of Risk-Taking

The ability to see how one might perform, combined with emotional intensity, leads many gifted children and adults to have unduly high expectations of themselves and others. The fervor of involvement in their activities combined with their unrealistic goals consumes great amounts of personal time and energy, often unproductively, and in some cases, the perfectionism, anxiety, and excessive rumination and intellectualization can resemble Obsessive Compulsive Disorder. Various authors (e.g., Clark, 2012; Hollingworth, 1926; Webb et al., 2007) have noted perfectionism is frequently found among high ability children, with estimates that between 15-20% of highly able children may be significantly handicapped by perfectionism at some point during their academic careers. Eating disorders is likewise associated with perfectionism (Peck & Lightsey, 2008) and with high intellectual ability (Lopez, Stahl, & Tchanturia, 2010).

In the same way that gifted children and adults can see the possibilities, they also can see the potential problems in undertaking those activities. Though the prevalence has not been estimated, authors generally agree that some of these children are unwilling to take such risks, and that the avoidance of risk-taking is often expressed in under-achievement (Siegle & McCoach, 2005), but may also be seen in obsessive indecision where the child perseverates in considering alternatives and outcomes to such a degree that taking action is hindered. The avoidance of risk-taking is also likely when gifted youngsters initially encounter non-success, such as when going from high school to college, and find this experience to be devastating (Blackburn & Erickson, 1986).

Excessive Self-Criticism

Being able to see possibilities and alternatives also can imply that bright individuals not only may see idealistic images of what they might be, but simultaneously berate themselves because they can see how they are falling short of such an ideal (Strang, 1951; Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 2007). The intensity, combined with the idealism, magnifies the amount of self-evaluation, often leading to excessive and inappropriate self-criticism. This pattern often is the foundation for depression arising from anger and disappointment at oneself because of high self-expectancies (Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 2007).

Multipotentiality

Most gifted children, as they approach adolescence, become aware that they have advanced capabilities in several areas. Many of them enjoy this multipotentiality and are involved in diverse activities, sometimes to an almost frantic degree, and may intensely try to cram 30 hours of living into a 24-hour day. While their hypomanic activity is seldom a problem for the child or adult, such level of activity may create problems for family or coworkers. For the individual, however, problems do arise when decisions must be made about college major or career (Kerr, 1985). By choosing one career path, other alternatives are essentially negated, and the result can be decisional anxiety. Kerr (1991, 1997) concluded that multipotentiality was the most frequent cause of gifted students’ difficulties in career development.

Existential Depression

The intense and sensitive idealism, metacognition, and multiple career concerns of gifted children and adults are not widely shared by peers or indeed by society at large and therefore increase the likelihood of existential depression. Societal pressures are more often toward conformity and mediocrity rather than excellence and creativity. Society’s focus on trivial behaviors and meaningless rituals prompts idealistic gifted individuals—especially highly gifted—to spend substantial amounts of personal time and energy searching for life’s meaning and authentic relationships. Career options, self-satisfaction, consistency of beliefs and behaviors, persistence, and real value to humanity are important concerns. The recognition of limits on the development of one’s potential (i.e., one cannot be all that one could be simply because there is not enough time nor space) is combined with realization of the transiency of one’s efforts. The result often is that the person feels angry at fate, questions the meaning and worth of life’s existence, and experiences notable existential depression (Webb, 2013). This is particularly likely if one’s cognitive developmental stage is still “dualistic,” seeing the world in terms of absolutes of right and wrong or good and evil (Kerr, 1991), prompting the person to search for absolutes about life.

2e Gifted

Twice-exceptionality can be considered an endogenous problem for gifted persons, particularly the more highly gifted. If a person has a vision, hearing, speech, or other physical disorder, the emphasis by professionals is most often on the disorder, with little emphasis given to enhancing their intellectual abilities. The gifted components are most often overlooked even though they have significant implications for the person’s educational and vocational success and self-concept.

As overall level of intelligence increases, the span of abilities in different areas frequently increases such that there is asynchrony in an individual’s level of ability that is reflected in specific ability areas in subtest scores on achievement or cognitive tests, as well as in classroom or occupational activities (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). These 2e persons frequently underestimate their abilities because they evaluate their competence based more on what they are unable to do—the area(s) that lag behind—rather than on their substantial abilities; as a result, they often underachieve and are prone to depression (Webb et al., 2007; Whitmore & Maker, 1985).

