Editing Intellectual giftedness (section)

==Identification==
===Overview===
The identification of giftedness first emerged after the development of IQ tests for school placement.<ref>{{cite book |title=IQ and Human Intelligence |last=Mackintosh |first=N. J. |author-link=Nicholas Mackintosh |date=2011 |edition=second |publisher=Oxford University Press |location=Oxford |isbn=978-0-19-958559-5 |url=http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/product/9780199585595.do |access-date=15 June 2014 |page=14 |quote=The Binet scales, as they were known, formed the basis of modern IQ tests, just as mental age formed the basis for IQ scores. ... Although Galton was the first to try to measure individual differences in intelligence, it was Binet who appeared to have succeeded. }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last=Urbina |first=Susana |title=The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence |editor1-last=Sternberg |editor1-first=Robert J. |editor1-link=Robert Sternberg |editor2-last=Kaufman |editor2-first=Scott Barry |date=2011 |chapter=Chapter 2: Tests of Intelligence |pages=20–38, 24–25 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=9780521739115 |quote=The closest Binet came to defining intelligence was in an article he co-authored with Simon (1904) in which they equate intelligence with judgment or common sense, adding that 'to judge well, to comprehend well, to reason well' (p. 197) are the essential activities' of intelligence. Unlike Galton, Binet believed that intelligence consists of a complex set of abilities—such as attention, memory, and reasoning—that are fluid and shaped by environmental and cultural influences.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Intelligence Testing: Methods and Results |last=Pintner |first=Rudolph |date=1923 |publisher=Henry Holt |location=New York |url=https://archive.org/details/intelligencetest00rudo |access-date=14 July 2013 |page=[https://archive.org/details/intelligencetest00rudo/page/196 196] |quote=We do not mean to leave the impression that before the general use of mental tests no attention had ever been paid to children of remarkable ability. We find many references in literature to especially bright children, and the biographies of many great men bear record of their superior performances in childhood. Nevertheless, such references are scattered and leave the impression of something peculiar and very uncommon. Superior intelligence has certainly not been recognized as a vital educational problem. It is becoming to be so regarded today, because of the scientific study of such children by means of intelligence tests. }}</ref> It has since become an important issue for schools, as the [[gifted education|instruction of gifted students]] often presents [[rationale for gifted programs|special challenges]]. During the twentieth century, gifted children were often classified via [[IQ]] tests; other identification procedures have been proposed but are only used in a minority of cases in most public schools in the English-speaking world.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Davis |first1=Gary A. |last2=Rimm |first2=Sylvia B. |last3=Siegle |first3=Del |title=Education of the Gifted and Talented |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yCWUQQAACAAJ |date=April 2010 |publisher=Pearson Education, Limited |isbn=978-0-13-505607-3 |page=56 |quote=In her article "The Case Against Formal Identification," Davidson (1986) expressed strong frustration with formal testing, rating, and nomination procedures, including the use of point systems and cutoffs. Davidson noted that a student with a tested IQ of 110 may show greater giftedness in the sense of originality and thought-provoking ideas and answers than a student with a tested IQ of 140—who will be selected for the program. Even creativity tests do not measure every aspect of a child's creativeness, noted Davidson; and peer, parent, and teacher nominations can be biased in favor of popular, English-speaking, middle-class students.}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |chapter=Chapter 32: Heterogeneity among the Gifted |last1=Callahan |first1=Carolyn M. |last2=Hertberg-Davis |first2=Holly L. |editor1-last=Callahan |editor1-first=Carolyn M. |editor2-last=Hertberg-Davis |editor2-first=Holly L. |title=Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives |date=21 August 2012 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-94643-1 |page=330 |quote=While there are differences among subgroups of students identified as gifted, there are also differences among students in the general population whose talents are never addressed because we fail even to recognize that talent. Considerable attention has been directed at the under-representation of these students in programs for the gifted. Among the groups most often recognized as deserving of special attention for identification, talent development, and subsequent adjustments in curriculum are African American, Latino/Latina, and twice-exceptional learners. }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=McIntosh |first1=David E. |last2=Dixon |first2=Felicia A. |last3=Pierson |first3= Eric E. |title=Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues |edition=Third |editor1-last=Flanagan |editor1-first=Dawn P. |editor2-last=Harrison |editor2-first=Patti L. |chapter=Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness |location=New York |publisher=[[Guilford Press]] |isbn=978-1-60918-995-2 |date=2012 |id={{ERIC|ED530599}} |pages=623–42, 636 |quote=The use of a single cognitive test composite score as the primary criterion for determining giftedness is highly common within schools. In the past, the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) and the fourth edition of the Stanford-Binet (SB-IV; Thorndike, Hagen, & Sattler, 1986) were the most commonly used cognitive measures in the schools (Coleman & Cross, 2005). }}</ref>  Developing useful identification procedures for students who could benefit from a more challenging school curriculum is an ongoing problem in school administration.<ref>{{cite book |last=Kalbfleisch |first=M. Layne |editor1-last=Callahan |editor1-first=Carolyn M. |editor2-last=Hertberg-Davis |editor2-first=Holly L. |title=Fundamentals of Gifted Education: Considering Multiple Perspectives |date=21 August 2012 |publisher=Routledge |isbn=978-1-136-94643-1 |chapter=Chapter 35: Twice-Exceptional Students |page=360 |quote=Because defining twice exceptionality has defied psychometric and empirical characterization up to this point, and because it can include co-morbidity with a number of disorders (specific learning disability, dyslexia, attention deficit disorders, and autism, to name the few highlighted in this chapter), the gifted education field at large has only been able to respond to the consequences of it, when the goal should be proactive identification and support to enable the success that should come from educational experience and learning, not in spite of it. This is critical because the social and emotional aspects of twice exceptionality are fundamentally important to the twice-exceptional individual's ability to achieve a well-adjusted life (Assouline, Nicpon, & Huber, 2006; Foley Nicpon, Doobay, & Assouline, 2010; Gardynik & McDonald, 2005; King, 2005; New, 2003). }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |last1=McIntosh |first1=David E. |last2=Dixon |first2=Felicia A. |last3=Pierson |first3= Eric E. |title=Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, tests, and issues |edition=Third |editor1-last=Flanagan |editor1-first=Dawn P. |editor2-last=Harrison |editor2-first=Patti L. |chapter=Chapter 25: Use of Intelligence Tests in the Identification of Giftedness |location=New York |publisher=[[Guilford Press]] |isbn=978-1-60918-995-2 |date=2012 |id={{ERIC|ED530599}} |pages=623–42, 636 |quote=Although many would consider screening to be the crucial point in the identification process, predictive validity must be established between the screening procedure and the intellectual measure(s) used to ensure the accuracy and utility of the identification process.  }}</ref>

