SMPY Bibliography

An annotated fulltext bibliography of publications on the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), a longitudinal study of high-IQ youth.
archiving, IQ, psychology, sociology, SMPY, bibliography, order-statistics
2018-07-282020-08-03 in progress certainty: log importance: 6

SMPY (Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) is a long-run­ning lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of extremely math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented or intel­li­gent youth, which has been fol­low­ing high­-IQ cohorts since the 1970s. It has pro­vided the largest and most con­crete find­ings about the cor­re­lates and pre­dic­tive power of screen­ing extremely intel­li­gent chil­dren, and rev­o­lu­tion­ized gifted & tal­ented edu­ca­tional prac­tices.

Because it has been run­ning for over 40 years, SMPY-related pub­li­ca­tions are diffi­cult to find; many early papers were pub­lished only in long-out-of-print books and are not avail­able in any other way. Oth­ers are dig­i­tized and more acces­si­ble, but one must already know they exist. Between these bar­ri­ers, SMPY infor­ma­tion is less widely avail­able & used than it should be given its impor­tance.

To fix this, I have been grad­u­ally going through all SMPY cita­tions and mak­ing full­text copies avail­able online with occa­sional com­men­tary.

The (SMPY; home­page) is a lon­gi­tu­di­nal “tal­ent search” study founded by of high IQ stu­dents, and specifi­cally math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented stu­dents, who achieve a high score on the SAT-M sub­test in mid­dle school (tar­get­ing 1-in-10,000 lev­el­s), start­ing in the Mary­land area and since expand­ing to much of the USA. SMPY stud­ies the pre­co­cious youth, and also spon­sors advanced classes & accel­er­a­tion of edu­ca­tion, often involv­ing SMPY’s home insti­tute, Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Advan­tages of SMPY over other stud­ies such as the are that it is:

  • an unusu­ally large & com­pre­hen­sive­ly-mea­sured cohort

  • par­tic­i­pants are unusu­ally gifted due to a high ceil­ing (the SAT-M test, which very few high school stu­dents are capa­ble of reach­ing the ceil­ing even after high school math courses & study­ing for the test)

    • selec­tion is done in mid­dle school at an age where effects are less­ened, rather than ele­men­tary school (see for why this is a prob­lem)
  • unbi­ased selec­tion using stan­dard­ized tests over most of the stu­dent pop­u­la­tion (as opposed to stud­ies rely­ing on self­-s­e­lec­tion into groups like Mensa1 or refer­ral from child psy­chi­a­trists2)

  • long-term fol­lowups can be done link­ing life out­comes to early results and inter­ests

It has been run­ning since 1971, and has made many impor­tant find­ings, includ­ing:

  • extremely high lev­els of achieve­ment among par­tic­i­pants, val­i­dat­ing pre­dic­tive power of IQ tests

  • dis­proof of the “thresh­old hypoth­e­sis” claim­ing that IQ past a rel­a­tively low thresh­old like 130 ceases to pre­dict any­thing

  • sys­tem­atic sex differ­ences in vari­ance of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, lead­ing to excess of males, as well as sex differ­ences in voca­tional inter­ests & life-work bal­ance, lead­ing to differ­ent occu­pa­tional out­comes & lev­els of suc­cess despite sim­i­lar abil­ity

    • impact of “tilt” toward math/verbal abil­ity in sub­se­quent field & career
  • demon­stra­tion of the scal­a­bil­ity of the “tal­ent search” model & high­-ceil­ing stan­dard­ized test­ing

  • demon­stra­tion that accel­er­a­tion of gifted youth is a use­ful strat­egy which has pos­i­tive effects while not dam­ag­ing them psy­cho­log­i­cally (con­ven­tional wis­dom in gifted & tal­ented edu­ca­tion was that accel­er­a­tion would retard emo­tional & social growth and back­fire, and that such youth should be forced into chrono­log­i­cal-age class­es)

While some recent SMPY papers have made a splash, most SMPY-relevant pub­li­ca­tions are obscure, scat­tered, pub­lished in books decades ago, and there is no sin­gle bib­li­og­ra­phy pro­vid­ing descrip­tions of & easy access to SMPY pub­li­ca­tions; per­haps due to the diffi­culty of access­ing the pri­mary research papers, there have been a col­lec­tively large num­ber of review/opinion papers over the past half-cen­tu­ry, fur­ther mud­dy­ing the water. Below I have attempted to provide, in chrono­log­i­cal order, full­text of pub­li­ca­tions deal­ing with SMPY, with abstracts where avail­able & brief sum­maries where not, and pro­vid­ing addi­tional con­text like cases of mul­ti­ple publications/versions of a paper.


  • archives of the Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin (ITYB; SMPY’s 10-month­s-an­nu­ally newslet­ter)

  • annual reports to the Spencer Foun­da­tion: SMPY (al­l), SVGY (1, 5-?)

Bibliography sources


Stanley 1951

“On the ade­quacy of stan­dard­ized tests admin­is­tered to extreme norm groups”, Stan­ley 1951:

Most stan­dard­ized tests are rec­om­mended by their pub­lish­ers for use in more than one grade. Fre­quent­ly, some con­ve­nient group­ing cor­re­spond­ing to a preva­lent type of school, such as the senior high, is sug­gested in the man­ual of direc­tions. Quite a few tests are rec­om­mended for an even wider range, this being par­tic­u­larly true of intel­li­gence scales. Thus pre­sum­ably the Otis Quick­-S­cor­ing Men­tal Abil­ity Test (9), Gamma Test, is equally use­ful any­where from Grade 9 through Grade 16, while the Cal­i­for­nia Test of Men­tal Matu­rity (2), Advanced Form, is des­ig­nated for Grade 9–adult.

Thur­stone found that “the fac­to­r­ial con­tent of a test will change as it is given to pop­u­la­tions that differ in age and school­ing” (14, p. 43), and com­mon sense long ago told us that IQ’s based upon a chil­dren’s test admin­is­tered with a short­ened time limit to adults prob­a­bly do not have the same sig­nifi­cance as they would for fifth grader­s….

[test results on var­i­ous groups]

…In order to make their tests more sal­able, a con­sid­er­able num­ber of authors have rec­om­mended them for use in grades below or above those for which the tests were ini­tially designed. Thus ques­tions con­cern­ing chang­ing fac­to­r­ial con­tent and diffi­culty level arise. As an illus­tra­tion of a test too hard for the low­est grade sug­gested by its con­struc­tors, the writer arbi­trar­ily selected the Nel­son-Denny Read­ing Test for Col­leges and Senior High Schools, on which there was data avail­able. This instru­ment was found to be of unsuit­able diffi­culty for approx­i­mately the lower half of a typ­i­cal ninth grade (161 pupils) in a New Eng­land pub­lic coed­u­ca­tional senior high school. Dur­ing the analy­sis sev­eral neg­a­tive reli­a­bil­ity coeffi­cients were secured. This sta­tis­ti­cal anom­aly and the­o­ret­i­cal issues related to it are dis­cussed briefly.


Keating & Stanley 1972

“Extreme Mea­sures for the Excep­tion­ally Gifted in Math­e­mat­ics and Sci­ence”, Keat­ing & Stan­ley 1972:

What does one do for a junior high school stu­dent who already knows more math­e­mat­ics than his teacher? The ques­tion is not as implau­si­ble as it may seem at first glance. From pre­lim­i­nary work with sev­en­th, eighth, and young ninth graders at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, it is clear that a siz­able num­ber of these young­sters score extremely high on the Col­lege Entrance Exam­i­na­tion Board (CEEB) Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­i­cal (SAT-M) and Math­e­mat­ics Level I Achieve­ment Test (M-I), often higher than their math teach­ers prob­a­bly would.

[dis­cus­sion of first year SMPY test­ing results: SAT-M score dis­tri­b­u­tion, grades/ages & sex imbal­ance, 2 accel­er­a­tion case-s­tud­ies, first math enrich­ment course.]

Stanley 1973

“Accel­er­at­ing the Edu­ca­tional Progress of Intel­lec­tu­ally Gifted Youths”, Stan­ley 1973:

It is argued that apti­tude and achieve­ment tests designed for much older stu­dents are invalu­able for find­ing extremely high abil­ity at younger ages, par­tic­u­larly in math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing. Results of the first two years of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally and Sci­en­tifi­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMSPY)3 are exam­ined to show that con­sid­er­able edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion is not only fea­si­ble but also desir­able for those young peo­ple who are eager to move ahead. Skip­ping school grades, tak­ing col­lege courses part-time, study­ing in spe­cial cours­es, and enter­ing col­lege early are pro­posed. These are sim­ple to carry out. inex­pen­sive, and sup­ple­men­tal to reg­u­lar school prac­tices. The SMSPY staff does not advo­cate the usual in-grade, non-ac­cel­er­a­tive “enrich­ment” pro­ce­dures often rec­om­mended for intel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren. The approach in this paper is via cases and ref­er­ences to numer­ous SMSPY stud­ies. It is meant to be an heuris­tic overview of the main assump­tions and find­ings.

Hogan et al 1974

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Sec­ond Annual Report to the Spencer Foun­da­tion. 1973-09-01–1974-09-01”, Hogan et al 1974:

Reported are sec­ond year data from an on-go­ing project con­cerned with iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and facil­i­ta­tion of ver­bal tal­ent in early ado­les­cence. Par­ent and teacher nom­i­na­tions of junior high stu­dents and ver­bal scores on the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT-V) are described as pri­mary assess­ment tools. Over­all the enrich­ment sam­ple is described as bright, socially per­cep­tive, and poten­tially cre­ative with the boys char­ac­ter­ized as intro­vert­ed, the­o­ret­i­cally ori­ent­ed, and socially reserved and the girls extravert­ed, action-ori­ent­ed, and socially out­go­ing. Math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally gifted young­sters are com­pared. Exam­ined are fea­tures of a sum­mer enrich­ment pro­gram includ­ing a cre­ative writ­ing course (re­quir­ing out­side read­ing, writ­ing assign­ments, and a sem­i­nar-work­shop in the poet­ry, fic­tion, and drama gen­res), a social sci­ence course (in first-year col­lege level anthro­pol­o­gy), and eval­u­a­tion pro­ce­dures (in­clud­ing tests of improve­ment in con­ver­gent and diver­gent think­ing) Such project activ­i­ties as the fol­low­ing are described: dis­sem­i­na­tion of infor­ma­tion, per­son­al, edu­ca­tion­al, and col­lege course coun­sel­ing ses­sions, a stu­dent newslet­ter, a six-month fol­lowup sur­vey of stu­dents’ edu­ca­tional sit­u­a­tions, and a study of the rela­tion­ship between pre­coc­ity in for­mal oper­a­tions and intel­li­gence. Project accom­plish­ments are sum­ma­rized and future goals out­lined.