Some gifted persons will have a specific learning disability; others will have physical or medical problems. The person’s intellect may be quite high, but because of motor difficulties, such as cerebral palsy, the potential cannot be expressed in ordinary ways. It is important that psychologists help parents and educators focus on ways to nurture the intellect, at least by treating the person with appropriate intellectual respect, not just on the handicapping condition. Many twice-exceptional children have later become quite successful adults when the strengths and deficits are both nurtured (Trail, 2010).

Exogenous Problems

Though some issues are endogenous, the majority of social and emotional problems experienced by gifted persons are more likely to be exogenous in origin, particularly for children in school settings, or with peers that are not a good fit for them, or with parents who are uninformed about characteristics of gifted children. The characteristics of gifted children exist in the context of the interaction of the child with the child’s family, school setting, and/or culture in general, and these characteristics may, or may not, fit with that environmental context (Worrell, Subotnik, Olszewski-Kubilius, 2013).

The lack of understanding or support for gifted children and the actual ambivalence, hostility, or bullying they experience particularly create significant problems for gifted children (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007). Gifted adults may experience similar problems, but less so because they are able to more easily change their life situations. Some commonly occurring exogenous problem areas and patterns are as follows.

Educational Conformity vs. Individualism

The gifted child is, by definition, unusual as compared with the typical developmental template in cognitive abilities as well as in intensity and sensitivity, and requires different educational experiences (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007). Since educational settings have task expectancies based on age-norms, children are grouped by age for educational instruction. Additionally, teachers and administrators focus on helping children achieve basic minimal levels of competence, and little, if any, emphasis is placed on helping gifted develop advanced skills (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007). Thus, the cognitively gifted child is unlikely to fit the curriculum, depending on the rigidity of the age-groupings and on the presence or absence of flexibility in the instruction regarding individual differences among learners (Gilman, 2008). The child, then, has a dilemma: “If I maximize my individual abilities and learn at the most appropriate pace for me, then I am likely to be seen as non-conformist and different. If I conform to the expectancies for the average child, then I am bored, dishonest with myself, and handicapping my future development.” Underachievement often results, in addition to careless, incomplete, disorganized, poor quality, and procrastinated work because the school environment has not taught the challenging process required for achievement (Rimm, 2008).

Parents are often fearful that they will be seen as “pushy parents.” They do not know what is reasonable to expect of their child or of the school, and they need guidance and support from psychologists to advocate for their child (Gilman, 2008; Webb et al., 2007). Probably the largest body of literature on gifted children concerns their educational needs, and what adaptations could or should be made to the “regular” curriculum in order to accommodate the gifted child’s needs (e.g., Colangelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Davis, 2006). Except for self-contained programs or schools, school adaptations represent compromises—that gifted children should develop their abilities, but they should also fit in with others—as a part of societal ambivalence about gifted children.

The struggle between conformity and expressing one’s abilities continues into adulthood in work, family, and peer settings (Jacobsen; 2000; Kerr & Cohn, 2001; Stryznewski, 1999; Webb, 2013). Gifted girls, minority group children, certain religious group members, or unusually creative children seem particularly likely to experience pressures toward conformity in peer relations (Kerr, 1997; Piirto, 2004), and career decisions are often influenced by the role expectancies of those in the environment. Continually attempting to reconcile the conflict between fitting in and being an individual can be quite stressful.

For gifted individuals, meeting the expectancies of others versus individualism exists throughout the lifespan, and it is displayed in many arenas—school, home, with peers, and in society at large—and raises issues of belongingness and personal life meaning (Webb, 2013). Gifted individuals, particularly the more creative ones, are often non-conformist and challenge traditions, rituals, roles, or expectancies, prompting discomfort in those around. Others see the nonconformist as unpredictable and as challenging the status quo. The more different in creativity or intellect the child is, the more likely that child is to be seen as non-conformist, and thus more likely to experience criticism or rejection by others.