Because of the key role that gifted education programs in schools play in the identification of gifted individuals, both children and adults, it is worthwhile to examine how schools define the term "gifted".

=== Definitions ===
Since [[Lewis Terman]] in 1916, psychometricians and psychologists have sometimes equated giftedness with high IQ. Later researchers (e.g., [[Raymond Cattell]], [[J. P. Guilford]], and [[Louis Leon Thurstone]]) have argued that intellect cannot be expressed in such a unitary manner, and have suggested more multifaceted approaches to intelligence.

Research conducted in the 1980s and 1990s has provided data that supports notions of multiple components to intelligence. This is particularly evident in the reexamination of "giftedness" by Sternberg and Davidson in their collection of articles ''Conceptions of Giftedness'' (1986; second edition 2005). The many different conceptions of giftedness presented, although distinct, are interrelated in several ways. Most of the investigators define giftedness in terms of multiple qualities, not all of which are intellectual. IQ scores are often viewed as inadequate measures of giftedness.<ref>{{cite book |title=Conceptions of Giftedness |editor1-last=Sternberg |editor1-first=Robert J. |editor2-last=Davidson |editor2-first=Janet E. |date=2005 |publisher=Cambridge University Press |location=Cambridge |isbn=978-0-521-54730-7}} This review of contemporary research includes chapters by James Borland, Linda E. Brody, Julian Stanley, Carolyn M. Callahan, Erin M. Miller, Tracy L. Cross, Laurence J. Coleman, John F. Feldhusen, Joan Freeman, Francoys Gagne, Edmund Gordon, Beatrice L. Bridglall, Kurt A. Heller, Christoph Perleth, Tock Keng Lim, Ida Jeltova, Elena L. Grigorenko, Franz J. Monks, Michael W. Katzko, Jonathan A. Plucker, Sasha A. Barab, Sally M. Reis, Joseph S. Renzulli, Nancy M. Robinson, Mark A. Runco, Dean Keith Simonton, Robert J. Sternberg, Rena F. Subotnik, Linda Jarvin, Joyce Van Tassel-Baska, Catya von Karolyi, [[Ellen Winner]], Herbert J. Walberg, Susan J. Paik, Albert Ziegler, and Richard E. Mayer.</ref> [[Motivation]], high [[self-concept]], and [[creativity]] are key qualities in many of these broadened conceptions of giftedness.

