438877

sch and BrownJournal of Advanced Academics

2012
JOAXXX10.1177/1932202X12438877Welli

Journal of Advanced Academics

An Integrated Identification 23(2) 145­–167

© The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permission:
and Intervention Model for sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1932202X12438877
Intellectually Gifted Children http://joaa.sagepub.com

Mimi Wellisch1 and Jac Brown1

Abstract
Gifted children who do not achieve often have problems with motivation and
socioemotional adjustment and may also have learning disabilities. This article
examines factors such as attachment difficulties and maternal depression as these
may contribute to underachievement. The article reviews past and current practices
of gifted identification and argues that schools have an important role in the early
identification of socioemotional problems and learning difficulties, as these can create
barriers to learning and achievement. Although Gagné did include underachievers
in his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent, he has also argued that only
achieving children should be included in academic talent development programs, and
he supports a separate pathway for gifted underachievers. This article demonstrates
that such a pathway can be achieved through an inclusive model for gifted achievers and
underachievers. A model involves the early triaging of children through identification
of giftedness, socioemotional problems, and learning difficulties.

Keywords
gifted, model, intervention, underachievers, socioemotional adjustment.

Gagné (2011) argued in his recent lead article that only highly achieving children
should be included in academic talent development programs and that limiting eligi-
bility to high achievers would not discriminate against children from minority racial or
cultural backgrounds. Gagné’s lead article drew 40 commentaries. Balogh (2011), for
example, stated that Gagné’s program does not solve the problem of equity in talent
development and thought that the answer was to be found in an early and broadened

1
Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Corresponding Author:
Mimi Wellisch, 11 Marguerite Avenue, Mt Riverview, NSW 2774, Australia
Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

146 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

identification strategy. Dracup (2011) commented that the suggested program is use-
less in identifying those with abilities who have not yet achieved. Some other com-
mentaries identified that Gagné’s argument may also discriminate against gifted
underachievers where race and culture were not involved, a group of children who
could conceivably achieve, provided they received appropriate and timely support.
The term underachievers refers to children who have ability and yet do not achieve to
their potential, or, according to Gagné (1985), who are “gifted intellectually, but not
talented academically.” Giftedness is broadly defined as a genetically inherited poten-
tial or the ability to reach high levels of achievement in a variety of pursuits, preceded
by early characteristic signs (Howe, Davidson, & Sloboda, 1998).
Wellisch and Brown (2011) commented that gifted underachievers do not necessar-
ily hail from low socioeconomic or ethnic minorities but are nevertheless disadvan-
taged by learning or socioemotional problems, which may be a result of childhood
stress and trauma. They argued that Gagné had offered no pathway or model that
would enable talent development for these children, “despite evidence that emotion
and cognition are intertwined in human mental function (Adolphs, Tranel, & Damasio,
2003; LeDoux, 1996; Phelps, 2006; Vygotsky, 1987)” (p. 118). In his response to
Wellisch and Brown’s commentary, Gagné (2011) confirmed his position that gifted
underachievers do not fit into a talent development program and that another avenue
to address their special needs is required:

Except for rare cases where underachievement has its source in intense boredom
caused by the slow-paced regular curriculum, we cannot expect that gifted
underachievers will miraculously become high achievers when placed in an
ATD program . . . The solution seems to be, as Wellisch & Brown [italics in
original] suggest, the availability of ‘an alternative pathway for underachievers’
(p. 115) . . . gifted underachievers, whether or not they belong to minority or
low SES groups, need a special alternative pathway, distinct from the highly
challenging course offered in ATD programs. I will leave to experts the task of
engineering that pathway. (p. 145)

This article takes up Gagné’s invitation not only by outlining a unique pathway for
gifted underachievers but also by proposing an inclusive model of identification and
progression for all gifted children.
When Gagné (1985) first proposed his Differentiated Model of Giftedness and
Talent (DMGT), it was immediately recognized internationally for the inclusion of
underachievers, who were placed in the giftedness component of the DMGT. Although
Gagné has continued to update his model since that time (e.g., Gagné, 1995; 2004;
2009), there has been no attempt to add components that address the needs of this
subgroup of gifted children. Underachievers have remained stationary within the
DMGT, without pathways of possible progression, unable to move beyond being iden-
tified as naturally gifted. Underachievers are therefore destined to remain underserved
in schools that follow Gagné’s ideas, because, as Ford, Grantham, and Whiting (2008)

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 147

stated “(w)hen one makes giftedness synonymous with achievement, gifted under-
achievers will be neither recruited nor retained” (p. 300).
This article will first review the literature on underachievers and then examine
gifted children’s socioemotional adjustment and its association with attachment,
maternal depression, and motivation. Then we will take a brief look at past and current
procedures to identify giftedness. Finally, we will examine important additions to
identification procedures and the necessary interventions and planned progressions
within the proposed new model that together can make a positive difference to the
lives and prospects of underachievers.

Underachievement
Terman and Oden (1959) found two factors that divided high achievers from other
gifted participants in their study: drive to achieve (e.g., persistence and motivation)
and all-round socioemotional adjustment. However, a closer look at underachieve-
ment presents a complex set of causes (Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998). These include
social and economic influences (Freeman, 1992), race (Baker, 2011), culture
(Freeman, 2011; Sternberg, 2007), twice exceptionality (e.g., where a child is gifted
and has a disability; Silverman, 2009), lack of motivation due to socioemotional prob-
lems (Reis & Renzulli, 2004), lack of interest, and absence of educational challenge,
engagement and, support (Reis & Renzulli, 2009). Additional factors such as gender
have also influenced level of achievement (Gross, 1993). Thus, there is a wide range
of causes and factors influencing achievement.
Betts and Neihart (1988) suggested that there are six recognizable character types,
or profiles, of gifted children, including that of a potential school dropout, presenting
as angry, depressed, withdrawn, or acting out and being defensive. Betts and Neihart
also described the characteristics of a twice-exceptional child who may try to avoid
failures, who may be stubborn, impatient, disruptive, confused, stressed, frustrated,
who may feel discouraged, rejected, helpless, and isolated, and who may have sloppy
handwriting.
Lovett and Lewandowski (2006) challenged the “clinical lore” of a large, hidden
population of twice-exceptional children whose gifts and disabilities mask each other
and who could benefit uniquely from targeted interventions, at the same time stating
that they have no doubt of the existence of these children (p. 525). Nevertheless,
research findings such as Barnard-Brak, Johnsen, and Pond’s (2009) study can verify
the existence of these children where they are least expected. Barnard-Brak et al.
found evidence indicating that approximately 9% of a special education population
could have IQs in the 90th percentile, evidence that gifted children may well remain
unidentified in classrooms among chronologically similarly aged peers. Such waste of
potential to society has not been calculated, nor have the later costs, such as the reduced
level of happiness in at least some of these individuals (Seligman, 2002). As already
outlined, these and other underachievers may present with socioemotional adjustment
problems.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