Peer Relations

Peer relation issues are almost universal for gifted individuals, and these exogenous problems often perplex gifted children and adults because they seldom view themselves as being different from others. Since they grow up seeing the world through their own eyes, that is normal for them. One child, for example, was so surprised to discover that other third graders did not know how to play chess, nor did they like to study fractals. Psychologists who work with gifted individuals commonly report clients who say things like, “Others tell me I ask too many questions; I think too much; I am too serious; I have a strange sense of humor; I am impatient with others; I am too idealistic,” and “I don’t understand why I don’t seem to fit in.”

Peer relation problems for gifted children may begin even in preschool. Young gifted children (particularly highly gifted ones) repeatedly and intensely attempt to organize people and things, and in their search for consistency, emphasize “rules” that they attempt to apply to others. They invent games and try to organize their playmates. Almost regardless of the setting, tensions are likely to arise between the gifted children and their age peers, and because of their advanced levels of ability, gifted children often gravitate toward older children or adults in their search for intellectual peers (Webb et al., 2007).

Peer issues continue into adolescence and adulthood, and are relevant to socializing, relations with coworkers, dating, marriage, and family. A relevant and helpful concept for bright adults is that of an intellectual “zone of tolerance.” That is, in order to have a long-lasting and meaningful relationship with another person (whether in friendship or a romantic relationship), that person should be within about plus or minus 20 IQ points of one’s ability level (Jensen, 2004, personal communication). Outside of that zone, there will be significant differences in thinking speed and depth or span of interests, which likely will lead to impatience, dissatisfaction, frustration, and tension on the part of each participant. Others have found that people who marry each other or become friends are usually within about 12 IQ points of each other (Ruf, 2012). When one is highly or profoundly gifted, the difficulty of finding someone similar increases.

Depression

Depression is often anger at oneself or anger at a situation over which one has little or no control, and the two are often related (Webb, 2013).

Anger at oneself is generally endogenous; the gifted individual is able to perceive personal strengths, but also personal shortcomings. Anger at oneself may also have an exogenous component. Some families, for example, have a tradition of continually evaluating and criticizing performance—one’s own and others. In such an environment, any natural propensity by the child to self-evaluate will likely be inflated. The possibility of clinical or sub-clinical depression increases in such situations, as well as academic underachievement.

Exogenous depression may also arise from helpless anger at situations over which one feels no control and a poor sense of personal control over one’s own life (Rimm, 1991; Webb, 2013). When the environment (e.g., home, school, friends) is not supportive of one’s needs and one feels trapped, the frequent result is depression. Educational misplacement of gifted children or inappropriate job settings for gifted adults are examples of situations which do not meet their needs, but over which they have little or no control.

Family Relations

Families nurture—or hinder—social and emotional competencies, as well as enhance—or diminish—the development of achievement, creativity, and eminence (Albert, 1978; Bloom, 1985; Csikszentmihalyi, 1996; Goertzel, Goertzel, Goertzel, & Hansen, 2004; Silverman, 1991). It is in the family that exogenous problems for gifted children may occur. Some common concerns are as follows.

Power Struggles

Most parents, particularly those with high aspirations, have firm ideas about the level of achievement and competence that they want their child to attain. Intense parental aspirations, when combined with the intensity of the gifted child, can lead to major power struggles, with the resulting passive-aggressive behavior by the child (Webb et al., 2007). Fathers in particular tend to perceive giftedness in terms of achievement and appear to be more likely to become involved in power struggles concerning achievement (Silverman, 1988).

Enmeshment or Confluence

Some parents of gifted children become emotionally enmeshed with their children; they narcissistically attempt to live out their own aspirations and wished-for achievements through their highly able child, and become overly involved in the child’s life (Miller, 1996). Instead of a power struggle, the child accedes to the parental over-involvement. This pattern can lead to the gifted child having a poorly differentiated sense of self-identity as distinct from that of the parent.