[[Joseph Renzulli]]'s (1978) "three ring" definition of giftedness is one frequently mentioned conceptualization of giftedness. Renzulli's definition, which defines gifted behaviors rather than gifted individuals, is composed of three components as follows: Gifted behavior consists of behaviors that reflect an interaction among three basic clusters of human traits—above average ability, high levels of task commitment, and high levels of creativity.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Renzulli |first=J. |title=What Makes Giftedness? Reexamining a Definition |journal=Phi Delta Kappan |volume=60 |number=3 |pages=180–184, 261 |date=November 1978 | id={{ERIC|EJ190430}}}}</ref> Individuals capable of developing gifted behavior are those possessing or capable of developing this composite set of traits and applying them to any potentially valuable area of human performance. Persons who manifest or are capable of developing an interaction among the three clusters require a wide variety of educational opportunities and services that are not ordinarily provided through regular instructional programs.

In ''Identifying Gifted Children: A Practical Guide'', Susan K. Johnsen explains that gifted children all exhibit the potential for high performance in the areas included in the United States' federal definition of gifted and talented students:<ref name=Johnsen2011>{{cite book |last=Johnsen |first=Susan K. |title=Identifying Gifted Students: A Practical Guide |edition=2nd |date=May 2011 |location=Waco, Texas |publisher=Prufrock Press |isbn=978-1-59363-701-9 |url=http://www.prufrock.com/Identifying-Gifted-Students-A-Practical-Guide-2nd-ed-P899.aspx |access-date=29 November 2014 }}</ref>

There is a federal government statutory definition of gifted and talented students in the United States.

{{Blockquote|The term "gifted and talented" when used in respect to students, children, or youth means students, children, or youth who give evidence of high-performance capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who require services or activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop such capabilities." (The Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994, P.L. 103–382, Title XIV, p. 388)}}

This definition has been adopted partially or completely by the majority of the individual states in the United States (which have the main responsibility for education policy as compared to the federal government). Most states have a definition similar to that used in the State of Texas:

{{Blockquote|"gifted and talented student" means a child or youth who performs at or shows the potential for performing at a remarkably high level of accomplishment when compared to others of the same age, experience, or environment, and who
* exhibits high-performance capability in an intellectual, creative, or artistic area;
* possesses an unusual capacity for [[leadership]]; or
* excels in a specific academic field." (74th legislature of the State of Texas, Chapter 29, Subchapter D, Section 29.121)}}

The major characteristics of these definitions are (a) the diversity of areas in which performance may be exhibited (e.g., intellectual, creativity, artistic, leadership, academically), (b) the comparison with other groups (e.g., those in general education classrooms or of the same age, experience, or environment), and (c) the use of terms that imply a need for development of the gift (e.g., capability and potential).

Another understanding of giftedness is that of asynchronous development. This asynchrony has also been referred to as “dyssynchrony” (Terrassier 1985).<ref>{{Cite book |last=Terrassier |first=J-C |title=The psychology of gifted children |publisher=Wiley |year=1985 |editor-last=Freeman |editor-first=J |location=New York |pages=265–274 |chapter=Dyssynchrony-uneven development}}</ref> It can be within the person; where the child has distinctly different development levels socially, emotionally, physically, or even between different academic areas. It can also be asynchrony between the child and their social and/or academic environment.