148 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Socioemotional Adjustment of Gifted Children

Children who cope effectively with the demands of life are considered to have good
adjustment, whereas those with negative adjustment either find coping difficult or
develop maladaptive coping strategies in the face of stress (Neihart, 1999).
Historically, beliefs about the social and emotional adjustment of the gifted have been
quite divergent. During the 1920s, it was assumed that gifted children were borderline
neurotic or even psychotic (Clark, 2008), a myth dispelled by Terman’s study (1925).
Terman found that these children were often more popular than their classmates, at
least during their primary school years. Some studies since Terman’s have identified
certain socioemotional problems associated with giftedness, for example, the associa-
tion between creative individuals, and bipolar disorder (Fraser, 2010). In summarizing
the literature on the highly gifted, Lovecky (1995) concluded that the more highly
gifted the child, the less likely that they will be optimally, socially, and emotionally
adjusted, although there does not appear to be any research to support this conclusion.
The majority of studies have found that gifted children as a group have high social
status, are preferred companions, are better emotionally adjusted, are more indepen-
dent, often show leadership ability, and tend to be precociously aware of morality and
justice issues (Clark, 2008; Silverman, 1993). Neihart, Reis, Robinson, and Moon
(2002) concluded in their review of the research that there was “no evidence that gifted
children or youth—as a group—are inherently any more vulnerable or flawed in
adjustment than any other group” (p. 268). A recent study of 80 families also found
that there was no significant difference in clinical or borderline externalizing or total
problems as assessed by the parent participants of children with IQs at or over 120 and
children with IQs below 120 (Wellisch, Brown, & Knight, 2011).
Gifted and misunderstood. However, gifted children can feel uncomfortably different
from others, and, equally, the unique behaviors and unusual style of communication of
some gifted children can seem odd and can be misinterpreted or simply not under-
stood. This is especially the case if they also have learning difficulties and possess a
confusing mixture of high and low abilities. Due to these oddities, gifted children risk
being misunderstood in their primary social contexts, such as in their own home envi-
ronments. They may also find themselves socially mismatched with same-aged peers
when they should have been grouped with mentally similar children. In addition, chil-
dren who are gifted often have to endure an unresponsive and unsupportive education
system throughout their compulsory schooling life (Amend & Beljan, 2009; Morawska
& Sanders, 2009; Peterson & Ray, 2006; Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Such misunderstand-
ings place gifted children’s socioemotional development at risk, as summarized in
recent research (Wellisch, et al., 2011). It is, therefore, important to spend time and
effort on getting to know children who are different, or who do not appear to “fit in,”
as they may be gifted underachievers, lacking in certain skills or in confidence and
motivation to achieve. Motivation, a necessary aspect of achievement, is closely linked
with socioemotional adjustment (Reis & Renzulli, 2004).

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 149

Adjustment, Attachment, and Maternal Depression

Socioemotional adjustment is anchored in successful attachment, a bioevolutionary
instinct for relationship first observed by psychologist John Bowlby (1969). Bowlby
observed how babies and young children sought out their mothers when they felt
threatened or uncomfortable, and that, depending on the mother’s typical response,
children would then either become securely or insecurely attached.
Secure attachment has been linked with the mother’s state of mind when interpret-
ing her baby’s communication and with her sensitive responsiveness (Prior & Glaser,
2006). Prior and Glaser’s review of attachment studies cited research by Matas, Arend
and Sroufe (1978), who found that securely attached children had lower negative
affect and higher positive affect than children who were not securely attached. Insecure
attachment in children is the frequent outcome of inconsistent, angry or dismissive
caregiving, misinterpretations, and miscommunications (Prior & Glaser, 2006) and
has been associated with a number of factors, including maternal depression (Cicchetti,
Rogosch, & Toth, 1998). McMahon, Barnett, Kowalenko, and Tennant (2006) found
that infants of chronically depressed mothers were 3 times more likely than infants of
never depressed mothers to be classified as insecure. As has been shown, healthy
socioemotional adjustment depends on sensitive responses to babies’ needs, particu-
larly during the first year of life.
Maternal depression has also been linked with underachievement (Leschied,
Chiodo, Whitehead, & Hurley, 2005), and a recent study (Wellisch, et al., 2011) found
that maternal depression was associated with learning difficulties in gifted children in
the area of handwriting. Other studies have found that children’s handwriting can be
an indicator of giftedness and that the interaction between handwriting and concentra-
tion can be a significant indicator of underachievement (Stoeger & Ziegler, 2010;
Stoeger, Ziegler, & Martzog, 2008). It is therefore conceivable that there is a connec-
tion between maternal depression, handwriting, and underachievement, and more
research is needed to explore this connection.
Maternal depression was also a factor in a qualitative study involving interviews
with 11 mother-participants of gifted children (Wellisch, Brown, & Knight, 2011). The
study found that gifted children had increased risk of internalizing disorder if their
mothers had been depressed, and, as already described, that gifted children may be
vulnerable to being serially misunderstood in their primary social contexts—at home
by their mothers, at preschool and school by their peers, and at school by teachers in
relation to their educational needs. Of the five children with scores in the borderline or
clinical range for internalizing disorder on the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL;
Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001), four were serially misunderstood in all three primary
contexts.
The cumulative nature of being serially misunderstood appears to be the key to the
establishment of chronic socioemotional problems. However, the study also showed
that it could be successfully prevented once giftedness and causes of problems were
identified and addressed.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

150 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

As has been outlined, maternal depression and attachment problems have been
linked with learning disabilities, socioemotional adjustment, and underachievement.
These gifted children are at risk of losing motivation, disengaging from the educative
process, and becoming early school leavers (Cloud, 2007). The loss of their potential
contribution to society has not been calculated. Cloud has called for a new model to
address the threat to the Nation’s precious, prodigious intellectual resource. This new
model should include early intervention for socioemotional problems (Beissner, 2008),
as the latter can affect motivation, an important factor in achievement.