Mistaking the Abilities for the Child

This problem often is embedded within the enmeshment or the power struggle. The child’s unusual abilities may be what is emphasized by the parents, particularly fathers (Silverman, 1991), and the child’s feelings or sense of person are denigrated. Such over-emphasis on achievement prompts the child toward perfectionism and superficial relations with other people, for the child comes to internalize the emphasis on the importance of accomplishments rather than on the inherent worth as a person (Grobman, 2006). To be sure, many highly achieving persons feel good about themselves, and are neither perfectionistic, nor superficial. Such persons seem to have come from families that emphasized and modeled achievement, but balanced it with concerns for personal worth (Bloom, 1985; Robinson, Shore, & Enerson, 2006; Goertzel et al., 2004).

Sibling Relations

When one child in the family is labeled as gifted, and most often that is the first-born child (Cornell, 1984), the other children in the family may view themselves as non-gifted. Gifted children often hold high status in the family; parents often feel closer to and prouder of the child who is labeled gifted, sometimes generating adjustment problems in siblings who are considered non-gifted (Cornell, 1983, 1984, 1989; Grenier, 1985; Silverman, 1991). Despite the “either-or” thinking (i.e., gifted vs. non-gifted), the siblings are likely to be close in intelligence (Silverman, 2009). Thus, it is important to evaluate siblings to see if they, too, should be considered as gifted. Otherwise, there is substantial likelihood of underachievement by the unlabeled, but equally bright, siblings (Webb et al., 2007).

Sibling rivalry seems more likely if the second-born child is labeled as gifted but the first-born is not. Whereas first-born children identified as gifted generally enjoyed a close sibling relationship, second-born children labeled as gifted experienced more problems in sibling relationships (Tuttle, 1990). However, as the difference in sibling IQs increases, competition among the siblings decreases, and the sibling relations are more harmonious (Ballering & Koch, 1984).

Parental Understanding

Family problems occur most often because parents of gifted children (a) lack information about gifted children, (b) lack support for appropriate parenting, or (c) are attempting to cope with their own unresolved problems (which may have to do with their own experiences with being gifted).

Despite conventional beliefs that “every parent has a gifted child,” parents—particularly fathers—often overlook or underplay signs of precocious intellectual development in their children (Silverman, 1991; Webb et al., 2007), though they may recognize their child as different from other children. Most parents apply guidelines and norms derived from children of average abilities or that emphasize minimally expected developmental criteria (Webb & Kleine, 1993). Parental puzzlement and frustration often result.

Sometimes parents’ own unresolved issues with giftedness contribute to family problems. Commonalities of heredity and environment usually (though not always) result in gifted children having gifted parents (Silverman, 1991). However, most parents are unaware of how bright they are or how it affects their lives. The intensity, impatience, and high expectancies that characterize these parents, if not mediated by self understanding, can create an environment of misery for those within the family.

Approaches to Preventing or Ameliorating Problems

Gifted individuals are not immune to social and emotional problems simply because of their unusual abilities. Although many gifted children and adults do function quite well, others do not, and may actually be more likely to experience significant difficulties related to their giftedness at some point in their lives, particularly if they are educationally misplaced and/or if they and their families lack appropriate information (Neihart et al., 2002; Webb et al., 2005; Webb et al., 2007). Ironically, their advanced ability to adapt or adjust may itself result in some problems, such as underachievement or excessive conformity (Kerr, 1997) as they strive to fit in.

As noted previously, most counselors, psychologists, and primary health care professionals have little, if any, training in assessing or treating gifted individuals with emotional or interpersonal difficulties. Extremely few psychologists receive training about the characteristics or special needs of gifted children, and, in fact, are often taught in graduate school that “gifted children will make it on their own” and that they are not a group likely to have special problems (Webb et al., 2005). Similarly, psychologists are unaware of how frequently gifted children reach developmental milestones much earlier (Ruf, 2009), which has implications for peer relations as well as for school issues and educational planning. In fact, some studies have indicated that these professionals have distinctly negative feelings toward gifted children (Shore, Cornell, Robinson, & Ward, 1991). Further, most professionals have been trained in a pathology model, rather than an enhancement of human potential model, and tend to focus only on clear dysfunctions compared with the norm, rather than seeing that failure to reach potential might likewise be a dysfunction. As a result, “very few mental health professionals know how to adapt their counseling strategies to better meet the needs of individuals with high abilities, and untrained counselors may pathologize normal characteristics of gifted individuals, such as adaptive perfectionism and overexcitabilities” (Moon, 2002, p. 218).