[The 2nd/3rd/4th annual reports of SVGY to the are avail­able on , but I can’t find the 1st, and sub­se­quent reports are not men­tioned online—­Dur­den 1979 implies SVGY was active up until ~1980 in the form of “The Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth” (“PVGY”), so there should be reports for 1976/1977/1978/1979/1980, but on the other hand, Dur­den 1979 also states that “PVGY” was only “begun in the fall of 1978”. The exis­tence of annual reports for SVGY sug­gests the exis­tence of annual reports for SMPY as well, since it was like­wise ini­tially funded by the Spencer Foun­da­tion, but I have not seen them. ERIC has an entry for the 7th report but no full­text, although the cat­a­logues of the National Library of Aus­tralia & Uni­ver­sity of Malaya Library indi­cate they have micro­fiche copies sourced from ERIC, so ERIC appar­ently at one time did have a pub­licly-dis­trib­uted copy of that.]

Stanley et al 1974

Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: Dis­cov­ery, descrip­tion, and devel­op­ment, ed Stan­ley 1974 (ISBN 0-8018-1585-1): anthol­o­gy.

  1. Pref­ace
  2. “Intel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Julian C. Stan­ley
  3. “The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
  4. “Facil­i­tat­ing Edu­ca­tional Devel­op­ment of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Lynn H. Fox
  5. “Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal and Sci­en­tific Pre­coc­ity”, Helen S. Astin
  6. “Com­men­tary on the Pre­coc­ity Project”, Anne Anas­tasi
  7. “A Math­e­mat­ics Pro­gram for Fos­ter­ing Pre­co­cious Achieve­ment”, Lynn H. Fox
  8. “Per­son­al­ity Char­ac­ter­is­tics of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys”, Daniel S. Weiss, Richard J. Haier, & Daniel P. Keat­ing
  9. “Val­ues and Career Inter­est­s.of Math­e­mat­i­cally and Sci­en­tifi­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Lynn H. Fox & Susanne A. Den­ham
  10. “Behav­ior of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys in a Col­lege Class­room”, Daniel P. Keat­ing, Stan­ley J. Wie­gand, & Lynn H. Fox
  11. “Epi­logue”, The Edi­tors

Hogan & Garvey 1975

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth; Third Annual Report to the Spencer Foun­da­tion: 1974-09-01–1975-09-01”, Hogan & Gar­vey 1975:

Reported are find­ings froth the third year of a project con­cerned with iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and facil­i­ta­tion of human­is­tic pre­coc­ity in early ado­les­cence. The project focused on stu­dents who showed a pre­co­cious con­cern with and abil­ity to rea­son about social, moral, and polit­i­cal prob­lems. Described are attempts to define human­is­tic pre­coc­i­ty, and pro­ce­dures used to select the 120 Tal­ent Search win­ners for 1975. Con­tent cov­ered in social sci­ence and cre­ative writ­ing sum­mer enrich­ment courses is out­lined, and results of eval­u­a­tion of both the courses and par­tic­i­pant selec­tion pro­ce­dures are pro­vid­ed. Dis­cussed are stu­dent coun­sel­ing and infor­ma­tion dis­sem­i­na­tion facets of the pro­ject. It is reported that human­is­tic pre­coc­ity was found in quan­ti­ta­tively as well as ver­bally gifted stu­dents. Results of the project are said to include the devel­op­ment of a suc­cess­ful cur­ricu­lum for train­ing human­is­tic pre­coc­i­ty. Appen­dixes con­sist of research stud­ies on the fol­low­ing top­ics: the per­son­alog­i­cal [sic] sig­nifi­cance of differ­en­tial quan­ti­ta­tive and ver­bal tal­ent; the devel­op­ment of polit­i­cal rea­son­ing in ver­bally tal­ented chil­dren; human­is­tic pre­coc­ity and gen­eral intel­li­gence; and eval­u­a­tion of a pro­gram for the enrich­ment of human­is­tic tal­ent.

Keating 1975

“The study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth”, Keat­ing 1975:

[re­view of test­ing, SAT scores, school lik­ing inven­to­ry, per­son­al­ity inven­to­ry, voca­tional inter­est, birth order effect (slight first­born advan­tage), parental back­ground, ini­tial exam­i­na­tion of tilt & SAT-M vs SAT-V]

Solano & George 1975

“Col­lege Cours­es: One Method of Facil­i­tat­ing the Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented”, Solano & George 1975:

A fol­lowup study involv­ing 2,021 stu­dents iden­ti­fied as aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was con­ducted to deter­mine the effec­tive­ness of col­lege courses for facil­i­tat­ing the edu­ca­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented junior and senior high school stu­dents. Advan­tages of a col­lege course over accel­er­a­tion, stu­dent require­ments for par­tic­i­pa­tion in the col­lege course pro­gram, and col­lege enroll­ment pro­ce­dures were con­sid­ered when advis­ing a stu­dent eli­gi­ble for col­lege cours­es. Of the 1,510 stu­dents return­ing the Col­lege Infor­ma­tion Ques­tion­naire, 83 stu­dents had taken col­lege cours­es. Among find­ings were that stu­dents’ grade-point aver­age (GPA) for the col­lege courses taken was 3.57 (on a four-point scale) and that SMPY stu­dents rarely encoun­tered social diffi­cul­ties in the col­lege class­room.

Gifted Child Quarterly 1976

A spe­cial issue of Gifted Child Quar­terly (vol­ume 20 issue 3, Sep­tem­ber 1976) focused on SMPY:

Stanley 1976a

“Youths who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly: SMPY’s accel­er­a­tive approach”, Stan­ley 1976a: edi­to­r­ial intro­duc­tion

George 1976

“Accel­er­at­ing Math­e­mat­ics Instruc­tion for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, George 1976:

Fast-paced coun­try-wide math­e­mat­ics classes meet­ing out­side of reg­u­lar hours were estab­lished to meet the needs of highly tal­ented math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ers. The results from the orig­i­nal two pro­grams demon­strated that four and one-half years of pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics could be taught in approx­i­mately 120 hours. These classes show the impor­tance of homo­ge­neous group­ing. Class suc­cess was based on iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of qual­i­fied stu­dents through appro­pri­ately diffi­cult math­e­mat­ics tests, vol­un­tary par­tic­i­pa­tion by stu­dents, and care­fully done home­work assign­ments. The pro­grams’ suc­cess resulted in differ­ent school sys­tems adopt­ing the mod­el. This paper con­cerns the var­i­ous classes and the impli­ca­tions of fast-paced math­e­mat­ics.

Solano & George 1976

“Col­lege Courses and Edu­ca­tional Facil­i­ta­tion of the Gifted”, Solano & George 1976:

Math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious junior high school stu­dents have been encour­aged by SMPY to take col­lege cours­es. To be eli­gi­ble, the stu­dent should score at least 550 on the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the Col­lege Board’s Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT-M) as a sev­enth or eighth grad­er. A score of at least 400 on SAT-Verbal is also desir­able. Courses should be taken for graded cred­it, prefer­ably in the sum­mer, and in the area of the indi­vid­u­al’s high abil­i­ty. Many col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties have proved will­ing or even eager to admit tal­ented young stu­dents. The cred­its earned can be held in escrow for col­lege lat­er. In the last five years, 131 SMPY youths have taken 277 col­lege courses and earned an over all GPA of 3.59, where 4:A and 3:B. Girls take fewer courses than boys and have a sightly lower GPA. Com­mu­nity col­leges are a great deal eas­ier for these stu­dents than either col­leges of uni­ver­si­ties. These youths expe­ri­ence lit­tle social or emo­tional diffi­culty in the col­lege class­room. A com­par­i­son group of con­sid­er­ably older high school stu­dents who took evening col­lege courses did not do as well as the SMPY group (GPA 3.02 ver­sus 3.59). This was prob­a­bly due to the greater selec­tiv­ity by SMPY on both abil­ity and moti­va­tion to work in a col­lege class.

Stanley 1976b

“Ratio­nale Of SMPY Dur­ing Its First Seven Years Of Pro­mot­ing Edu­ca­tional Accel­er­a­tion”, Stan­ley 1976b: brief sum­mary

Stanley 1976c

“The stu­dent gifted in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence”, Stan­ley 1976c:

Much more needs to be done for the nation’s tal­ented stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence than is now hap­pen­ing in the schools, asserts this writer, who describes in this arti­cle the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and what has been accom­plished for the young par­tic­i­pants.

Fox 1976a

“Sex Differ­ences: Impli­ca­tions for Pro­gram Plan­ning for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Gifted”, Fox 1976a: brief sum­mary

Cohn 1976

“Indi­vid­u­al­iz­ing Sci­ence Cur­ric­ula for the Gifted”, Cohn 1976 (ab­stract from ERIC ver­sion):

Reported are meth­ods of accel­er­at­ing and indi­vid­u­al­iz­ing sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics cur­ric­ula for extremely gifted junior high school stu­dents as devel­oped by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and the Intel­lec­tu­ally Gifted Child Study Group. Given are exam­ples of accel­er­a­tion such as allow­ing the stu­dent to take more advanced courses in the stan­dard sequence, tak­ing advanced place­ment cours­es, tak­ing spe­cial out of class col­lege level cours­es, or receiv­ing tutor­ing through the Oxford-Cam­bridge Tuto­r­ial Pre­cep­tory Sys­tem of SMPY. A ques­tion is raised regard­ing the amount of lab­o­ra­tory work that is nec­es­sary for highly gifted sci­ence stu­dents. Sources of fur­ther infor­ma­tion are pro­vid­ed.