Motivation
According to Reis and Renzulli (2009), there is no noncognitive trait more influential
on high levels of performance than effort or motivation. In fact, Renzulli (1978) con-
sidered high level of task commitment, associated with motivation, to be so signifi-
cant that he listed it as one of the three identifying factors in his 3-ring definition of
giftedness (the other two are high levels of creativity, and above average ability).
Another similar observation made by a number of scholars is that gifted children are
naturally motivated to influence their environment to ensure that their never-ending
need for information and challenges are met (Winner, 2000, Perry & Szalavitz, 2006,
Sternberg, 2005).
The experiences of trauma or great injustice have also been shown to be motivating
catalysts for some high achievers (Csikszentmihalyi & Csikszentmihalyi, 1993;
Piechowski, 1997). However, ongoing family dysfunction and socioemotional prob-
lems are better known for their negative effects, interfering with motivation, planning,
attention, memory, and high achievement (Adelman & Taylor, 2000), resulting in
severely disrupting children’s learning and achievement (Reis & Renzulli, 2004).
Deficits in achievement motivation (or achievement-related thoughts, feelings, and
actions), according to a review by Dai et al. (1998), are thought to be associated with
a variety of issues, including unrealistic self-expectations, harsh self-criticism, low
self-confidence, a tendency to harbor self-defeating beliefs, and a lack in integration
of goals and personal standards. These self-defeating attributes and attitudes appear to
be related to poor socioemotional adjustment.
The three key factors in achievement for gifted children, then, can be summarized
as good socioemotional adjustment (Terman & Oden, 1959), positive achievement
motivation (Dai et al., 1998), and high ability (Renzulli, 1978), three essential ingredi-
ents to becoming an accomplished intellectually gifted person. Therefore, gifted chil-
dren who are considered to have high ability and fail to achieve (underachievers) can
be expected to struggle with adjustment and motivation and an eventual loss of ability.
Children who are gifted and underachieve as a result of learning disabilities typically
have high abilities as well as disabilities. To help these children progress, we need to
know which of the key achievement factors—adjustment, motivation, and/or ability—
need addressing, and these answers can be found through assessment.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 151

Assessment and Identification

Identifying children as gifted has always been difficult (VanTassel-Baska, 2005),
complicated by factors such as the sheer variety of gifts, several degrees of giftedness,
and low socioeconomic and minority cultural backgrounds. In addition, not only are
gifted children diverse as a group but also within each child there can be developmen-
tal unevenness and emotional intensities as outlined previously, better known as
asynchronous development (Morelock, 1992; Silverman, 1997). It is not surprising,
therefore, that research findings related to characteristics associated with giftedness
are frequently contradictory and confusing (Winner, 2000), adding to the problems of
identification.
Intellectual assessment is not currently part of standard school enrollment proce-
dures. This is despite estimates that up to a quarter of the child population are either
gifted, have learning disabilities, or fall into both categories. Gagné (2009) sets the
gifted population at 10%, and between 10% and 16% of students are perceived by their
teachers to have learning difficulties, particularly in literacy (Hay, Elias, & Booker,
n.d.). Munro (2002), an expert on reading disabilities in gifted children, has estimated
that 10% have such a disability, and Rogers (2011) found in her current study cohort
that 14% of gifted children have emotional/behavioral, learning, and/or other disor-
ders. Thus, the early identification of gifted children, along with the important strategy
of early intervention to enable them to progress, is still some time away from being
implemented.
However, a program to provide a support document to teachers in identifying gifted
children in New South Wales, Australia, is currently being piloted. The pilot has come
in the wake of the recently implemented and promising Best Start Assessments, testing
children within the first 5 weeks of the first school year in literacy and numeracy with
an aim to provide a program that ensures adequate achievements by Year 3. The assess-
ments and support document are promising but still lack some of the objective IQ
measures and the all-important socioemotional elements suggested in the following.
A fair educational beginning for all children should ideally start with obtaining a
breadth of information about their abilities as they first commence their schooling.
However, rather than the ideal benchmarking procedure of an early assessment, iden-
tification usually takes place when problems arise (Eddles-Hirsch, Vialle, Rogers, &
McCormick, 2010) or when a gifted program or class is being offered, necessitating
expressions of interest and assessment of potential candidates. The provision of an
appropriate education for children at either end of ability levels, therefore, continues
to be on an ad hoc basis.
In the recent past, children were identified as gifted if they scored at least 130 (or
two standard deviations from the norm) on an IQ test (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006).
This score now appears to be too high on account of changes made to the revised
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV), and downward
adjustments made due to the Flynn effect (a substantial international increase in aver-
age scores on intelligence tests). Together, these appear to have reduced WISC-IV’s

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

152 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Full Scale IQ in gifted children from a mean of 128.7 for the WISC–Third Edition
(WISC-III) validity study to IQ 123.5 for the WISC-IV gifted sample (Flanagan, &
Kaufman, 2004). Therefore, if the WISC-IV IQ test is used to identify gifted children,
consideration should be given to include children with a Full Scale IQ > 125 in gifted
programs.
It has long been argued that identification through the use of IQ tests alone fails to
identify many gifted children, for example, when they have nonacademic abilities
(Delisle, 2003; Winner, 2000). It has, therefore, been generally agreed that a diverse
range of identification strategies are likely to better capture a more equitable proportion
of gifted children (Merrick & Targett, 2004; VanTassel-Baska, 2000). Although this
strategy is an improvement on the onetime almost exclusive use of IQ tests for identifi-
cation, there is still no guarantee that underachieving gifted children are more easily
identified through the expanded use of methods such as class grades, or teacher, parent,
self-, and peer nominations. There is also general consensus that these children require,
along with twice-exceptional children, additional effort and careful selection of assess-
ment tools to ensure that a true measure of their abilities is obtained. The identification
process has, therefore, been expanded to include objective alternative achievement mea-
sures and subjective information gathered from peers, parents, and teachers (Merrick &
Targett, 2004). Such information may now also include portfolios of children’s work or
creative endeavors, achievement tests, and classroom work samples.
In the meantime, educators/administrators have suffered a loss of faith in IQ tests,
and there has been a trend in Australia to replace them with brief and less rigorous
screening tools (Merrick & Targett, 2004), such as rating scales and interviews, often
assessed by nonpsychologists, resulting in a lack of objective evidence of giftedness.
For example, in a recent personal comment to the first author, an employee of the
Catholic Education Office in Sydney advised that IQ tests were not in use to identify
gifted children within the Catholic Education system. When asked how gifted children
were then identified, the first author was told that teachers were very experienced and
could recognize a gifted child among other children. In contrast to such conviction,
research indicates that teachers continue to be quite poor identifiers of gifted children
(Moon & Brighton, 2008; Neumeister, Adams, Pierce, Cassady, & Dixon, 2007).
Lovett and Lewandowski (2006), who reviewed previous and current modes of
identification, commented that

[A]t the present time, IQ tests and comparable batteries of cognitive abilities
that yield general ability indices appear to be the most acceptable primary mea-
sures of giftedness, even though access to a gifted support program may be
based on a comprehensive evaluation integrating multiple sources of informa-
tion. (p. 524)

Lovett and Lewandowski also added that they did not believe such evaluation
should include imprecise measures such as creativity tests, isolated high scores on
specific subtests, or peer nomination. The reduced use of IQ tests and the failure to