The Columbus Group came together in 1991 to talk about their concerns that the current trends in gifted education focused overwhelmingly on achievement and the future impact these students could have on the world, and were missing focusing on and valuing who those children are in the moment, and what their lived experiences were like.<ref name=":03">{{Cite book |last=Silverman |first=Linda |title=Handbook for Counselors Serving Students with Gifts and Talents: Development, Relationships, School Issues, and Counseling Needs/Interventions |publisher=Prufrock Press |year=2021 |isbn=9781646320929 |editor-last=Cross |editor-first=Tracy L |location=Waco, TX |chapter=Counseling asynchronous gifted students: A 30-year perspective |editor-last2=Cross |editor-first2=Jennifer Riedl}}</ref> They created a definition of giftedness that centers around asynchrony and intensity, which first appeared in print in an article titled “Giftedness: The View from Within” (Morelock, 1992). It states that:<blockquote>“Giftedness is asynchronous development in which advanced cognitive abilities and heightened intensity combine to create inner experiences and awareness that are qualitatively different from the norm. This asynchrony increases with higher intellectual capacity. The uniqueness of the gifted renders them particularly vulnerable and requires modifications in parenting, teaching and counseling in order for them to develop optimally.”<ref name="auto">{{Cite journal |last=Morelock |first=M.J. |date=1992b |title=Giftedness: The view from within |url=https://dabrowskicenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/Giftedness-The-View-from-Within.pdf |journal=Understanding Our Gifted |volume=4 |issue=3 |pages=14}}</ref></blockquote>This definition shares many commonalities with the definitions above, but also emphasizes the parenting and counseling differences gifted students may need to be fully supported.<ref name=":03" />

=== Neuroscience of giftedness ===
Since the late 90s, the development of the brain of people with high IQ scores has been shown to be different to that of people with average IQ scores. A longitudinal study over 6 years has shown that high-IQ children have a thinner [[cerebral cortex]] when young, which then grows quickly and becomes significantly thicker than the other children's by the time they become teenagers.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Shaw |first=P. |title=Intellectual ability and cortical development in children and adolescents. |journal=Nature |volume=400|issue=7084 |pages=676–79|date=March 2006 |bibcode=2006Natur.440..676S |doi=10.1038/nature04513 |pmid=16572172 |s2cid=3079565 |url=https://zenodo.org/record/1233291 }}</ref>

=== Identification methods ===

{| class="wikitable sortable" style="font-size:small" align="right" summary="Sortable table showing actual I.Q. scores of twelve students on three different I.Q. tests, with students identified by pseudonyms in cited data source."
|+ IQ scores can vary for the same person, so a person does not always belong to the same IQ score range each time the person is tested. (IQ score table data and pupil pseudonyms adapted from description of KABC-II norming study cited in Kaufman 2009.<ref>{{cite book |title=IQ Testing 101 |last=Kaufman |first=Alan S. |author-link=Alan S. Kaufman |year=2009 |publisher=Springer Publishing |location=New York |isbn=978-0-8261-0629-2 |pages=151–153 }}</ref>)
! class="unsortable" |Pupil!!KABC-II!!WISC-III!!WJ-III
|- align="right"
|Asher||90||95||111
|- align="right"
|Brianna||125||110||105
|- align="right"
|Colin||100||93||101
|- align="right"
|Danica||116||127||118
|- align="right"
|Elpha||93||105||93
|- align="right"
|Fritz||106||105||105
|- align="right"
|Georgi||95||100||90
|- align="right"
|Hector||112||113||103
|- align="right"
|Imelda||104||96||97
|- align="right"
|Jose||101||99||86
|- align="right"
|Keoku||81||78||75
|- align="right"
|Leo||116||124||102
|}