Hogan & Garvey 1976

“Study of Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Fourth Annual Report to the Spencer Foun­da­tion. Sep­tem­ber 1, 1975–Sep­tem­ber 1, 1976”, Hogan & Gar­vey 1976:

Pre­sented is the fourth annual report of a project con­cerned with human­is­tic tal­ent (de­fined as the abil­ity to rea­son inci­sively and well with com­plex social, moral, and polit­i­cal prob­lems) in gifted ado­les­cent stu­dents. Activ­i­ties of the past year in the areas of coun­sel­ing ser­vices, grad­u­ate train­ing, and research activ­i­ties are reviewed. Explained is the deci­sion to cut back on coun­sel­ing ser­vices due to ineffi­cient use of staff time and the small num­ber of per­sons being served. Described in the sec­tion an grad­u­ate train­ing are the the­ses of two stu­dents in edu­ca­tional admin­is­tra­tion, both stud­ies being related to the pre­dic­tion of aca­d­e­mic per­for­mance. Research activ­i­ties are sum­ma­rized and future activ­i­ties includ­ing data analy­ses and writ­ing, infor­ma­tion dis­sem­i­na­tion, a writ­ing sem­i­nar for gifted ado­les­cents, research on the defi­n­i­tion of noncog­ni­tive deter­mi­nants of human­is­tic rea­son­ing, analy­sis of indices of future pro­duc­tive­ness of gifted chil­dren, and a book length report of the entire project are out­lined. Appended are a bib­li­og­ra­phy of 17 pub­li­ca­tions of the study from 1972 to 1976, a sum­mary of the papers, and indi­vid­ual sum­maries of four papers on the sub­jects of quan­ti­ta­tive gift­ed­ness in early ado­les­cence, ver­bal gift­ed­ness and human­is­tic tal­ent, edu­cat­ing human­is­tic tal­ent, and the devel­op­ment of legal rea­son­ing in ver­bally gifted chil­dren, respec­tive­ly. An arti­cle by Joseph Adel­son titled “Dis­cus­sion of Papers on Human­is­tic Tal­ent” is includ­ed.

Fox 1976b

“Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious: Male or Female?”, Fox 1976b:

Reported are results of a study com­par­ing inci­dence and char­ac­ter­is­tics of male and female math­e­mat­i­cally gifted junior high stu­dents, and sug­gested are ways to encour­age female par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics. It is explained that the Study for Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth iden­ti­fied sig­nifi­cantly more males than females with out­stand­ing math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity and also noted differ­ing atti­tudes (such as greater social val­ues and less incli­na­tion to seek out math­e­mat­i­cal expe­ri­ences) on the part of highly gifted girls. An accel­er­ated class for girls only is reported to have been mod­er­ately effec­tive in pro­mot­ing math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment among girls. It is con­cluded that the observed sex differ­ences may be bio­log­i­cally based or due to such envi­ron­men­tal vari­ables as less parental encour­age­ment for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted girls.

Fox 1976c

“Chang­ing Behav­iors and Atti­tudes of Gifted Girls”, Fox 1976c:

Inves­ti­gated with 26 gifted sev­en­th-grade girls was the influ­ence of an exper­i­men­tal sum­mer math­e­mat­ics accel­er­a­tion pro­gram on later math­e­mat­ics course-tak­ing behav­ior. Classes were designed to pro­vide social stim­u­la­tion through such meth­ods as using a woman teacher and assis­tants for role mod­els, infor­mal struc­ture, orga­ni­za­tion for small group and indi­vid­u­al­ized instruc­tion, stress­ing coop­er­a­tive activ­i­ties, and empha­siz­ing ways in which math­e­mat­ics could be used to solve social prob­lems. Among con­clu­sions after a 3-year fol­low-up were that the course-tak­ing behav­ior of gifted girls can be mod­i­fied by early inter­ven­tion, and that career inter­est appears to be more diffi­cult to influ­ence.

Smith 1976

“My Intro­duc­tion to Com­put­ing”/“A Bach­e­lor’s Degree at 14”, Smith 1976:

In almost every issue of ITYB there appears an arti­cle by a junior- or senior-high­-school or col­lege stu­dent. Two of them are repro­duced below. Daniel W. Smith was an eighth grad­er. Kath­leen Marie Mon­tour, a Mohawk Indian from Canada was a 19-year-old senior at Johns Hop­kins. She received her B.S. degree, with major in psy­chol­o­gy, on 1976-05-21 at age 20 1⁄4. Cur­rent­ly, Ms. Mon­tour is a grad­u­ate stu­dent in human devel­op­ment at Tufts Uni­ver­si­ty, Med­ford, Mass­a­chu­setts.

Montour 1976

“Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf: A Bach­e­lor’s Degree At 14”, Mon­tour 1976:

In Sep­tem­ber of 1945 Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf of Cleve­land, Ohio, became quite pos­si­bly the youngest Amer­i­can ever to receive the bac­calau­re­ate when he took his B.A. in music from Yale Col­lege at the age four­teen (since his birth­date was 1931-08-28, he had just turned four­teen). Because Yale was on a spe­cial accel­er­ated sched­ule dur­ing World War II, Wolf com­pleted his degree require­ments in less than the usual num­ber of aca­d­e­mic years.

Keating et al 1976

Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent: Research and Devel­op­ment, ed Keat­ing 1976 (ISBN 0-8018-1743-9): anthol­ogy record­ing the early results of the tal­ent search and the imme­di­ate suc­cess of accel­er­at­ing gifted stu­dents into Johns Hop­kins col­lege, the over­all health of the par­tic­i­pants, and SMPY’s unsuc­cess­ful strug­gle to get rid of the male over­rep­re­sen­ta­tion at their extreme of math scores.

  1. Pref­ace

  2. Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and Mea­sure­ment of Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “Use of Tests to Dis­cover Tal­ent”, Julian C. Stan­ley
    2. “Dis­cov­er­ing Quan­ti­ta­tive Pre­coc­ity”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
    3. “Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and Pro­gram Plan­ning: Mod­els and Meth­ods”, Lynn H. Fox
    4. “Iden­ti­fy­ing Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent on a Statewide Basis”, William C. George & Cecilia H. Solano
    5. “A Piaget­ian Approach to Intel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
  3. Pro­grams for Facil­i­ta­tion of Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “Cur­ricu­lum Exper­i­men­ta­tion for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, William C. George & Susanne A. Den­ham
    2. “Spe­cial Fast-Math­e­mat­ics Classes Taught by Col­lege Pro­fes­sors to Fourth- through Twelfth-graders”, Julian C. Stan­ley
    3. “Ver­bally Gifted Youth: Selec­tion and Descrip­tion”, Peter V. McGinn
    4. “Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Pre­coc­i­ty: Bridg­ing the Gap”, Lynn H. Fox
    5. “Edu­ca­tors’ Stereo­types of Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted Boys”, Richard J. Haier & Cecilia H. Solano
  4. The Psy­chol­ogy of Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent

    1. “A Sum­mary Pro­file of the Non­in­tel­lec­tual Cor­re­lates of Math­e­mat­i­cal Pre­coc­ity in Boys and Girls”, Richard J. Haier & Susanne A. Den­ham
    2. “Career-re­lated Inter­ests of Ado­les­cent Boys and Girls”, Lynn H. Fox, Sara R. Paster­nak, and Nancy L. Peiser
    3. “Cre­ative Poten­tial of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Boys”, Daniel P. Keat­ing
    4. “The Val­ues of Gifted Youth”, Lynn H. Fox
    5. “Ran­dom vs. Non­ran­dom Study of Val­ues Pro­files”, Joan A. W. Lin­sen­meier
  5. Cri­tique and Dis­cus­sion

    1. “A His­tor­i­cal Step beyond Ter­man”, Ellis Bat­ten Page
    2. SMPY in Social Per­spec­tive”, Carl E. Bere­iter
    3. “Gen­eral Dis­cus­sion” [Page, Bere­iter et al]

Solano 1976

“Teacher and Pupil Stereo­types of Gifted Boys and Girls”, Solano 1976:

This research is con­cerned with the stereo­types of gifted chil­dren held by aver­age abil­ity stu­dents and by teach­ers. The results of this study show that gifted boys are viewed pos­i­tively by their age-mates, whereas gifted girls are quite dis­liked. Atti­tudes were elicited from edu­ca­tors famil­iar with gifted stu­dents, and from edu­ca­tors with no per­sonal con­tact with such stu­dents. The find­ings show a neg­a­tive stereo­type of gifted boys among edu­ca­tors that dis­si­pates on con­tact, while there is a pos­i­tive stereo­type of gift­ed-girls that dis­ap­pears after work­ing with them. Col­lege courses on the gifted child were used as an inter­ven­tion tech­nique to change atti­tudes toward the gift­ed. Teacher atti­tudes toward gifted boys improved con­sid­er­ably, whereas atti­tudes toward gifted girls improved only sight­ly, sug­gest­ing that gen­eral infor­ma­tion about gifted girls does not have the same effect as per­sonal con­tact.

[See also Haier & Solano 1976.]

Stanley 1976c

“Con­cern for intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths: How it orig­i­nated and fluc­tu­ated”, Stan­ley 1976c:

[short his­tory of inter­est in prodi­gies & genius: , , , , SMPY]

Stanley 1976d

“Bril­liant Youth: Improv­ing the Qual­ity and Speed of Their Edu­ca­tion”, Stan­ley 1976d:

Speech pre­sented at the annual meet­ing of the Amer­i­can Psy­cho­log­i­cal Asso­ci­a­tion in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., on 1976-09-03.