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 153

replace them with equally objective and reliable measures have increased the likeli-
hood of underachievers remaining unidentified and increased the risk of gifted chil-
dren dropping out of school (Ford et al., 2008; Renzulli & Park, 2002).
As has been outlined, identification can be difficult for a variety of reasons. An
addition to these is the possible effect of early attachment problems associated with
maternal depression on gifted children’s motivation and behaviors (Murray et al.,
1999; Prior & Glaser, 2006; Wellisch, 2010). Recent findings indicate that gifted chil-
dren are more likely to be securely attached than other children (Wellisch, Brown,
Taylor, et al., 2011); however, problems associated with maternal depression and inse-
cure attachment such as learning difficulties and socioemotional problems can never-
theless be present (Wellisch, Brown, & Knight, 2011) and can, therefore, obscure
giftedness and contribute to the difficulty in the identification of giftedness.
As stated earlier, underachievers can be found in any group of children and can
include children from a minority or low socioeconomic group, including “invisible
gifted children,” who may show no signs of giftedness (Merrotsy, 2008). These under-
achievers may also present with an unusual ability profile, for example, very able in
some skills, with deficits in important other abilities. They may exhibit socioemotional
adjustment problems, attention problems, and may lack in adequate achievement-
related thoughts, feelings, and actions. As gifted underachievers can be difficult to
recognize in a group of children, all children should ideally be assessed for adjustment
and ability at the point of school entry. Assessment of all children would establish a
baseline reference point for teachers who can then measure subsequent early learning
gains and enable early identification of giftedness, learning disabilities, and socioemo-
tional problems and disorders. This early intervention strategy would provide solid
information and ensure evidence-based and appropriate educational placements, pro-
visions, and interventions.

Adding to Identification Tools

Currently recommended identification strategies include subjective measures such as
teacher, peer, self-, and parent nominations, and objective measures such as IQ and
achievement tests (Merrick & Targett, 2004). In practice, as mentioned, however, IQ
testing is now less popular, and additional tools are required to improve identification
of twice-exceptional or “invisible gifted” children.
Assessment for adjustment. Although it has not previously been included in regular
gifted identification procedures, the identification of giftedness should include check-
lists for adjustment problems, such as the CBCL (Achenbach & Rescorla, 2001) or the
Behavior and Emotional Rating Scales (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004), to
ensure that these are identified as early as possible. Such initial assessment should be
seen as a work in progress, and teachers should be ready to ask for further assessment
in case of unexpected or unusual discrepancies between test results and behaviors due
to gifted children’s vulnerabilities.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

154 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Identification of the gifted and learning disabled (GLD). Identification of children who
are gifted and have learning disabilities, according to Lovett and Lewandowski (2006),
should be based on absolute low achievement in an academic skill-area subject, for
example, in the bottom 10% of the distribution of the particular skill, “(w)hen a stu-
dent has an IQ score in the gifted range (i.e., a standard score above 130) and signifi-
cantly below average achievement (i.e., a standard score below 85)” (p. 524). The
importance of this strategy is to demonstrate that the child has substantial abilities and
disabilities above and below the average when compared with peers of the same age.
The Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (Neale, 1999) and the Wide Range
Achievement Test 4 (Wilkinson & Robertson, 2006) can be used to identify academic
abilities and learning disabilities. The addition of these assessments would help iden-
tify and place children who need to be accelerated, especially those who can already
read well at school entry, and identify children who have a potential to achieve but lack
the enabling skills. Rogers (2011) has also used the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of
Cognitive Abilities to identify specific learning disabilities (Woodcock, Mather, &
McGrew, 2001) to identify these children.
Assessing other disabilities. Some gifted children meet the criteria for Aspergers dis-
order. Rogers (2011) has successfully used the Autism Diagnostic Interview (ADIR-R;
Le Couteur, Lord, & Rutter, 2003) and BASC-2 (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004) to
identify children with autism spectrum disorders. Finally, either the CBCL (Achen-
bach & Rescorla, 2001) or the Conners Rating Scales (Conners, 1997) can be used to
assess attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD).
IQ testing for intellectual giftedness. IQ tests such as the Wechsler tests or the Stan-
ford–Binet 5 (Roid, 2003) should be used to identify giftedness. In addition to assess-
ing a child’s IQ, the WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003) has also been useful in correctly
identifying twice-exceptional children who were all found to have a large discrepancy
between index scores (Rogers, 2011). For the culturally diverse, Ford et al. (2008)
suggested the use of nonverbal tests of intelligence that are less culturally loaded than
traditional tests, such as the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT; Naglieri, 1997),
Universal Nonverbal Intelligence Test (Bracken & McCallum, 1998), and Raven’s
Progressive Matrices (Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003). The successful use of a spe-
cially designed process of dynamic assessment has also been demonstrated, for exam-
ple, with the Coolabah Dynamic Assessment Method (CDAM), which creates a
nonthreatening and culturally unbiased identification process that seeks to optimize
cognitive performance (Chaffey, Bailey, & Vine, 2003). In summary, a range of objec-
tive IQ and other ability measures should be used, selected on the basis of the needs of
children.

Identification as Prevention
The researchers who interviewed mothers of gifted children mentioned earlier
(Wellisch, Brown, & Knight, 2011) found that peer misunderstandings involved the
gifted child being perceived as different from other children and could, in some cases,

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 155

escalate to bullying. For 9 of the 11 participants in the study, being misunderstood at

school resulted in inadequate educational provisions and a complete lack of identifica-
tion procedures. The latter oversight may have been caused by gifted children’s dis-
abilities or motivation problems (Reis & Renzulli, 2004). Some mothers found it
necessary to maintain a constant pressure on the schools and advocate strongly for
recognition of the different educational and social requirements of their gifted chil-
dren. The study concluded that advocating for children, moving children from unhelp-
ful schools to schools open to gifted education, and early intervention, such as
acceleration at school and cognitive behavior therapy (CBT), were useful strategies in
preventing chronic problems in gifted children.
The researchers also suggested that peer problems may be improved by teacher
recognition of giftedness. Teachers could enhance children’s status, either within the
classroom or by offering supportive opportunities to associate with mentally similar
peers through subject or year acceleration, and thus play an important role in minimiz-
ing peer rejection. Teacher recognition would then also remove misunderstandings in
the educational setting, involve appropriate educational provision, and thereby reduce
the risk of chronic internalizing disorder.
Identification of giftedness and appropriate educational provisions can engender
enthusiastic engagement with the educational process, and enhance children’s adjust-
ment. Neihart et al. (2002), for example, found improvements in gifted children’s
socioemotional adjustment when they participated in accelerative learning opportuni-
ties, when they received support, mentoring, and coaching in how to cope with stress,
when they worked with similar others, and when they engaged in early considerations
of career options.
The aim of the proposed new inclusive model of giftedness is to enable potential under-
achievers to move forward through the application of early intervention strategies. The
strategies include identifying motivation and other problems and ensuring planning and
implementation of tailored and supportive socioemotional and educational strategies. The
model and the supporting strategies will help ensure “educational justice” (Beissner, 2008,
p. 11) to those gifted children who are currently lost in the system.