Services under a Different Label

Sometimes needs and problems of gifted children and adults are served by mental health professionals, but the situations and problems are misdiagnosed or labeled in a fashion that is only partially accurate (Webb et al., 2005). For example, the professional may recognize and treat existential depression, but overlook the gifted components involved. Seeing numerous possibilities in situations may be classified as obsessive behavior. The intensity and daydreaming of a bored gifted child might be labeled as an attention deficit disorder. Interpersonal withdrawal could be due to educational misplacement or the lack of peers by a gifted youngster. The clownish classroom behavior of a gifted child who is educationally misplaced might be incorrectly diagnosed as an undersocialized conduct disorder behavior pattern.

Assessment Approaches

Sometimes formal psychological assessments are needed for a differential diagnosis or because the parents or school want a “second opinion.” It is important that professionals doing such assessments are knowledgeable about gifted children. For example, on projective personality tests, gifted children often give responses that might appear pathological, but really are simply a reflection of their vivid imagination combined with their intensity (Webb & Kleine, 1993). Gifted children and adults show a great deal more intra-test scatter than do other children (Gilman, 2008; Webb & Kleine, 1993). That is, there is substantially greater variability across abilities than among children of average or less ability level. Such variability can prompt inappropriate conclusions of learning disability or other disorders. And since so many gifted children reach the ceiling on subscales of standardized tests of cognitive ability, out-of-level testing may be needed.

Treatment Approaches

Treatment interventions generally are quite effective with gifted children and adults. Their conceptual quickness apparently allows them to more quickly grasp and apply therapeutic suggestions. Most professionals, once they become familiar with relevant literature on gifted individuals, are readily able to incorporate that information into their treatment approaches. Relationship and insight-oriented approaches appear particularly useful since they go along with the cognitive strengths of the gifted child. That is not to demean behavioral or strategic approaches; they, too, may be helpful. Rational-emotive therapy approaches can be quite effective in helping gifted persons learn to manage their “self-talk” that underlies their feelings of excessive stress, perfectionism, or depression (Webb, 2013; Webb et al., 2007). Many gifted individuals are searching for some cognitive framework through which they might understand themselves and their lives, but they also have a particular need to feel understood and to have a relationship with the treating professional.

In addition to treating clinical problems, psychologists, pediatricians, and others can do anticipatory guidance with parents of gifted and talented persons, and there are substantial resources that a professional can suggest to the individual or family. Several non-profit groups have information available for free from their websites or sponsor conferences or other educational opportunities. Particularly noteworthy are Supporting Emotional Needs of Gifted (www.sengifted.org), Davidson Institute for Talent Development (www.ditd.org), Hoagies Gifted (www.hoagiesgifted.org), and the National Association for Gifted Children (www.nagc.org). Likewise several publishers specialize in books for parents of gifted children and the professionals who work in the field, which can be used for bibliotherapy.

Parents of gifted children and gifted adults are looking for counseling and mental health professionals to whom they can turn for information, advice, support, diagnostic clarifications, and treatment. At present, it is difficult for them to find knowledgeable and helpful professionals. Gifted individuals and their families often need counseling and guidance in three areas—academic planning and career opportunities; personal and social concerns with their families, peers, or teachers; and special outside-of-school enrichment experiences. Although there is seldom third-party reimbursement for psychological services for gifted issues,per se, many families are willing to pay out of pocket. Psychologists can expand their practices to meet this need, which currently is a neglected area of practice, by learning about the characteristics of gifted individuals and the implications for diagnosis and treatment either through readings or through continuing education opportunities through nonprofit groups like SENG, which actively provide such information.

Author

James T. Webb, Ph.D., the founder of the non-profit group SENG (Supporting Emotional Needs of Gifted Children), served on the Board of Directors for the National Association for Gifted Children and was president of the American Association for Gifted Children. Dr. Webb is lead author of six books and numerous articles about gifted children. In 2011, he received the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Arizona Association for Gifted Children the Community Service Award from the National Association for Gifted Children, and the Upton Sinclair Award by EducationNews.org. Dr. Webb is a past-president of the Ohio Psychological Association and served on the APA Council of Representatives. Formerly Professor and Associate Dean at the Wright State University School of Professional Psychology, Dr. Webb is president of Great Potential Press.