The three phases (find­ing sev­enth and eighth grade math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents, study­ing them, and help­ing then edu­ca­tion­al­ly) of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) are detailed, and exam­ples of the supe­ri­or­ity of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion over edu­ca­tional enrich­ment are pointed out. Results of stan­dard­ized intel­li­gence tests are seen to be less help­ful than scores on the math­e­mat­ics part of the Col­lege Entrance Exam­i­na­tion Board’s Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test in iden­ti­fy­ing gifted stu­dents for SMPY. Four types of enrich­ment (busy work, irrel­e­vant aca­d­e­mic, cul­tur­al, and rel­e­vant aca­d­e­mic) are described and con­trasted with aca­d­e­mic accel­er­a­tion. Pre­sented is the case of a 11 1⁄2-year-old boy who was helped edu­ca­tion­ally by enter­ing col­lege_be­fore com­plet­ing high school. Stressed is the need for flex­i­bil­ity that makes a vari­ety of edu­ca­tion­ally accel­er­a­tive pos­si­bil­i­ties (such as grade skip­ping and col­lege courses for cred­it) avail­able for the stu­dent.

George 1977

“Parental Sup­port­—­Time And Energy”, George 1977:

(Reprinted from Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin 3:10, July 1977, by spe­cial per­mis­sion)

[tips for par­ents of SMPYers: large time invest­ments may be nec­es­sary for gifted chil­dren; plan ahead and try to get along with the local school sys­tem and nego­ti­ate accel­er­a­tion; touch-typ­ing is use­ful for SMPYers to learn]

Stanley 1977

“The Study and Facil­i­ta­tion of Tal­ent for Math­e­mat­ics”, Stan­ley 1977:

Brief dis­cus­sions of gen­eral vs. spe­cial abil­ity and of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity form the intro­duc­tion of this paper on the edu­ca­tion of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents. The sec­ond sec­tion of the paper describes the annual math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches con­ducted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). The third sec­tion cov­ers SMPY’s spe­cial edu­ca­tional pro­vi­sions for the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed, includ­ing the basic com­po­nents of the pro­gram, impor­tance of fast pace, and other aspects of the offer­ings (skip­ping grades, part-time col­lege study, credit by exam­i­na­tion, early col­lege entrance, col­lege grad­u­a­tion in less than four years, and bypass­ing the bach­e­lor’s degree). Two illus­tra­tions of how selected stu­dents pro­gressed through the pro­gram com­prise the fourth sec­tion of this paper, while the final sec­tion sum­ma­rizes SMPY’s posi­tion con­cern­ing the edu­ca­tion of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth.

Stanley 1977b

“Books Tell The SMPY Story”, Stan­ley 1977b: short descrip­tion of the pre­vi­ously pub­lished SMPY antholo­gies, Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent/Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent/The Gifted and the Cre­ative.

Stanley et al 1977

The Gifted and the Cre­ative: a Fifty-Year Per­spec­tive, ed Stan­ley et al 1977 (ISBN 080181975X): anthol­ogy (Davis 1979 book review):

  1. “Ratio­nale of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) Dur­ing Its First Five Years of Pro­mot­ing Edu­ca­tional Accel­er­a­tion”, Julian C. Stan­ley:

    The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SM PY) began offi­cially at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Sep­tem­ber 1971 under a five-year grant from the Spencer Foun­da­tion. Its staff, headed by Pro­fes­sor (of psy­chol­o­gy) Julian C. Stan­ley, seeks highly effec­tive ways to facil­i­tate the edu­ca­tion of youths who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. To do so, it is of course nec­es­sary first to iden­tify such youths and under­stand them well. Dur­ing SMPY’s ini­tial five years, much ser­vice was ren­dered to the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented in the State of Mary­land, espe­cially sev­enth and eighth graders in the Greater Bal­ti­more area. This enabled the SMPY staff to develop and refine prin­ci­ples, tech­niques, and prac­tices with which to improve the edu­ca­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents there and else­where. SMPY’s under­ly­ing ratio­nale is not fully obvi­ous from the two books that report its sub­stan­tive achieve­ments. Thus it seems desir­able to state that ratio­nale clearly so that its assump­tions can be exam­ined by all per­sons who con­sider using SMPY’s prac­tices. This chap­ter is the ini­tial attempt to set forth explic­itly the point of view guid­ing SMPY’s activ­i­ties.

  2. “Sex Differ­ences: Impli­ca­tions for Pro­gram Plan­ning for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Gifted”, Lynn H. Fox:

    Stud­ies of gifted chil­dren have typ­i­cally ignored sex differ­ences, yet in the past gifted women have achieved far less than men. This paper reviews the research on sex differ­ences in intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties, achieve­ment, val­ues, and inter­ests that have rel­e­vance to edu­ca­tional plan­ning for gifted chil­dren. Early admis­sion to kinder­garten or first grade, and early col­lege entrance both appear to be valu­able for gifted boys and girls. Grade skip­ping, sub­jec­t-mat­ter accel­er­a­tion, and advanced place­ment pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics and the sci­ences in the junior high school years, how­ev­er, are more effec­tive for gifted boys than for gifted girls. Homo­ge­neously grouped accel­er­ated pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics can pro­mote achieve­ment of gifted girls as well as gifted boys in some class­room envi­ron­ments but not in oth­ers. Part of the differ­en­tial aca­d­e­mic suc­cess of the sexes in sub­jects like math­e­mat­ics is a result of the sex-role stereo­typ­ing activ­i­ties in early child­hood and ado­les­cence. The reduc­tion of sex-role stereo­typ­ing should increase both male and female cre­ativ­ity and achieve­ment in many areas. Early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of chil­dren and coun­sel­ing of par­ents is need­ed. Career edu­ca­tion and early planned inter­ven­tion are par­tic­u­larly cru­cial for gifted girls. Teach­ers need to help gifted stu­dents, espe­cially girls, become bet­ter intel­lec­tual risk tak­ers.

  3. “Gen­eral Dis­cus­sion Imme­di­ately After the Ter­man Memo­r­ial Sym­po­sium”, edited by J. W. Get­zels

Stanley et al 1978

Edu­ca­tional pro­grams and intel­lec­tual prodi­gies, ed Stan­ley et al 1978 (a “sup­ple­ment” to The Gifted and the Cre­ative):

  1. Con­trib­u­tors (vi)

  2. “Back­ground Remarks”, William C. George (pg3)

  3. Pro­grams for Facil­i­tat­ing Intel­lec­tual tal­ent

    2. “A Statewide Pro­gram in the Dis­cov­ery and Guid­ance of Gifted Stu­dents”, Mar­shall P. San­born (pg7) 3. “Edu­cat­ing Gifted Chil­dren in Cal­i­for­nia”, Eliz­a­beth I. Kear­ney & Jane S. Brockie (pg18) 4. “Pro­vid­ing Indi­vid­ual Enrich­ment with an Inde­pen­dent Project For­mat”, Larry Finch & Cecilia H. Solano (pg29) 5. “The Gov­er­nor’s School of North Car­oli­na: A Sum­mer Pro­gram for Gifted and/or Tal­ented High School Stu­dents”, James L. Bray (pg34) 6. “The Sat­ur­day Work­shop of the Gifted Child Soci­ety of New Jer­sey”, Albert J. Pra Sisto (pg38)

  4. The Highly Pre­co­cious: How Well Did They Suc­ceed?

    7. “Intro­duc­tory Com­ments”, Julian C. Stan­ley (pg48) 8. “Chat­ter­ton and Galois: Geniuses of Pre­coc­ity Who Died Young”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg49) 9. “Suc­cess vs. Tragedy: Wiener and Sidis”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg52) 10. “Phillipa Duke Schuyler”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg54) 11. “Two Men Who as Boys Were Cel­e­brated Quiz-Pro­gram Con­tes­tants”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg55) 12. <q>“Mer­rill Ken­neth Wolf: A Bach­e­lor’s Degree at 14”, Kath­leen Mon­tour (pg57) 13. “A Few Other Ref­er­ences from SMPY on Prodi­gies”

  5. Name Index

Time 1977

“Smor­gas­bord for an IQ of 150”, Time, 0040781X, 6/6/1977, Vol. 109, Issue 23:

Paul Dietz, a slen­der youth in wire-rimmed glass­es, loves war games of all kind­s—from World War II pla­toon fights to dun­geons and drag­ons. Says he: “I like to look at the mis­takes com­man­ders made in the past, as an intel­lec­tual exer­cise.” Colin Camerer has a more direct inter­est in com­bat, since he lists as his main con­cerns “busi­ness and pow­er.” He adds: “Some­one’s going to be mak­ing deci­sions, and frankly I want to be there.” Eugene Stark, by con­trast, has a more mod­est pol­i­cy: “I try to appear as nor­mal as pos­si­ble. If you go around broad­cast­ing that you’re a weirdo, then peo­ple look at you like you’re a weirdo.”

Test­ing Feat. The rea­son why some peo­ple might look on the three stu­dents as a lit­tle odd is that they grad­u­ated last week from Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity at the age of 17. All have IQs of more than 150. And all three­—a­long with five other pre­co­cious seniors—were found at the early age of 12 or 13 to be math­e­mat­i­cal wiz­ards, capa­ble of feats such as scor­ing well on alge­bra tests with­out ever hav­ing taken the sub­ject.

Their grad­u­a­tion is a mile­stone in a unique pro­gram at Johns Hop­kins, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth. It was begun in 1971 by Psy­chol­ogy Pro­fes­sor Julian Stan­ley, 58, who remem­bered his bore­dom in Geor­gia pub­lic schools and decided “to save these kids from the same expe­ri­ence.” Stan­ley, a sta­tis­ti­cian, sought out 12-to 13-year-old chil­dren in the Bal­ti­more area who had already shown promise in math. He asked them to take the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test nor­mally given to col­lege-bound high school stu­dents. The result: a group of seven boys scored well over 700 (out of a pos­si­ble 800), a feat matched by only 5% of 18-year-old males. Besides Dietz, Camerer and Stark, the test also iden­ti­fied two other young­sters who are grad­u­at­ing from Johns Hop­kins this year—Michael Kotschen­reuther, 18, and Robert Addis­on, 19—as math­e­mat­i­cally gift­ed. Stan­ley also helped other youth­ful math wiz­ards, whom his test­ing turned up, get into other col­leges. Among them: Eric Jablow, 15, who this year became the youngest boy ever to grad­u­ate from New York’s Brook­lyn Col­lege.