The Proposed Model of Inclusive Gifted Identification

and Progression
Suggested Identification Process
Although it is interesting to speculate on how giftedness arises, the new model pre-
sented here does not attempt such an explanation, as the topic has been well visited
by numerous scholars (Freeman, 2005). Nor will we attempt to explain the step-by-
step process of developing children’s talent, how it can be nurtured and what methods
can be used to promote outstanding achievement, as this has also been well researched
(e.g., Bailey, 2004; Ericsson, Prietula, & Cokely, 2007; Gagné 2011; Rogers, 2002,
2011). We may never fully know the most salient or influential factors that make the

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

156 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

difference in whether a child will continue to develop his or her giftedness as these
may vary according to individual differences, contexts, and environments. However,
the opportunity must be made available. Currently, as acknowledged by Gagné
(2011), there is no pathway between the potentially gifted underachiever and entry
into talent development. The proposed inclusive model aims to bridge the gap
between initial giftedness and its development. It proposes the strengthening of gifted
identification, the establishment of gifted early intervention, monitoring, and further
progression. These measures relate directly to children’s socioemotional status, moti-
vation, skills, and abilities so that gifted children can be guided onto a supportive
pathway toward their optimum development.

Initial Screening
Characteristics of giftedness. The characteristics of gifted children may be the first
sign of giftedness. These characteristics can differ from child to child. However, Fra-
sier and Passow (1994) identified the following 10 core gifted characteristics in chil-
dren from diverse backgrounds, although a gifted child may not exhibit all of these (all
italics in this section have been added for emphasis): motivation, intense unusual
interest, highly expressive communication skill, effective problem solving ability,
excellent memory, inquiry (curiosity), quick grasp or insight, uses logic and reason-
ing, imagination or creativity, and ability to convey and pick up humor. These charac-
teristics are similar to characteristics listed for highly and profoundly gifted children
(Rogers & Silverman, 1997; Appendix). High sensitivity has also been listed as an
early sign of giftedness (Rogers & Silverman, 1997; Silverman, 1993, 1998). Finally,
Clark (1992) also alerts us to a particular sign of precocity: “We have long known that
gifted children read early” (italics added; p. 99).
Gifted underachiever characteristics. A Senate inquiry into the education of gifted
children received submissions and gathered information on a variety of issues, includ-
ing the characteristics of underachievers (Commonwealth of Australia, 2000). The
characteristics included psychosomatic and psychological symptoms, such as stom-
achaches, headaches, depression, mental confusion, self-harm, poor self-esteem, sleep
disorders, nightmares, eczema caused by stress, and behaviors associated with inse-
cure attachment and ADHD.
Wellisch and Brown’s (2012) analysis of mothers’ narratives from an earlier study
identified that gifted children with borderline or clinical internalizing scores on the
CBCL were more likely to be easily frustrated, to be introverted, to have perfectionis-
tic tendencies, and the boys were less likely to be interested in sport than their peers.
These children were also more likely to have a learning disability.
Together, the mix of gifted and underachiever characteristics can provide the first
signs of giftedness in children. Gifted children are a heterogeneous group. For
example, one child may have most of the characteristics associated with giftedness,
whereas another may not share her characteristics of excellent memory and motiva-
tion, and instead exhibit underachiever characteristics associated with ADHD, such

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 157

as disorganization, hyperactivity, or inability to stay on task. Nevertheless, these

characteristics can provide a guide and be used as the initial part of the identification
process.
IQ test, assessments, and checklists. The IQ test, skills assessments, competition
results, class grades, and parent, teacher, child, and peer input can confirm whether a
child is gifted. It is generally believed that the optimal time to have an IQ assessment
is between the ages of 5 and 13 years, as children younger than 5 years may score a
lower IQ due to tiredness caused by the assessment (Merrick & Targett, 2004). In sum-
mary, information obtained using a wide range of objective and subjective measures
and sources may help to ensure that both the obvious and the not so easily identifiable
gifted children will be identified and considered for a differentiated program and early
intervention strategies.

Testing for Early Entry

In some countries such as Australia and Canada and in some states in the United
States, gifted children can attend school before the minimum legislated age if their
parents can provide evidence that their children are gifted and have the social and
emotional maturity considered necessary for school attendance. Early entry requires
evidence of an IQ test to support the claim for giftedness, necessitating the IQ test to
be carried out earlier than the optimal age mentioned earlier. The acceleration strategy
of an early entry normally benefits those gifted children whose IQ scores are 130 or
more and who are able to read prior to school entry. Early entry in a number of states
in Australia commences at 4 years of age (NSW Department of Education and
Training, 2007). It is therefore possible for gifted children to avoid boredom, repeti-
tion of known material, and disengagement with the educative process through early
entry in some countries. There is, however, more to be done once initial and formal
identification has been completed.

After Identification
The model suggested here includes pathways for gifted children who have socio-
emotional problems, children who have learning or other disorders, and children
with a combination of these (Figure 1). Once giftedness is established, the adjust-
ment and disorder assessments and checklists can act in a triaging capacity to fur-
ther identify gifted children who have adjustment issues and are in need of
therapeutic support or social-skills training, and those children who are in need of
educational remediation.

Achiever and Underachiever Characteristics

The identification process in the proposed model, as shown in Figure 1, begins with
the observation of characteristics associated with giftedness (see Appendix), and

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

158 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Figure 1. Inclusive gifted identification and progression model

possibly also with characteristics associated with underachievement, for example, the
socioemotional and other problems mentioned earlier. Following this initial observa-
tion, children should then undergo ability assessments and assessment for twice
exceptionality.

Gifted and Well Adjusted With No Learning Disability or Disorders

Gifted children who are well adjusted without any learning or other disorders can be
expected to be high achievers and should receive gifted education provisions once
they are identified. Gifted education provisions should include extension programs
with the appropriate level of academic challenge according to the child’s needs,
abilities, and level of giftedness (Reis, Burns, & Renzulli, 1992), subject or whole-
year acceleration (Colangelo et al., 2010), mentoring, and other offerings of talent
development programs (Eddles-Hirsch et al., 2010; Gagné, 2011; Figure 1).