References

Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and the achievement of eminence. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 201-211.

Altman, R. (1983). Social-emotional development of gifted children and adolescents: A research model. Roeper Review, 6, 65-68.

Andreason, N. C. (2008, June). The relationship between creativity and mood disorders.Dialogues in Clinical Neuroscience, 10(2), 251-255.

Ballering. L. D. & Koch. A. (1984). Family relations when a child is gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly,28, 140-143.

Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine.

Clark, B.A. (2012). Growing up gifted, 8th ed. New York: Pearson.

Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., & Gross, M. U. M. (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. The Templeton National Report on Acceleration, Volumes 1 & 2. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

Cornell, D. G. (1983). Gifted children: The impact of positive labeling on the family system.American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 53, 322-335.

Cornell, D. G. (1984). Families of gifted children. Ann Arbor, MI: UMI Research Press.

Cornell, D. G. (1989). Child adjustment and parent use of the term “gifted.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 63-64.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Talented teenagers: The roots of success and failure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Daniels, S., & Meckstroth, E. A. (2009). Nurturing the sensitivity, intensity, and developmental potential of young gifted children. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 33-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Daniels, S. & Piechowski, M. M. (2008). Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Davis, G. A. (2006). Gifted children, gifted education: A handbook for teachers and parents.Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Delisle, J. R. (2005). Once upon a mind: The stories and scholars of gifted education. Independence, KY: Cengage Learning.

Fiedler, E. (2008). Advantages and challenges of lifespan intensity. Chapter in Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability, and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 167-184). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Gilman, B. J. (2008). Academic advocacy for gifted children: A parent’s complete guide.Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Goertzel, V., Goertzel, M. G., Goertzel, T. G., & Hansen, A. M. W. (2004). Cradles of eminence: Childhoods of more than 700 famous men and women. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Grenier, M. E. (1985). Gifted children and other siblings. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 164-167.

Grobman, J. (2006). Underachievement in exceptional gifted adolescents and young adults: A psychiatrist’s view. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. 17(4), 199-210.

Hayes, M. L., & Sloat, R. S. (1989). Suicide and the gifted adolescent. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 229-244.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York: Macmillan.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York: World Book Company.

Jacobsen, M. E. (2000). The gifted adult: A revolutionary guide for liberating everyday genius. New York: Ballantine.

Jamison, K. R. (1996). Touched with fire: Manic depressive illness and the artistic temperament. New York: Free Press.

Janos. P. M. & Robinson, N. M. (1985). Psychosocial development in intellectually gifted children. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O’Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented: Developmental perspectives (pp. 149-196). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.

Kanazawa, S., & Hellberg, Josephine E. E. U. (2010, December).Intelligence and substance abuse. Review of General Psychology, 14(4), 382-396.

Kaufman, S. B. (2013). Beautiful minds: The real link between creativity and mental illness.http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/beautiful-minds/2013/10/03/the-real-link-between-creativity-and-mental-illness/

Kerr, B. A. (1991). A handbook for counseling the gifted and talented. Alexandria, VA: American Association for Counseling and Development.

Kerr, B. A. (1997). Smart girls: A new psychology of girls, women, and giftedness. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A. & Cohn, S. J. (2001). Smart boys: Talent, manhood, and the search for meaning. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Kerr, B. A. & Kurpius, S. E. (2004). Encouraging talented girls in math and science: Effects of a guidance intervention. High Ability Studies, 15(1), 85-102.

Kerr, B. A. & McKay, R. (in press 2014). Smart girls in the 21st Century: Understanding
talented girls and women. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Klein, A. (2002). A forgotten voice: A biography of Leta Stetter Hollingworth. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Lopez, C., Stahl, D., & Tchanturia, K. (2010). Estimated intelligence quotient in anorexia nervosa: A systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature. Annals of psychiatry, 9, 40.

Lovecky, D. V. (2003). Different minds: Children with ADHD, Asperger Syndrome, and other learning deficits. Philadelphia, PA: Kingsley.