As Stan­ley’s pro­gram has become increas­ingly well known, hun­dreds of sev­en­th-graders have been pour­ing in from a wider and wider area to take his tests and sam­ple what Stan­ley calls a “smor­gas­bord of edu­ca­tion­ally accel­er­ated oppor­tu­ni­ties.” Some, who live near by, are fer­ried by their par­ents to spe­cial two-hour Sat­ur­day tuto­r­ial classes at Johns Hop­kins. Tutored by other prodi­gies just a few years older than they, these gifted stu­dents now race through advanced alge­bra and geom­e­try. Oth­ers leapfrog over grades, and some will attend a spe­cial sum­mer ses­sion at Johns Hop­kins.

“We don’t have any par­tic­u­lar pro­gram,” says Stan­ley, whose recruits now total about 500. “If you’re gifted and moti­vat­ed, we’ll help you do any­thing that fits you.” The pur­pose of this speedup, says Stan­ley, is “so that math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths can devote their most pro­duc­tive years to research.” He adds: “Lots of peo­ple in this world worry mostly about those who have low abil­i­ty. Some­body has to worry about the gift­ed.”

Sta­ble Intro­verts. One of Stan­ley’s main dis­ap­point­ments is that for still dis­puted rea­sons, few girls test well on math (TIME, March 14). Those who do qual­ify for the spe­cial tuto­ri­als tend to drop out, and their feel­ing for the boys in the pro­gram is “almost one of revul­sion,” he says, because the girls view their male coun­ter­parts as socially imma­ture. So far, he main­tains, the boys seem to have few emo­tional prob­lems. “Sci­en­tists are sta­ble intro­verts,” says Stan­ley. “They are not highly impul­sive and tend to act ratio­nal­ly.” Fur­ther­more, he adds, it has been “demon­strated empir­i­cally” that math­e­mat­i­cally gifted boys become inter­ested in girls much later in life. “This has been a great asset in the ear­ly-en­trance pro­gram because it gives them more time to study,” he says approv­ing­ly.

Stan­ley’s five Johns Hop­kins pro­tégés seem almost too ded­i­cated to their call­ing. Spare-time read­ing tends toward math and sci­ence books, with a lit­tle sci­ence fic­tion thrown in for leav­en­ing. Favorite hob­bies include, not sur­pris­ing­ly, chess and bridge. Stark and Camer­er, how­ev­er, seem drawn to non­sci­en­tific pas­times—S­tark to soft­ball and rag­time music on the trom­bone. Camerer to jour­nal­ism. He has been writ­ing sto­ries about fash­ions and fish­ing for the Beach­comber, a free weekly pub­lished in Ocean City, Md.

For the future, most of the Johns Hop­kins prodi­gies envi­sion high­-pow­ered research careers fol­low­ing Ph.D. stud­ies at—­var­i­ous­ly—the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago, Cor­nell, M.I.T. and Prince­ton. Three­—Di­etz, Stark and Kotschen­reuther—have received National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion fel­low­ships, pres­ti­gious grants awarded each year for advanced research. And Stan­ley is will­ing to bet on them all—us­ing prob­a­bil­ity the­o­ry, of course—­for “orig­i­nal con­tri­bu­tions.”

Stanley 1985c

“How Did Six Highly Accel­er­ated Gifted Stu­dents Fare in Grad­u­ate School?”, Stan­ley 1985c:

This arti­cle reports fol­low-up infor­ma­tion on six very young col­lege grad­u­ates. The myth of “early ripe, early rot” is clearly refuted by the out­stand­ing suc­cess of each of these six young accel­er­ants. [, Eric Robert Jablow, Michael Thomas Kotschen­reuther, Paul Fred­er­ick Dietz, Eugene William Stark, Mark Tollef Jacob­son]

Albert 1978

“Obser­va­tions and sug­ges­tions regard­ing gift­ed­ness, famil­ial influ­ence and the achieve­ment of emi­nence”, Albert 1978:

This paper was inspired by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). Two main ques­tions cen­ter on the pos­si­ble careers for such gifted youth, although the same ques­tions may be asked of any gifted youth. The first ques­tion is whether or not they will become com­pe­tent but unex­cep­tion­ally cre­ative adults, as many gifted chil­dren do; or, “world-class”, emi­nent adults, as very few gifted chil­dren do. The other ques­tion raised is whether or not we now know enough about the early fam­ily back­grounds of gifted youth and emi­nent adults to pre­dict pos­si­ble careers.

Cohn 1978

“Cog­ni­tive Char­ac­ter­is­tics of the Top-S­cor­ing Third of the 1976 Tal­ent Search Con­tes­tants”, Cohn 1978:

Reprinted from ITYB by spe­cial per­mis­sion.

Ini­tial results from the 1976 Tal­ent Search pro­vided evi­dence for con­sid­er­able pre­coc­ity in math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity among the math­e­mat­i­cally apt sev­en­th-grade-age boys and girls who par­tic­i­pated in the first screen­ing of that com­pe­ti­tion (Ge­orge & Cohn, 1977). This ini­tial screen­ing pro­ce­dure con­sisted of both the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion (SAT-M) and the ver­bal sec­tion (SAT-V) of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test. A sec­ond screen­ing pro­ce­dure was employed to dis­tin­guish from among the 873 con­tes­tants those youths who might best profit from imme­di­ate inter­ven­tion by SMPY to facil­i­tate accel­er­a­tive oppor­tu­ni­ties in their edu­ca­tion…N­early 33% of the orig­i­nal 873 con­tes­tants were selected into what became known as the “retest group”, thereby rep­re­sent­ing the top 1% of same age youths in the nation with respect to math­e­mat­i­cal apti­tude. 97%, that is all but 6 boys and 2 girls, of the 286 stu­dents invited to return to The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity cam­pus for an entire day of fur­ther high­-level test­ing decided to take advan­tage of this oppor­tu­nity to explore more fully descrip­tive eval­u­a­tion of their cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, atti­tudes, and inter­ests. The ratio of boys to girls increased from approx­i­mately 1.39:1 in the orig­i­nal pool of con­tes­tants to 2.09:1 in retest group.

…On diffi­cult tests of spe­cific cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, tests devel­oped orig­i­nally for use with older young­sters, sev­en­th-grade-age con­tes­tants who scored in the upper third in the 1976 Tal­ent Search demon­strated con­sid­er­able pre­coc­i­ty. In fact, many of them showed sub­stan­tial or even high lev­els of com­pe­tence in Alge­bra I even before hav­ing taken a course in it…

Mills 1978

“Is Sex Role Related To Intel­lec­tual Abil­i­ties?”, Mills 1978:

Reprinted by spe­cial per­mis­sion from The Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth Bul­letin 3:10, July 1977.

…New mea­sure­ment tech­niques such as the Bem Sex Role Inven­tory (1974) offer an oppor­tu­nity to exam­ine indi­vid­ual differ­ences in both per­son­al­ity devel­op­ment and sex role as they are related to intel­lec­tual func­tion­ing, thus empha­siz­ing the sim­i­lar­i­ties between the sexes a rever­sal of past empha­sis on the polar­i­ties.

A study has been under­taken by the author to inves­ti­gate the rela­tion­ship between per­son­al­ity and intel­lec­tual devel­op­ment. The study will uti­lize two main sam­ples of ado­les­cents. The first sam­ple con­sists of 278 male and female con­tes­tants who par­tic­i­pated in the Decem­ber 1976 Math­e­mat­ics Tal­ent Search con­ducted by The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and were invited back for fur­ther test­ing. For com­par­i­son pur­pos­es, as well as increased gen­er­al­iz­abil­i­ty, a sec­ond sam­ple of approx­i­mately 200 “aver­age” abil­ity boys and girls have been ran­domly selected from two junior high schools in the area

…in col­lege sam­ples it has been found that approx­i­mately 60% of the group will have a stereo­typic sex role iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. Thus, 40% of the group has a bal­anced per­son­al­ity style, char­ac­ter­ized by an equal devel­op­ment of both the expres­sive and instru­men­tal domains. In the Math Tal­ent Search group, approx­i­mately 45% had either a stereo­typic mas­cu­line or stereo­typic fem­i­nine sex role iden­ti­ty, and 55% had a bal­anced devel­op­ment. It was inter­est­ing to note, how­ev­er, that a higher per­cent­age of girls had a bal­anced per­son­al­ity style. Within the boys 50% had a stereo­typic sex role iden­tity and 50% had a bal­ance. Within the girls approx­i­mately 32% had a stereo­typic sex role iden­tity (and about one-half of these had a stereo­typic mas­cu­line iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, or cross-sex iden­ti­ty), and 68% had a bal­anced devel­op­ment. This is con­sis­tent with. the hypoth­e­sis that some cross-sex iden­ti­fi­ca­tion or the devel­op­ment 01 instru­men­tal traits is related to math rea­son­ing abil­ity in girls. …

Stanley 1978a

“Edu­ca­tional Non-ac­cel­er­a­tion: An Inter­na­tional Tragedy”, Stan­ley 1978a:

This arti­cle rep­re­sents an updated ver­sion of Dr. Stan­ley’s invited address to the Sec­ond World Con­fer­ence on Gifted and Tal­ented Chil­dren held at the Uni­ver­sity of San Fran­cis­co, August 2, 1977.

…Many intel­lec­tu­ally bril­liant youths eager to pro­ceed faster edu­ca­tion­ally have been pre­vented from doing so by their par­ents, edu­ca­tors, or psy­chol­o­gists. The United States is a seri­ous offender in this respect, but I know from per­sonal obser­va­tion that the sit­u­a­tion is even worse in a num­ber of other coun­tries. This brings to mind the hor­ri­ble Greek leg­end about Pro­crustes, who forced his guests to lie on a very long or a very short bed and fit­ted them to it by stretch­ing them if the bed was too long or by cut­ting off part of their legs if the bed was too short. The age-in-grade lock­step is a Pro­crustean solu­tion endorsed by all but a few. …

Stanley 1978b

“Rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion: Recent edu­ca­tional inno­va­tion at JHU, Stan­ley 1978b:

[“Based on an infor­mal talk at a meet­ing of alumni of The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Wash­ing­ton, D.C., on 1977-09-20”] For six years at Johns Hop­kins my Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (ab­bre­vi­ated as SMPY) has been seek­ing through­out the State of Mary­land and else­where stu­dents in junior high school who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Tonight I shall talk briefly with you about sev­eral of the most remark­able of these young men and women to illus­trate the edu­ca­tional achieve­ments of which they are eas­ily capa­ble but which are usu­ally denied them.