Twice-Exceptional Children
Planned interventions should be documented for children who have been identified as
gifted with either disorders or learning difficulties. Individual education and therapeutic
plans should be tailored to each child, taking into account frequency and level of severity

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 159

of problems and disorders. The plans should be regularly reassessed, adjusted as necessary,
and strategies reconsidered if outcomes fail to meet expectations within the planned time
frame.
Parents should be invited to take part in the process and be informed regularly on
the progress of interventions. They should also have access to information and, where
available, access to parenting programs for gifted children with socioemotional prob-
lems. Although there are currently no evidence-based parenting programs for behav-
ioral issues in gifted children, a promising program for parents of gifted children has
been piloted in conjunction with the evidence-based Triple-P Parenting Program
(Morawska & Sanders, 2009). Rogers (2011) has also reported the inclusion of parent-
ing programs in her current longitudinal study. The Triple-P Parenting intervention has
demonstrated over 40% improvement in child behavior over the short term and 30%
over the long term (Sanders et al., 2004).
The “invisible gifted children,” and other underachievers who may have gaps in
their knowledge, low self-esteem, and poor planning skills, should be grouped together
at least initially, or until they are able to cope in a more competitive context (Bailey,
2004). There should be an initial emphasis on the child’s strengths, and eventually a
move toward addressing weaknesses, and educational strategies should include access
to gifted program provisions through alternative learning styles (Rogers, 2011).
Educational provisions. Children who have only socioemotional problems and no
learning disabilities should be considered for extension, subject or whole-year accel-
eration, and mentoring. This strategy may not only address their educational needs but
also their socioemotional problems when these are related to frustration with the edu-
cational process, or when social problems have arisen due to the gap between their
advanced mental abilities and the average mental abilities of same-aged peers. As
most children with socioemotional problems have some difficulties relating to others,
social-skills training should be part of any intervention strategy.
Children who have learning disabilities and socioemotional problems, however,
should not be considered for whole-year acceleration until their problems have been
adequately addressed. Their strengths should nevertheless be supported, for example,
through extension programs and subject acceleration. Such educational strategies can
help to ensure that children’s self-esteem is maintained and that they remain educa-
tionally challenged and engaged while their problems are being addressed.
Remedial educational intervention. Children who are gifted, well adjusted, and have a
learning disorder can participate in gifted education programs as long as their disabil-
ity is in an unrelated area, the disability can be simultaneously addressed, and the
program does not place undue pressure to perform beyond their capability. If, for
example, the learning disability is in mathematical concepts, there is no reason that
subject acceleration should not be considered in the child’s strong English ability,
along with coaching to help fill gaps in learning as a result of the acceleration, with
simultaneous remedial support provided for the learning disability.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

160 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Children with internalizing or externalizing problems and disorders. Children with con-
duct problems, anxiety, or depression should be referred for therapeutic intervention.
CBT has been shown to reduce anxiety and depression and can address a negative
thinking style that leads to low self-esteem, behavior problems, and poor motivation.
Conduct problems require cooperation between school and parents, and parenting pro-
grams that address behavior management should be accessible to parents of these
gifted children. Family counseling may also be needed, especially when siblings
become affected, and social-skills training should be offered to the children while they
simultaneously access gifted programs considered appropriate for their interests and
level of motivation, and abilities.

Children With Other or Multiple Disorders

Space does not permit a lengthy description of all childhood disorders, their symp-
toms, or treatment options. However, these disorders do need to be addressed to pre-
vent further problems. For example, Adelman and Taylor (2000) noted that barriers to
learning can arise from complications: “disabilities that lead to learning, behavior, and
emotional dysfunction” (p. 13). Therapeutic counseling should therefore be offered as
early as possible.

Conclusion
This article has outlined how gifted children who have learning and other disabilities
and/or socioemotional problems can participate in gifted programs. The proposed
Inclusive Identification and Progression Model sets out a pathway that can support
children’s giftedness as well as address their problems. Availability of remedial edu-
cational and therapeutic strategies in schools can ensure the protection of gifted chil-
dren’s self-esteem and help maintain educational challenge and engagement while
their problems are being addressed.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 161

Appendix. Ten Common Characteristics of Giftedness

Trait, aptitude or behaviora How it may look Roger’s researched listb

Motivation Evidence of Demonstrates persistence in 93.4% have a long
desire to learn pursuing or completing self- attention span99.4%
selected tasks (may be culturally learn rapidly
influenced); evident in school or
nonschool activities. Enthusiastic
learner; has aspirations to be
somebody, do something.
Interests Intense, sometimes Unusual or advanced interests in 85.9% are perseverant
unusual interest. a topic or activity; self-starter; in their areas of
pursues an activity unceasingly interest
beyond the group. Has a thirst
for knowledge and fascinated by
complexity.
Communication skills Highly Unusual ability to communicate 99.4% have extensive
expressive with words, (verbally, nonverbally, physically, vocabulary
numbers, or symbols artistically, symbolically); uses
particularly apt examples,
illustrations, or elaborations.
Problem-solving Unusual ability to devise or adopt 89.4% have facility
ability Effective, often a systematic strategy to solve with puzzles and
inventive, strategies for problems and to change the construction toys
recognizing and solving strategy if it is not working; creates
problems. new design; inventor.
Memory Large storehouse Already knows; 1-2 repetitions 99.3% have excellent
of information on school or for mastery; has a wealth of memory
nonschool topics information about school and
nonschool topics; pays attention to
details; manipulates information.
Inquiry Questions, Asks unusual questions for age: 97.9% are curious
experiments, explores plays around with ideas; extensive
exploratory behaviors directed
toward eliciting information about
materials, devices, or situations.
a
Adapted from: Frasier and Passow (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential. Research
Monograph 94112. The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. The list comprises “traits,
aptitudes, or behaviors . . . that many writers suggest can be considered general/common attributes of gifted-
ness—general or common in the sense that they are usually included in any list of attributes ascribed to
the gifted” (p. 58).
b
Dr. Karen Rogers analyzed data at the Gifted Development Center in 1994-1995 during a postdoc-
toral fellowship. The analysis consisted of data on 241 children between 2½ and 12½ years of age, with
IQs ranging from 160 to 237+ on the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (Form L-M). From: Exceptionally and
profoundly gifted children, Presented by Karen Rogers and Linda Silverman at the National Association for
Gifted Children 44th Annual Convention in Little Rock, Arkansas, November 7, 1997.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

162 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Appendix.
Trait, aptitude or behavior How it may look Roger’s researched list
Reasoning Ability to make generalizations and use 99.3% reason well
Logical approaches to metaphors and analogies; can thing
figuring out solutions. things through in a logical manner;
critical thinker; ability to think things
through and come up with a plausible
answer.
Imagination/creativity Shows exceptional ingenuity in 93.4% have a vivid
Produces many ideas; highly using everyday materials; is keenly imagination
original. observant; has wild, seemingly silly
ideas; fluent, flexible producer of
ideas; highly curious.
Humor Keen sense of humor that may be 95.9% have an
Conveys and picks up on gentle or hostile; large accumulation excellent sense of
humor well. of information about emotions; humor
capacity for seeing the (the, ed.)
unusual; uncommon emotional depth;
openness to experiences; sensory
awareness.