In psychology, identification of giftedness is usually based on IQ scores. The threshold of IQ = 130 is defined by statistical rarity. By convention, the 5% of scores who fall more than two standard deviations from the mean (or more accurately [[1.96]]) are considered [[Normality (behavior)#Statistics|atypical]].<ref>Fisher, Ronald (1925), Statistical Methods for Research Workers, Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, p. 47, {{ISBN|0-05-002170-2}}</ref> In the case of intelligence, these 5% are [[Statistical significance#Role in statistical hypothesis testing|partitioned to both sides]] of the range of scores, and include the 2.5% who score more than two standard deviations below the mean and the 2.5% who score more than two standard deviations above the mean.<ref>Howell, D. C. (1992). Statistical methods for psychology, 3rd ed. PWS-Kent Publishing Co.</ref><ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.tutor2u.net/psychology/reference/statistical-infrequency-definition-of-abnormality |title = Statistical Infrequency Definition of…|date = 20 April 2020}}</ref> Because the average of IQ is 100 and its standard deviation is 15, this rule places the threshold for [[intellectual disability]] at IQ = 70, and the symmetrical threshold for giftedness at IQ = 130 (rounded).<ref>Anastasi, A., & Urbina, S. (1997). Psychological testing, 7th ed. Prentice Hall/Pearson Education.</ref><ref>Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing, 2nd ed. John Wiley & Sons Inc.</ref><ref>Cronbach, L. J. (1949). Essentials of psychological testing, 2nd ed. Harper.</ref> This arbitrary threshold is used by most psychologists<ref>{{cite journal | last1 = Carman | first1 = C. A. | year = 2013 | title = Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research | journal = Journal of Advanced Academics | volume = 24 | issue = 1| pages = 52–70 | doi = 10.1177/1932202X12472602 | s2cid = 146556870 }}</ref> in most countries.<ref>{{Cite web | url=https://www.britannica.com/science/gifted-child |title = Gifted child &#124; psychology}}</ref>

While IQ testing has the advantage of providing a standardised basis for the diagnosis of giftedness, psychologists are expected to interpret IQ scores in the context of all available information: standardized intelligence tests ignore actual achievement and can fail to detect giftedness. For example, a specific learning disorder such as [[dyslexia]] or [[dyspraxia]] can easily decrease scores on intelligence tests and hide true intellectual ability.

In educational settings, many schools in the US use a variety of assessments of students' capability and potential when identifying gifted children.<ref name=Johnsen2011 /> These may include portfolios of student work, classroom observations, achievement tests, and IQ test scores. Most educational professionals accept that no single criterion can be used in isolation to accurately identify a gifted child.<ref>{{Cite web |title=The Identification of Students Who Are Gifted |url=https://www.davidsongifted.org/gifted-blog/the-identification-of-students-who-are-gifted/ |website=Davidson Institute |date=4 March 2022 |quote=When we rely on the use of a single criterion such as an IQ score to act as a gatekeeper or rely on theories with little empirical grounding, our identification practices do not reflect this understanding of intelligence.}}</ref>

One of the criteria used in identification may be an IQ test score. Until the late 1960s, when "giftedness" was defined solely based on an IQ score, a school district simply set an arbitrary score (usually in the 130 range) and a student either did or did not "make the cut". This method is still used by many school districts because it is simple and objective. Although a high IQ score is not the sole indicator of giftedness, usually if a student has a very high IQ, that is a significant indicator of high academic potential.<ref name=Gottfredson2009>{{cite book |last=Gottfredson |first=Linda S. |chapter=Chapter 1: Logical Fallacies Used to Dismiss the Evidence on Intelligence Testing |title=Correcting Fallacies about Educational and Psychological Testing |editor-last=Phelps |editor-first=Richard F. |year=2009 |publisher=American Psychological Association |location=Washington, DC |isbn=978-1-4338-0392-5}}</ref> Because of this consideration, if a student scores highly on an IQ test, but performs at an average or below-average level academically, school officials may think that this issue warrants further investigation as an example of underachievement.<ref>{{cite web |publisher=Government of New Brunswick, Canada, Department of Education. |website=Educational Services Division |title=Gifted And Talented Students: A Resource Guide for Teachers |date=2007 |url=http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/ss/gifted%20and%20talented%20students%20a%20resource%20guide%20for%20teachers.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110904144836/http://www.gnb.ca/0000/publications/ss/gifted%20and%20talented%20students%20a%20resource%20guide%20for%20teachers.pdf |archive-date=2011-09-04 |access-date=29 November 2014 |page=39}} (citing Davis and Rimm, 2004)</ref> However, scholars of educational testing point out that a test-taker's scores on any two tests may vary, so a lower score on an achievement test than on an IQ test neither necessarily indicates that the test-taker is underachieving nor necessarily that the school curriculum is under-challenging.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Kranzler |first1=John H. |last2=Floyd |first2=Randy G. |title=Assessing Intelligence in Children and Adolescents: A Practical Guide |date=1 August 2013 |publisher=Guilford Press |isbn=978-1-4625-1121-1 |url=http://www.guilfordpress.co.uk/books/details/9781462511211/ |access-date=9 June 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141016201213/http://www.guilfordpress.co.uk/books/details/9781462511211/ |archive-date=16 October 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