Stanley & George 1978

“Now We Are Six: The Ever-Ex­pand­ing SMPY: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY] The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Stan­ley & George 1978:

The First For­mal Fol­low-Up: The sixth year for the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was an even more active, pro­duc­tive, and suc­cess­ful twelve-month period than were the pre­vi­ous five. By June, 1977 vir­tu­ally all of the 450 con­tes­tants from SMPY’s March, 1972 math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence tal­ent searches had been grad­u­ated from high school or had become ful­l-time col­lege stu­dents with­out com­plet­ing high school. … [ques­tion­naire results: science/math con­test par­tic­i­pa­tion, col­lege grad­u­ates & hon­ors, media pro­files, SMPY coun­sel­ing work & recruit­ing men­tors, plans for the fourth tal­ent search, a chem­istry vs physics enrich­ment exper­i­ment, more on media cov­er­age of SMPY]

Cohn 1979

“Search­ing for Sci­en­tifi­cally Tal­ented Youth?”, Cohn 1979:

[De­scrip­tion of SMPY ini­tially screen­ing for sci­en­tific apti­tude; refo­cus on math­-on­ly; strik­ing absence of any inter­est in chem­istry and lit­tle in physics in SMPYers; the 1978 physic­s-chem­istry sum­mer camp; impor­tance of tak­ing voca­tional interests/preferences into account in screen­ing]

Durden 1979

“Gifted Pro­grams: The Johns Hop­kins pro­gram for ver­bally gifted youth”, Dur­den 1979:

Respon­si­ble approaches to the edu­ca­tion of our nation’s ver­bally gifted youth have long been needed to pro­vide chal­lenges com­pa­ra­ble to those already offered to math­e­mat­i­cally gifted youth…The Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY), begun in the fall of 1978, was estab­lished in part to rec­tify this diffi­cult state of affairs. First-year results are encour­ag­ing, and not only sug­gest pos­si­ble strate­gies for the edu­ca­tion of ver­bally gifted youth that could be dupli­cated across the coun­try, but also point to the need for a rad­i­cal revi­tal­iza­tion of the human­i­ties in Amer­i­ca, begin­ning at the sec­ondary lev­el, if not ear­li­er.

For­ma­tion of the pro­gram: Three Hop­kins Depart­ments par­tic­i­pated in the for­ma­tion of PVGY—The Writ­ing Sem­i­nars, Clas­sics and Ger­man. Since it was ini­tially decided that the pri­mary ped­a­gog­i­cal aim would be to offer ver­bally gifted young­sters of the junior high school level an oppor­tu­nity to per­fect their writ­ing skills in a uni­ver­sity frame­work, courses were selected which directly sup­ported this ori­en­ta­tion—Writ­ing Skills, Latin and Greek in Cur­rent Use (Mythol­ogy in the sec­ond semes­ter), and begin­ning Ger­man. Each course is equiv­a­lent to a course avail­able to reg­u­lar Johns Hop­kins stu­dents, and the PVGY’s stu­dents’ per­for­mance is mea­sured by col­lege cri­te­ri­a….These tests [SAT-V/Test of Stan­dard Writ­ten Eng­lish (TSWE)] are taken dur­ing a stu­den­t’s sev­en­th-grade year; a score of 430 or bet­ter on the SAT-V and 35 or bet­ter on TSWE are the min­i­mum accept­able cri­te­ria.

Goals of PVGY: The Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth does not attempt to teach cre­ativ­i­ty. While imag­i­na­tion and indi­vid­u­al­ized thought are indeed encour­aged, PVGY’s five main goals are prac­ti­cal. The pro­gram seeks to pro­vide the indi­vid­ual stu­dent with a ver­bal envi­ron­ment stim­u­lat­ing enough to elicit innate ver­bal abil­i­ties; to give the ver­bally tal­ented stu­dent a sound foun­da­tion in the mechan­ics of the Eng­lish lan­guage; to nur­ture the devel­op­ment of all vari­eties of ver­bal tal­ent; to give the ver­bally gifted child the oppor­tu­nity to become famil­iar with a lin­guis­tic tra­di­tion through the treat­ment of ety­mol­o­gy, mythol­o­gy, for­eign lan­guages, and lit­er­a­tures; and to allow a qual­i­fied young stu­dent access to col­lege-level course­work. These goals are not restricted merely to an audi­ence of future writ­ers and poets, but also appeal to any youth wish­ing to develop pre­ci­sion and accu­racy in com­mu­nica­tive skills for his or her per­sonal and pro­fes­sional life.

To mea­sure con­cretely the aca­d­e­mic suc­cess or fail­ure of the ini­tial year of the Johns Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY), stu­dents were given Col­lege Board Test­ing, when avail­able, at the end of the sec­ond semes­ter. The 20 stu­dents in the 2 sec­tions of Writ­ing Skills were given the Col­lege Level Exam­i­na­tion (CLEP) Gen­eral Exam­i­na­tion in Eng­lish Com­po­si­tion (mul­ti­ple choice) and an essay ques­tion designed by the instruc­tors. The essays were sub­jec­tively scored by the instruc­tors and were mea­sured against the level expected of a Johns Hop­kins sopho­more stu­dent com­plet­ing the Con­tem­po­rary Amer­i­can Let­ters course—the Writ­ing Sem­i­nar’s basic writing/reading course required of all majors before they can con­tinue to upper level course­work. Mea­sured against a scale of 1–10 (10 the max­i­mum), with 5 being a “com­pe­tent” score, 12 of the 20 stu­dents scored above 5 (rang­ing from 6 to 8), 3 of the stu­dents scored below 5 (low­est 4 and 2 at 4.5), and 4 stu­dents scored 5. In the CLEP exam­i­na­tion, scores ranged from a high of 647 to a low of 448. Of the 20 stu­dents, 6 scored between 448 and 500 (50th per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores tak­ing test), 7 scored between 500 and 600 (86th per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores), and 7 scored between 601 and 647 (93rd per­centile of col­lege sopho­mores).

…The ini­tial year of PVGY was essen­tially an exper­i­men­ta­tion stage in which the valid­ity of the idea of such a pro­gram was test­ed. The exper­i­ment yielded pos­i­tive results in a vari­ety of ways. It revealed, first, that there is a pro­nounced need for greater atten­tion to ver­bally gifted youth in Amer­i­ca. PVGY has also taught us some of the things we must know to train teach­ers for this spe­cial kind of instruc­tion.

Con­clu­sion: In the fall of 1979, PVGY began its sec­ond year. While begin­ning courses in Ger­man, Writ­ing Skills and Latin and Greek in Cur­rent Use were again offered, stu­dents chose advanced lev­els of Ger­man and Writ­ing Skills, as well as a new addi­tion on Latin lan­guage. It is evi­dent that PVGY has struck a respon­sive chord in the Amer­i­can edu­ca­tional scene. Thus far crit­i­cal reac­tion around the coun­try as well as inter­na­tion­al­ly, has been over­whelm­ingly pos­i­tive. There is obvi­ously a will­ing­ness on behalf of many edu­ca­tors to com­mit them­selves to rebuild­ing Amer­i­ca’s foun­da­tion in ver­bal skills. It is our hope that the Hop­kins’ Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth will con­tribute a con­crete model for this renewed effort, thereby not only aid­ing ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents, but also pro­vid­ing stan­dards for all stu­dents, for whom accu­rate com­mu­nica­tive skills are essen­tial.

[The PVGY appears to have been closed some­time in the early 1980s, and pos­si­bly rolled into the CTY pro­grams, as CTY report­edly has writ­ing classes with Latin & ancient Greek courses offered.]

Eisenberg & George 1979

“Early Entrance to Col­lege: The Johns Hop­kins Expe­ri­ence; Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Eisen­berg & George 1979:

The effects of short­en­ing gifted stu­dents’ over­all time for com­plet­ing ele­men­tary, sec­ondary, and col­le­giate edu­ca­tion are addressed. A study of the per­for­mance of such accel­er­ated stu­dents in Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty’s pro­gram indi­cates that most of the early entrants have done well with­out encoun­ter­ing seri­ous emo­tional and social diffi­cul­ties.

George & Stanley 1979

“The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, George & Stan­ley 1979: stan­dard sum­mary & adver­tise­ment for SMPY in Gifted Child Quar­terly.

Fox 1979

“Women and Math­e­mat­ics: The Impact of Early Inter­ven­tion Pro­grams Upon Course-Tak­ing and Atti­tudes in High School. Final Report”, Fox 1979:

This study inves­ti­gated the effec­tive­ness of sev­eral inter­ven­tion pro­grams, in terms Of increas­ing girls’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics. The pro­grams included two classes devel­oped at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (an all-girls’ accel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics class and a girls’ career aware­ness class) , and four school sys­tem-based pro­grams based on the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth. The pop­u­la­tions are con­sid­ered to te well-above aver­age with respect to math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Analy­sis included inves­ti­ga­tion of the impact of pro­grams on plans to take such courses as pre-cal­cu­lus, cal­cu­lus, chem­istry, physics, and com­puter sci­ence, in high school. Impact of the pro­grams upon vari­ables related to accel­er­a­tion in math­e­mat­ics was also assessed along with the rate of pop­u­la­tion attri­tion within the pro­grams. The achieve­ment of stu­dents in the school sys­tem-based accel­er­ated classes was eval­u­ated for pos­si­ble sex differ­ences. Ques­tion­naire responses ard the Fen­nema-Sh­er­man Math­e­mat­ics Atti­tude Scale were used to mea­sure atti­tudes and inter­ests. Com­par­isons were made between responses on some atti­tude mea­sures and related fac­tors such as accel­er­a­tion, career goals, and life style plans. The major find­ing is that spe­cial pro­grams for the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted do have an impact on the course-tak­ing behav­iors and plans and aspi­ra­tions of girls.