Acknowledgment

We wish to thank Viggo Knackstredt for suggestions and assistance in relation to the design of
the model and the tabulation for the table for this article.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship,
and/or publication of this article.

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this
article.

References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for the ASEBA school-age forms & pro-
files. Burlington: University of Vermont.
Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (2000). Moving prevention from the fringes into the fabric of
school improvement. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 11, 7-36.
Amend, E. R., & Beljan, P. (2009). The antecedents of when normal behaviors of gifted children
are misinterpreted as pathological. Gifted Education International, 25, 131-143.
Bailey, S. (2004). Gifted and talented education: Professional development package for teach-
ers module 6. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 163

Baker, J. (2011). Stability of racial differences in gifted education: The case for stereotype
threat. Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 27-28.
Balogh, L. (2011).Theory and practice in one conception. Talent Development and Excellence,
3, 29-32.
Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., & Pond, A. (2009). The incidence of potentially gifted stu-
dents within a special education population. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Beissner, S. R. (2008). Unintended consequences of no child left behind mandates on gifted
students. Forum on Public Policy, 2. Retrieved from http://forumonpublicpolicy.com/sum-
mer08papers/archivesummer08/beisser.pdf
Betts, G. T., & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly,
32, 248-253.
Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment (Vol. 1). London, England: Hogarth Press
& Institute of Psycho-Analysis.
Bracken, B. A., & McCallum, R. S. (1998). Universal nonverbal intelligence test. Itasca, IL:
Riverside Publishing.
Chaffey, G. W., Bailey, S. B., & Vine, K. W. (2003). Identifying high academic potential in Aus-
tralian aboriginal children using dynamic testing. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education,
12(1), 42-55.
Cicchetti, D., Rogosch, F. A., & Toth, S. L. (1998). Maternal depressive disorder and contextual
risk: Contributions to the development of attachment insecurity and behavior problems in
toddlerhood. Developmental Psychopathology, 10, 283-300.
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted (4th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Clark, B. (2008). Growing up gifted: Developing the potential of children at home and at school
(7th ed.). Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cloud, J. (2007, August 16). Are we failing our geniuses? Time, 170(9). Retrieved from http://
www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1653653,00.html
Colangelo, N., Assouline, S. G., Marron, M. A., Castellano, J. A., Clinkenbears, P. R., Rogers,
K., & Smith, D. (2010). Guidelines for developing an academic acceleration policy. Journal
of Advanced Academics, 21, 180-203.
Commonwealth of Australia. (2000). Senate employment, workplace relations, small business
and education references committee terms of reference: The education of gifted children.
Canberra: Parliament of Australia.
Conners, C. K. (1997). Conners’ Rating Scales-revised. North Tonawanda, NY: Multi-Health
Systems.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Csikszentmihalyi, I. S. (1993, January 25-27). Family influences on
the development of giftedness. In G. R. Rock (Ed.). The origins and development of high
ability (pp. 187-206). Symposium conducted at the meeting of Ciba Foundation, London,
England.
Dai, D. Y., Moon, S. M., & Feldhusen, J. F. (1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students:
A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 55(2/3), 45-63.
Delisle, J. (2003). To be or to do: Is a gifted child born or developed? Roeper Review, 26, 12-13.
Dracup, T. (2011). An alternative English perspective on equity in gifted education. Talent
Development and Excellence, 3, 45-50.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

164 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Eddles-Hirsch, K., Vialle, W., Rogers, K. B., & McCormick, J. (2010). Just challenge those
high-ability learners and they’ll be all right! Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 106-128.
Ericsson, K. A., Prietula, M. J., & Cokely, E. T. (2007). The making of an expert. Harvard Busi-
ness Review, 85(11), 115-121.
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ:
John Wiley.
Ford, D. Y., Grantham, T. C., & Whiting, G. W. (2008). Culturally and linguistically diverse
students in gifted education: Recruitment and retention issues. Exceptional Children, 74,
289-306.
Fraser, D. (2010). Creativity, mood disorders and the aesthetic. Gifted Education International,
27, 84-96.
Frasier, M. M., & Passow, A. H. (1994). Toward a new paradigm for identifying talent potential
[Research Monograph 94112]. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
Freeman, J. (1992). Quality education: The development of competence. Geneva, Switzerland:
UNESCO.
Freeman, J. (2005). Permission to be gifted: How conceptions of giftedness can change lives.
In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 80-97).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Freeman, J. (2011). A wish for the gifted and talented. Talent Development and Excellence, 3,
57-58.
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the definitions. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
Gagné, F. (1995). From giftedness to talent: A developmental model and its impact on the lan-
guage of the field. Roeper review, 18, 103-111.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. High
Ability Studies, 15, 119-147.
Gagné, F. (2009). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0. A day with
Professor Gagné—Working with Gagné’s Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent
(2008). Seminar, James Ruse Agricultural High School, Carlingford, 2 April.
Gagné, F. (2011). Academic talent development and the equity issue in gifted education. Talent
Development and Excellence, 3, 3-22.
Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. London, England: Routledge.
Hay, I., Elias, G., & Booker, B. (n.d.). Schooling issues digest-students with learning difficulties
in relation to literacy and numeracy (DEST). Retrieved from http://www.dest.gov.au/sec-
tors/school_education/publications_resources/schooling_issues_digest/schooling_issues_
digest_learning_difficulties.htm
Howe, M. J. A., Davidson, J. W., & Sloboda, J. A. (1998). Innate talents: Reality or myth.
Behavioural and Brain Sciences, 21, 399-442.
Le Couteur, A., Lord, C., & Rutter, M. (2003). The Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised (ADI-
R). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
Leschied, A. W., Chiodo, D., Whitehead, P. C., & Hurley, D. (2005). The relationship between
maternal depression and child outcomes in a child welfare sample: Implications for treat-
ment and policy. Child & Family Social Work, 10, 281-291.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 165