[[IQ classification]] varies from one publisher to another. IQ tests have poor reliability for determining test-takers' rank order at higher IQ levels,<ref name="Perleth Schatz Mönks page 301">{{cite book |last1=Perleth |first1=Christoph |last2=Schatz |first2=Tanja |last3=Mönks |first3=Franz J. |title=International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent |editor1-last=Heller |editor1-first=Kurt A. |editor2-last=Mönks |editor2-first=Franz J. |editor3-last=Sternberg |editor3-first=Robert J. |display-editors = 3 |editor4-last=Subotnik |editor4-first=Rena F. |editor3-link=Robert Sternberg |edition=2nd |year=2000 |publisher=Pergamon |location=Amsterdam |isbn=978-0-08-043796-5 |page=301 |chapter=Early Identification of High Ability |quote=norm tables that provide you with such extreme values are constructed on the basis of random extrapolation and smoothing but not on the basis of empirical data of representative samples. }}</ref> and are perhaps only effective at determining whether a student is gifted rather than distinguishing among levels of giftedness. The [[Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children|Wechsler]] test manuals have standard score [[Ceiling effect (statistics)#IQ testing|ceilings]] of 160. However, higher ceilings, including scores into the exceptionally and profoundly gifted range, exist for the WISC-IV<ref>{{cite web |last1=Zhu |first1=Jianjun |last2=Cayton |first2=Tom |last3=Weiss |first3=Larry |last4=Gabel |first4=Amy | title = WISC-IV Technical Report #7 - WISC-IV Extended Norms | url = https://images.pearsonclinical.com/images/assets/WISC-IV/WISCIV_TechReport_7.pdf}}</ref> and WISC-V,<ref>{{cite web |last1=Raiford |first1=Susan E. |last2=Courville |first2=Troy |last3=Peters |first3=Daniel |last4=Gilman |first4=Barbara J. |last5=Silverman |first5=Linda | title = WISC-V Technical Report #6 – Extended Norms | url = https://www.pearsonassessments.com/content/dam/school/global/clinical/us/assets/wisc-v/wisc-v-technical-report-6-extended-norms.pdf}}</ref> which were specifically normed on large samples of gifted children. Today, the Wechsler child and [[Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale|adult IQ]] tests are by far the most commonly used IQ tests in hospitals, schools, and private psychological practice.<ref name="GeorgasPreface2003pxxv" /><ref name="WechslerGold" /> Older versions of the Stanford-Binet test, now obsolete, and the Cattell IQ test purport to yield IQ scores of 180 or higher, but those scores are not comparable to scores on currently normed tests. The Stanford-Binet Third Revision (Form L-M) yields consistently higher numerical scores for the same test-taker than scores obtained on current tests. This has prompted some authors on identification of gifted children to promote the [[Stanford-Binet]] form L-M, which has long been obsolete,<ref>{{cite book |author=Freides, D. |chapter=Review of Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale, Third Revision |title=Seventh Mental Measurements Yearbook |editor=Oscar Buros |location=Highland Park, NJ |publisher=Gryphon Press |year=1972 |pages=772–773 |quote=The Binet scales have been around for a long time and their faults are well known. . . . Requiescat in pace |isbn=0803211600 }}</ref> as the only test with a sufficient ceiling to identify the exceptionally and profoundly gifted, despite the Stanford-Binet L-M never having been normed on a representative national sample.<ref>{{cite journal |last=Waddell |first=Deborah D. |year=1980 |title=The Stanford-Binet: An Evaluation of the Technical Data Available since the 1972 Restandardization |journal=Journal of School Psychology |volume=18 |issue=3 |pages=203–209 |doi=10.1016/0022-4405(80)90060-6 }}</ref> Because the instrument is outdated, current results derived from the Stanford-Binet L-M generate inflated and inaccurate scores.<ref name="Perleth Schatz Mönks page 302">{{cite book |last1=Perleth |first1=Christoph |last2=Schatz |first2=Tanja |last3=Mönks |first3=Franz J. |title=International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent |editor1-last=Heller |editor1-first=Kurt A. |editor2-last=Mönks |editor2-first=Franz J. |editor3-last=Sternberg |editor3-first=Robert J. |display-editors = 3 |editor4-last=Subotnik |editor4-first=Rena F. |editor3-link=Robert Sternberg |edition=2nd |year=2000 |publisher=Pergamon |location=Amsterdam |isbn=978-0-08-043796-5 |page=302
 |chapter=Early Identification of High Ability |quote=a gifted sample gathered using IQ > 132 using the old SB L-M in 1985 does not contain the top 2% of the population but the best 10%. }}</ref> The IQ assessment of younger children remains debated.