Fox & Pyryt 1979

“Guid­ance of Gifted Youth”, Fox & Pyryt 1979

George 1979

“The Tal­en­t-Search Con­cept: an Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Strat­egy for the Intel­lec­tu­ally Gifted”, George 1979:

Using the empir­i­cally based evi­dence that has resulted from the pre­vi­ous five Tal­ent Searches of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, the arti­cle devel­ops the ratio­nale and suc­cess behind the tal­en­t-search con­cept as a use­ful strat­egy for iden­ti­fy­ing the intel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed. Its prac­ti­cal­ity as a model is fur­ther demon­strated through the sys­tem­atic cur­ric­u­lar pro­gram­ming that has resulted at school-dis­trict lev­els after stu­dents have been iden­ti­fied as tal­ented in a spe­cific apti­tude area. The iden­ti­fi­ca­tion issue is dis­cussed as it per­tains to effi­ciency and effec­tive­ness related to cost, pre­dic­tive valid­i­ty, and fea­si­bil­i­ty.

George et al 1979

Edu­cat­ing the Gift­ed: Accel­er­a­tion and Enrich­ment, ed George et al 1979 (ISBN 0801822602): anthol­o­gy.

Laycock 1979

Gifted Chil­dren, Lay­cock 1979, includes a short descrip­tion of SMPY (pg52–54), and a long pro­file of a female SMPYer, “Lisa Skarp” (pg21–24), describ­ing her early child­hood, join­ing SMPY, and suc­cess­ful edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion.

Mills 1979

“Sex-role-re­lated per­son­al­ity cor­re­lates of intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in ado­les­cents”, Mills 1979:

A recent study illus­trates the inter­re­lat­ed­ness of per­son­al­ity vari­ables and intel­lec­tual abil­ity for both boys and girls.

..S­ince ado­les­cence is a time when sex roles are espe­cially salient, groups of sev­enth and eighth grade males and females from two sep­a­rate pop­u­la­tions were cho­sen for study. One group were semi­fi­nal­ists (188 males, 90 females) who par­tic­i­pated in the Decem­ber 1976 Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent Search con­ducted by The Study for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

…In the present study, all par­tic­i­pants received: 1. the Bern Sex-Role Inven­tory (BSRI) (Bern, 1974), allow­ing the inde­pen­dent mea­sure­ment of “mas­culin­ity” and “fem­i­nin­ity” in terms of behav­ioral traits (e.g., com­pas­sion­ate, yield­ing, aggres­sive, self- suffi­cien­t); and 2. the Fem­i­nin­ity Scale (Fe) from the Cal­i­for­nia Psy­cho­log­i­cal Inven­tory (Gough, 1952), a mea­sure of what is assumed to be a uni­di­men­sion­al, bipo­lar trait rang­ing from extreme mas­culin­ity at one end to extreme fem­i­nin­ity at the oppo­site end. In addi­tion, the SMPY or gifted group was given the All­port-Ver­non-Lindzey Study of Val­ues, a test for which con­sis­tent sex differ­ences are report­ed.

…Some evi­dence for a rela­tion­ship between math scores and mas­cu­line vari­ables for girls, and ver­bal scores with fem­i­nine vari­ables for boys, was found in the pub­lic school com­par­i­son group. In this group, the BSRI fem­i­nin­ity score was pos­i­tively related to ver­bal scores for boys, and the BSRI mas­culin­ity score was pos­i­tively related to math scores for girls. In addi­tion, the “matu­rity” fac­tor on the BSRI, which con­tained nine of the orig­i­nal mas­culin­ity items, had a strong pos­i­tive cor­re­la­tion with math scores for pub­lic school girls. This fac­tor also had a strong pos­i­tive cor­re­la­tion with ver­bal scores for the girls. In other words, the very pos­i­tive, but also “instru­men­tal”, char­ac­ter­is­tics on this fac­tor were strongly related to intel­lec­tual vari­ables over­all for these girls. …

Stanley & George 1979

“The Future of Edu­ca­tion”, Stan­ley & George 1979 (let­ter to Sci­ence)


Albert 1980

, Albert 1980 (fol­lowup: Albert 1994):

In an effort to explore some of the pos­si­ble ear­ly-ex­pe­ri­en­tial and fam­ily vari­ables involved in the achieve­ment of emi­nence we have devel­oped a model of cog­ni­tive and per­son­al­ity devel­op­ment and have under­taken a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of two dis­tinct groups of excep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies. In this report, early sim­i­lar­i­ties and differ­ences between two groups of excep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies will be explored. Method­ol­ogy: This is a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of two sam­ples of healthy, excep­tion­ally gifted boys and their fam­i­lies. One group con­sisted of 26 of the high­est scor­ers in the 1976 Math Tal­ent Search con­ducted by Julian Stan­ley (1974, 1977); the sec­ond group of 26 boys liv­ing in south­ern Cal­i­for­nia were selected only on the basis of IQ’s of 150 or high­er.

…Fac­tors included for study were par­ents’ and grand-par­ents’ edu­ca­tional attain­ment, par­ents’ and sub­jects’ birth-order, sub­jects’ and par­ents’ cre­ative poten­tial, and sub­jects’ cog­ni­tive gift­ed­ness.

  • Both sam­ples were well-e­d­u­cated and had attained sig­nifi­cantly more for­mal edu­ca­tion than the national norms.
  • The birth-orders of the two sam­ples are what one would expect from the lit­er­a­ture of gifted chil­dren and they are not sig­nifi­cantly differ­ent from one anoth­er.
  • A sur­pris­ingly remark­able sim­i­lar­ity exists between the two sam­ples of cog­ni­tively gifted boys, although they were selected a year apart, a con­ti­nent apart, and on the basis of dis­tinctly differ­ent test per­for­mances. We expected them to per­form bet­ter on the fig­ural and the math/science sub­tests of the Wal­lach-Ko­gan and BIC mea­sures, respec­tive­ly, and the high­-IQ sam­ple to per­form sig­nifi­cantly bet­ter on the ver­bal and the art/writing sub­tests. Instead, the differ­ences between the sam­ples are slight and not sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant. At min­i­mum, these results sug­gest that the two sam­ples are each made of highly tal­ent­ed, cog­ni­tively gifted boys in the ares of art/writing and math/science as mea­sured by stan­dard instru­ments. Sec­ond, these results fur­ther indi­cate the ver­sa­til­ity that accom­pa­nies excep­tional gift­ed­ness…Table 1 shows that the par­ents of both groups of excep­tion­ally gifted boys are them­selves excep­tion­ally cre­ative. Par­ents of both groups out­per­formed Duke Uni­ver­sity sub­jects. Fur­ther­more, the par­ents defi­nitely showed more cre­ative poten­tial than their chil­dren. It is the par­ents of the high­-IQ boys who have the high­est cre­ativ­ity scores of all.

…We believe the results of the present study and those of Mil­gram et al. show that cog­ni­tive gift­ed­ness and cre­ative gift­ed­ness are very much related to one another and may be man­i­fes­ta­tions of the same com­plex, mul­ti­-faceted abil­i­ties. There­fore, it should not sur­prise us that there is a large degree of fam­ily cog­ni­tive and cre­ative sim­i­lar­i­ty.

Becker 1980

“Per­for­mance of a Group of Math­e­mat­i­cally Able Youths on the Math­e­mat­ics Usage and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings Tests of the Amer­i­can Col­lege Test Bat­tery vs. the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test”, Becker 1980:

In Feb­ru­ary of 1977 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity used for the first time in its tal­ent searches two tests from the Amer­i­can Col­lege Test (ACT) bat­tery: the Math­e­mat­ics Usage (ACT-M) and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings (ACT-NS) tests. In addi­tion, three tests from the Differ­en­tial Apti­tude Test (DAT) bat­tery and an Alge­bra I achieve­ment test were admin­is­tered to the top-s­cor­ing 278 con­tes­tants from the 1976–77 Math­e­mat­ics Tal­ent Search con­ducted by SMPY.

…A num­ber of points seem appar­ent from the above dis­cus­sions. The first is that the Math­e­mat­ics Usage and Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings Tests of the ACT bat­tery have ade­quate ceil­ing and floor for this group of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents who are four or five years younger than the usual ACT exam­i­nees. The Math­e­mat­ics Usage test of the ACT cor­re­lates well with both the SAT-M and a test of Alge­bra I achieve­ment. A fac­tor analy­sis grouped these three tests on a math­e­mat­ics fac­tor for both boys and girls in the SMPY Tal­ent Search group. The Nat­ural Sci­ences Read­ings test cor­re­lates highly with the SAT-V, and is grouped with the SAT-V in a ver­bal rea­son­ing fac­tor for both sex­es. The ACT-NS also cor­re­lates with the math­e­mat­ics mea­sures, sug­gest­ing that it may have a com­pu­ta­tional or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing com­po­nent as well as its mainly ver­bal com­po­nent.

SMPY will con­tinue to use SAT-M as the ini­tial screen­ing instru­ment for math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches among sev­en­th-graders in the Mid­dle Atlantic Region who are already known to score in the top 3% on national norms for the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of an achieve­men­t-test bat­tery, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. This will be done chiefly because the sub­ject mat­ter demands of SAT-M are less than those of ACT-M. ACT-M can be quite use­ful, how­ev­er, for fur­ther study of the high scor­ers on SAT-M (e.g., those earn­ing at or above 500, slightly above the aver­age for col­lege-bound male 12th-grader­s). ACT-NS is a good basic screen­ing test of sci­ence apti­tude for this able group. It may be fol­lowed by a more sub­jec­t-mat­ter-ori­ented test such as Level 1 of Edu­ca­tional Test­ing Ser­vice’s Sequen­tial Tests of Edu­ca­tional Progress (STEP) in sci­ence. Fur­ther com­par­a­tive study of SAT and ACT tests is planned.