Ludwig, A. M. (1995). The price of greatness: Resolving the creativity and madness controversy. New York: Guilford.

Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Miller, A. (1996). Prisoners of childhood: The drama of the gifted child and the search for the true self. New York: Basic Books.

Moon, D. (2002). Counseling needs and strategies. In Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp 213-222). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

NAGC. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new century: Shifting the paradigm.http://www.nagc.org/index2.aspx?id=6404.

Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (Eds.). (2002). The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Peck, L. D. & Lightsey, O. R. (2008). The eating disorders continuum, self-esteem, and perfectionism. Journal of Counseling & Development, 86, 184-192.

Piirto, J. (2004). Understanding creativity. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Rimm, S. B. (1991). Underachievement and superachievement: Flip sides of the same psychological coin. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 328-344). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Rimm, S. (2008). Why bright kids get poor grades, and what you can do about it: A six step program for parents and teachers. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Robinson, A., Shore, B. M., & Enerson, D. L. (2006). Best practices in gifted education: An evidence-based guide. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Roedell, W. C. (1980). Characteristics of gifted young children. In W. C. Roedell & H. B. Robinson (Eds.), Gifted young children (pp. 66-89). New York: Teachers College Press.

Ruf, D. A. (2009). 5 Levels of gifted: School issues and educational options. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Ruf, D. A. (2012). How does my IQ affect me? Retrieved from www.talentigniter.com/blog/how-does-my-iq-affect-me-2nd-series-does-intelligence-matter-deborah-ruf-phd

Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations, 5th ed. La Mesa, CA: Sattler.

Schlesinger, J. (2012).The insanity hoax: Exposing the myth of the mad genius. Ardsley-on-Hudson, NY: Shrinktunes Media.

Seagoe, M. (1974). Some learning characteristics of gifted children. In R. Martinson (Ed.), The identification of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.

SENG Misdiagnosis Initiative. (2014). https://www.sengifted.org/programs/seng-misdiagnosis-initiative.

Shore, B. M., Cornell, D. G., Robinson, A., & Ward, V. S. (1991). Recommended practices in gifted education. New York: Teachers College Press.

Silverman, L. K. (1988). The second child syndrome. Mensa Bulletin, 320, 18-20.

Silverman, L. K. (1991). Family counseling. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 307-320). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Silverman, L. K. (2009). What we have learned about gifted children: 30th anniversary.http://www.gifteddevelopment.com/What_is_Gifted/learned.htm.

Siegle, D. & McCoach, B. (2005, September). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching exceptional children, 38(1), 22-27.

Strang, R. (1951). Mental hygiene of gifted children. In P. Witty (Ed.), The gifted child (pp.131-162). Boston: American Association for Gifted Children.

Stryznewski, M. K. (1999). Gifted grownups: The mixed blessings of extraordinary potential. New York: Wiley.

Terman, L. A. (1925). The mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Terman, L. A. & Oden, M. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Genetic studies of genius: Vol. IV. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.

Trail, B. (2010). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock.

Tucker, B. & Hafenstein N. L. (1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41(3), 66-75.

Tuttle, D. H. (1990). Positive labeling and the sibling relationship in families with gifted children. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia.

Webb, J. T. (2013). Searching for meaning: Idealism, bright minds, disillusionment, and hope. Tucson, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Webb, J. T. (1993). Nurturing social-emotional development of gifted children. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (pp. 525-538). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P., & Olenchak, F. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, Bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Webb, J. T., Gore, J. L., Amend, E. R., & DeVries, A. R. (2007). A parent’s guide to gifted children. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.

Webb, J. T. & Kleine, P. A. (1993). Assessing gifted and talented children. In J. L. Culbertson and D. J. Willis (Eds.), Testing young children: A reference guide for developmental psychoeducational, and psychosocial assessments, (pp. 383-407). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E. A., & Tolan, S. S. (1982). Guiding the gifted child: A practical source for parents and teachers. Columbus, OH: Ohio Psychology Press.

Whitmore, J. R. & Maker. C. J. (1985). Intellectual giftedness in disabled persons. Rockville, MD: Aspen.

Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2013). Giftedness and gifted education: Reconceptualizing the role of professional psychology. The Register Report (Spring), 14-22.