Lovecky, D. V. (1995). Highly gifted children and peer relationships. Counseling and Guidance
Newsletter National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), 5(3), 2, 6-7.
Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Who are
they? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515-527.
McMahon, C. A., Barnett, B., Kowalenko, N. M., & Tennant, C. C. (2006). Maternal attachment
state of mind moderates the impact of post natal depression on infant attachment. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 660-669.
Merrick, C., & Targett, R. (2004). Gifted and talented education: Professional development
package for teachers module 2. Sydney, Australia: University of New South Wales.
Merrotsy, P. (2008). The Wii Gaay project. Education Research Journal, 1, 1-19.
Moon, T. R., & Brighton, C. M. (2008). Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for
the Education of the Gifted, 31, 447-480.
Morawska, A., & Sanders, M. (2009). An evaluation of a behavioural parenting intervention for
parents of gifted children. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 47, 463-470.
Morelock, M. J. (1992). Giftedness: The view from within. Understanding Our Gifted, 4(3),
11-15.
Munro, J. (2002). Understanding & identifying gifted learning disabled students. Australian
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 7, 20-30.
Murray, L., Sinclair, D., Cooper P., Ducournay, P., Turner, P., & Stein, A. (1999). The socio-
emotional development of 5-year-old children of postnatally depressed mothers. Journal of
Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 40, 1259-1271.
Naglieri, J. A. (1997). Naglieri nonverbal ability test. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpora-
tion.
Neale, M. D. (1999). Neale analysis of reading ability (3rd ed.). Melbourne: Australian Council
for Educational Research Limited.
Neihart, M. (1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the
empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17.
Neihart, M., Reis, S. M., Robinson, N. M., & Moon, S. M. (2002). Social and emotional issues
facing gifted and talented students: What have we learned and what should we do now? In
M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional
development of gifted children. What do we know? (pp. 267-290). Washington, DC: Pru-
frock Press.
Neumeister, K. L. S., Adams, C. M., Pierce, R. L., Cassady, J. C., & Dixon, F. A. (2007). Fourth-
grade teachers’ perceptions of giftedness: Implications for identifying and servicing diverse
gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 479-499.
NSW Department of Education and Training. (2007). Early entry to primary schools. Darling-
hurst, Australia: Author.
Perry, B. D., & Szalavitz, M. (2006). The boy who was raised as a dog: And other stories from a
child psychiatrist’s notebook: What traumatized children can teach us about loss, love, and
healing. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Peterson, J. S., & Ray, K. E. (2006). Bullying and the gifted: Victims, perpetrators, prevalence,
and affects. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 148-168.
Piechowski, M. M. (1997, August). Emotional giftedness: An expanded view. Paper presented at the
12th World Conference of the World Council for Gifted and Talented Children, Seattle, WA.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

166 Journal of Advanced Academics 23(2)

Prior, V., & Glaser, D. (2006). Understanding attachment and attachment disorder: Theory,
evidence and practice. London, England: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003, updated 2004). Manual for Raven’s Progressive
Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Reis, S. M., Burns, D. E., & Renzulli, J. S. (1992). Curriculum compacting: The complete
guide to modifying the regular curriculum for high ability students. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional develop-
ment of gifted and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the
Schools, 41, 119-130.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2009). Myth 1: The gifted and talented constitute one single
homogenous group and giftedness is a way of being that stays in the person over time and
experience. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 233-235.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan,
60(3), 180-184.
Renzulli, J. S., & Park, S. (2002). Giftedness and high school dropouts: Personal, family, and
school-related factors. Storrs: University of Connecticut.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). BASC-2: Behavior Assessment System for Chil-
dren (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
Rogers, K. B. (2002). Re-forming gifted education: Matching the program to the child. Scotts-
dale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Rogers, K. B. (2011). Thinking smart about twice exceptional learners: Steps for finding them
and strategies for catering to the appropriately. In C. Wormald & W. Vialle (Eds.), Dual
exceptionality (pp. 57-70). Wollongong, Australia: AAEGT.
Rogers, K. B., & Silverman, L. K. (1997, November). Personal, medical, social and psycho-
logical factors in 160 + IQ children. Paper presented at the National Association for Gifted
Children 44th Annual Convention, Little Rock, AK.
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales (5th ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.
Sanders, M. R., Pidgeon, A. M., Gravestock, F., Connors, M. D., Brown, S., & Young, R. W.
(2004). Does parental attributional retraining and anger management enhance the effects
of the Triple P-Positive Parenting Program with parents at risk of child maltreatment?
Behavior Therapy, 35, 513-535.
Seligman, M. E. P. (2002). Authentic happines: Using the new positive psychology to realize
your potential for lasting fulfilment. Sydney, Australia: Random House.
Silverman, L. K. (1993). The moral sensitivity of gifted children and the evolution of society.
Roeper Review, 17, 110-116.
Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of Edu-
cation, 72, 36-58.
Silverman, L. K. (1998). Through the lens of giftedness. Roeper Review, 20, 204-211.
Silverman, L. K. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with
learning disabilities. Gifted Education International, 25, 115-130.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The theory of successful intelligence. Interamerican Journal of Psy-
chology, 39, 189-202.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015

Wellisch and Brown 167

Sternberg, R. J. (2007). Cultural dimensions of giftedness and talent. Roeper Review, 29, 160-
165.
Stoeger, H., & Ziegler, A. (2010). How fine motor skills influence the assessment of high abili-
ties and underachievement in math. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 195-219.
Stoeger, H., Ziegler, A., & Martzog, P. (2008). Deficits in fine motor skill as an important factor
in the identification of gifted underachievers in primary school. Psychology Science Quar-
terly, 50, 134-146.
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford University.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: The gifted group at mid-life.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2000). The on-going dilemma of effective identification practices in gifted
education. Communicator, 31, 39-41.
VanTassel-Baska, J. (2005). Domain-specific giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson
(Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 358-376). New York, NY: Cambridge Uni-
versity Press.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for children (4th ed.). San Antonio, TX: Har-
court Assessment.
Wellisch, M. (2010). Communicating love or fear: The role of attachment styles in pathways to
giftedness. Roeper Review, 32, 116-126.
Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2011). Where are the underachievers in the DMTG’s academic talent
development? Talent Development and Excellence, 3, 115-117.
Wellisch, M., & Brown, J. (2012). The many faces of a gifted personality: Characteristics along
a complex gifted spectrum. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Wellisch, M., Brown, J., & Knight, R. (2011). Gifted and misunderstood: Mothers’ narratives
of their children’s socio-emotional adjustment and educational challenges. Manuscript sub-
mitted for publication.
Wellisch, M., Brown, J., Taylor, A., Knight, R., Berresford, L., Campbell, L., & Cohen, A.
(2011). Secure attachment style and high IQ: Is attachment a protective factor? Australasian
Journal of Gifted Education, 20(2), 23-33.
Wilkinson, G. S., & Robertson, G. J. (2006). Wide Range Achievement Test 4 professional man-
ual. Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources
Winner, E. (2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55, 159-169.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., Mather, N., & Schrank, F. A. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III
tests of cognitive abilities examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.

About the Authors

Mimi Wellisch has a master in early childhood majoring in gifted children and is a registered
psychologist. She is the author of a number of books and numerous articles, has held a number
of executive committee positions on the NSW Association for Gifted and Talented Children and
is director of a gifted consultancy. She is currently concluding PhD studies on the topic of
attachment and giftedness.

Jac Brown is a senior lecturer teaching in the area of clinical psychology at Macquarie
University, Australia.

Downloaded from joa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF ILLINOIS URBANA on March 16, 2015