While many people believe giftedness is a strictly quantitative difference, measurable by IQ tests, some authors on the "experience of being" have described giftedness as a fundamentally different way of perceiving the world, which in turn affects every experience had by the gifted individual. This view is doubted by some scholars who have closely studied gifted children longitudinally.<ref name="Feldman 1984">{{cite journal |author=Feldman, David
 |title=A Follow-up of Subjects Scoring above 180 IQ in Terman's Genetic Studies of Genius |journal=[[Exceptional Children]] |volume=50
 |issue=6 |pages=518–523 |year=1984 |url=http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/Articles_id_10192.aspx |access-date=8 July 2010 |quote=Put into the context of the psychometric movement as a whole, it is clear that the positive extreme of the IQ distribution is not as different from other IQ levels as might have been expected. |doi=10.1177/001440298405000604 |s2cid=146862140 |url-access=subscription }}</ref>

=== Across cultures ===
Characteristics and attributes associated with giftedness varies across cultures. While intelligence is extremely important in [[Western culture|Western]] and some other cultures, such an emphasis is not consistent throughout the world. For example, in [[Japanese culture|Japan]], there is more of a value placed on an individual's motivation and diligence. When Japanese students are given a task, they attribute success to factors like effort, whereas American students tend to attribute success to ability. Similarly, when Japanese students fail, they refer the failure to lack of effort. On the other hand, American students believe failure is due to a lack of ability.<ref name="Sternberg, Robert J. 2011">Sternberg, Robert J., et al. Explorations in Giftedness. Cambridge University Press, 2011, http://eclass.hua.gr/modules/document/file.php/OIK268/%CE%A7%CE%B1%CF%81%CE%B9%CF%83%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%84%CE%B9%CE%BA%CF%8C%CF%84%CE%B7%CF%84%CE%B1/explorations%20of%20giftedness.pdf.</ref> There are conceptions in rural Kenya that identify four types of intelligence: initiative (paro), knowledge and skills (rieko), respect (luoro), and comprehension of how to handle real-life problems (winjo).<ref name="ReferenceA">{{Citation | author1=Vialle, Wilma | author2=Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented | author3=Asia-Pacific Conference on Giftedness (11th : 2010 : Sydney, Australia) | title=Giftedness from an Indigenous perspective | date=2011 | publisher=Australian Association for the Education of the Gifted and Talented | isbn=978-0-9808448-1-8 }}</ref> Chan cites the Chinese belief that aspects of giftedness are innate, but that people can become gifted through industriousness, perseverance, and learning.<ref name="Sternberg, Robert J. 2011"/> Not all who are intellectually gifted display every noticeable characteristic.

There are many reasons gifted students who have various backgrounds are not as successful at Western intelligence/achievement tests:<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

*Not used to answering questions just for the purpose of showing knowledge – they must use their knowledge to respond to authentic problems.
*May perform poorly on paper-and-pencil tasks in an artificial lab setting.
*May perform poorly on a culturally biased test, especially if not their own.
*Have test anxiety or suffer from [[stereotype threat]].

Many traits that demonstrate intellectual giftedness are identified across a multitude of cultures, such as:<ref name="ReferenceA"/>

*Displaying advanced reasoning and [[creative thinking]], generating ideas beyond the norm
*Resourceful and adaptable
*Strongly motivated to understand the world
*Well developed vocabulary in native language
*Learns concepts quickly, and builds/develops these concepts
*Strong sense of justice and [[morality]]
*Displays leadership skills in various ways, such as persuasion, taking initiative, and leading by example
*Comprehending and using [[humor]] beyond their age