Benbow 1980

“Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Abil­i­ty: Fact or Arti­fact?”, Ben­bow 1980:

A sub­stan­tial sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (score on the math­e­mat­ics test of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test) in favor of boys was found in a study of 9927 intel­lec­tu­ally gifted junior high school stu­dents. Our data con­tra­dict the hypoth­e­sis that differ­en­tial course-tak­ing accounts for observed sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, but sup­port the hypoth­e­sis that these differ­ences are some­what increased by envi­ron­men­tal influ­ences.

Benbow & Stanley 1980

“Intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents: Fam­ily pro­files”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1980:

In this paper fam­ily pro­files com­piled from analy­sis of the ques­tion­naires com­pleted by the SMPY Decem­ber of 1976 Tal­ent Search par­tic­i­pants will be described. This tal­ent search, geo­graph­i­cally more diverse than the three pre­vi­ous search­es, cov­ered the mid-At­lantic region, includ­ing Mary­land and sur­round­ing areas in Penn­syl­va­nia, Delaware, Vir­ginia, West Vir­ginia, and the Dis­trict of Colum­bia. [si­b­ling dis­tri­b­u­tion; parental edu­ca­tion & assor­ta­tive mat­ing; par­en­t-child education/SAT cor­re­la­tion; pater­nal occu­pa­tion] …The highly able group of 873 par­tic­i­pants in the 1976 Tal­ent Search, most of whom were sev­en­th-graders, came from fam­i­lies in which, on the aver­age, the par­ents were liv­ing and well edu­cat­ed. The fathers’ occu­pa­tional sta­tus tended to be high. The fam­i­lies were rel­a­tively large (i.e., aver­ag­ing more than three chil­dren, rather than the cur­rent national mean of 1.7). There were no strong cor­re­la­tions between fam­ily size or sib­ling posi­tion and abil­ity of the stu­dents. Par­ents’ edu­ca­tional level and pater­nal occu­pa­tional sta­tus were related to mea­sured apti­tude; these rela­tion­ships were stronger for boys. Fathers’ edu­ca­tional level cor­re­lated more highly with their chil­dren’s abil­ity than did moth­ers’ edu­ca­tional lev­el. Final­ly, SAT-M scores for both sexes related more closely to par­ents’ edu­ca­tional level and fathers’ occu­pa­tional sta­tus than did SAT-V scores.

Fox et al 1980

Women and the Math­e­mat­i­cal Mys­tique, ed Fox et al 1980 (ISBN 0801823617): anthol­o­gy.

  1. “Sex Differ­ences in the Devel­op­ment of Pre­co­cious Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent”, Fox & Cohn:

    In 1972 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) began its search to iden­tify highly able math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ers. With some vari­a­tions in the tar­get pop­u­la­tion and the selec­tion pro­ce­dures, the tal­ent searches have con­tin­ued to the pre­sent. This chap­ter reviews the results of the 1972, 1973, 1974, 1976, 1978, and 1979 tal­ent search­es, with par­tic­u­lar empha­sis on sex differ­ences. Fol­low-up data avail­able on the 1972, 1973, and 1974 par­tic­i­pants are ana­lyzed, par­tic­u­larly as they relate to sex-role iden­tity and will­ing­ness to accel­er­ate. Attempts to fos­ter pre­co­cious achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics by means of spe­cial, accel­er­ated classes for mixed-sex and same-sex groups are described.

  2. “An Accel­er­a­tive Inter­ven­tion Pro­gram for Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted Girls”, Brody & Fox

    An inter­ven­tion pro­gram designed to increase gifted girls’ par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics was con­ducted at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in the sum­mer of 1973. The pro­gram con­sisted of a course in alge­bra I for twen­ty-six sev­en­th-grade girls and included spe­cial atten­tion to the social needs of the girls, female role mod­els, some career aware­ness train­ing, and an empha­sis on the social appli­ca­tions of math­e­mat­ics. Con­trol groups of boys and girls who did not par­tic­i­pate in the pro­gram were selected for pur­poses of com­par­i­son in assess­ing the pro­gram. In 1977, when the stu­dents had com­pleted the eleventh grade, there were sig­nifi­cant differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal accel­er­a­tion between the con­trol boys and the con­trol girls and between the exper­i­men­tal girls and the con­trol girls, but not between the exper­i­men­tal girls and the con­trol boys. Differ­en­tial val­ues, career inter­ests, and encour­age­ment are explored as pos­si­ble con­tribut­ing fac­tors to sex differ­ences in course-tak­ing behav­ior.

McClain & Durden 1980

“Ger­man for ver­bally gifted young­sters at Hop­kins: The first year”, McClain & Dur­den 1980:

Dur­ing the aca­d­e­mic year 1978–79 the Depart­ment of Ger­man of the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity offered a course in Begin­ning Ger­man as part of the Hop­kins Pro­gram for Ver­bally Gifted Youth (PVGY). PVGY was ini­ti­ated at Hop­kins in the fall of 1978 by the Writ­ing Sem­i­nars and the Depart­ments of Ger­man and Clas­sics. An announce­ment of the Ger­man course appeared in the fall 1979 issue of Unter­richt­spraxis [Teach­ing Ger­man]. After a year’s expe­ri­ence we are now able to report in greater detail on our pro­gram.

…Be­cause all of our young­sters were highly moti­vat­ed, and also because they felt com­fort­able with one another in spite of their differ­ent lev­els of abil­i­ty, we were able to spark a com­pet­i­tive spirit in class with­out affect­ing morale. One effec­tive teach­ing device was the use of team-type learn­ing sit­u­a­tion­s….From their response to the and other works of Ger­man lit­er­a­ture we con­cluded that ver­bally gifted young­sters might well be able to acquire at the eighth grade lev­el, or per­haps even ear­lier, some of the more prac­ti­cal skills nec­es­sary for lit­er­ary analy­sis, and hence be spared the neces­sity of acquir­ing these at a later time in their devel­op­ment when they might devote them­selves more appro­pri­ately to the more com­plex prob­lems posed by lit­er­ary texts.

…Both the first and sec­ond year PVGY Ger­man classes are pro­gress­ing very well. One of our sat­is­fac­tions has been the sense of accom­plish­ing at least a few of the objec­tives pro­posed for the pro­fes­sion by the MLA/ACLS Task Forces. Chief among these is that of offer­ing young­sters the chance to study a for­eign lan­guage at an opti­mal age. It is also sat­is­fy­ing to real­ize that in offer­ing a col­lege-level course to eighth graders we are encour­ag­ing closer coop­er­a­tion between sec­ondary schools and col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties. Our pro­gram has been suc­cess­ful because it is a coop­er­a­tive effort. Its suc­cess has con­vinced us that, by pool­ing resources, schools and col­leges can per­form more effec­tively than either of them can inde­pen­dent­ly, the vitally impor­tant task of devel­op­ing the human tal­ent which the nation now needs per­haps more urgently than at any other time in his­to­ry.

Mezynski & Stanley 1980

“Advanced Place­ment Ori­ented Cal­cu­lus for High School Stu­dents”, Mezyn­ski & Stan­ley 1980:

A sup­ple­men­tary cal­cu­lus course was con­ducted to give highly able stu­dents the oppor­tu­nity to learn the equiv­a­lent of two semes­ters of col­lege cal­cu­lus while still in high school. Two differ­ent stu­dent pop­u­la­tions were sam­pled; the aver­age age of the mem­bers of Class I was 14.9 years, whereas for mem­bers of Class II it was 16.7 years. Class I mem­bers had more pre­vi­ous expo­sure to fast-paced math­e­mat­ics instruc­tion than had mem­bers of Class II. Both classes took the Col­lege Board’s AP Cal­cu­lus Exam­i­na­tion, Level BC, at the end of the course. The results of the AP exam­i­na­tion indi­cated that most stu­dents learned col­lege-level cal­cu­lus well. Con­sid­er­a­tions for the estab­lish­ment of sim­i­lar pro­grams are dis­cussed.

Stanley 1980a

“On Edu­cat­ing the gifted”, Stan­ley 1980a:

This arti­cle explores cur­rent think­ing on ways to improve the edu­ca­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths. The term “intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented” seems, for sev­eral rea­sons, prefer­able to the more com­monly used expres­sion “gift­ed.” In this arti­cle, I con­sider just those spe­cific devel­oped abil­i­ties that make some stu­dents espe­cially edu­ca­ble within the broad con­text of schools…

[use of stan­dard­ized test­ing; ben­e­fits of accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment like SMPY’s accel­er­ated sum­mer math class­es]

Stanley 1980b

“Manip­u­late impor­tant edu­ca­tional vari­ables”, Stan­ley 1980b:

For nine years per­son­nel of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins have found thou­sands of youths, chiefly sev­en­th-graders, who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. SMPY strives in var­i­ous ways to help these stu­dents pro­ceed con­sid­er­ably faster and bet­ter in math­e­mat­ics and related sub­jects than is usu­ally per­mit­ted or encour­aged. Its work is offered as an exam­ple of impor­tant prob­lems that, in the judg­ment of the author, edu­ca­tional psy­chol­o­gists should attack vig­or­ous­ly. SMPY’s four-D model is described, which empha­sizes edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion of youths who are highly able and eager to move ahead quick­ly.

House 1981

“One Small Step for the Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted”, House 1981:

In Min­neso­ta, a recent pro­gram demon­strated that some needs of cer­tain math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented pupils could be accom­mo­dated with mod­est pro­vi­sions. The out­comes of that pro­gram have impli­ca­tions for math­e­mat­ics edu­ca­tors else­where.

…The MTYMP offered three spe­cial fast-paced math­e­mat­ics class­es, two in the Min­neapolis-St. Paul met­ro­pol­i­tan area and one in Duluth. These classes were mod­eled on sim­i­lar accel­er­ated classes offered by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) con­ducted at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (See Stan­ley, Keat­ing and Fox, 1974; Keat­ing, 1976). The SMPY is the most exten­sive recent pro­gram for math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth, and the MTYMP is the first repli­ca­tion of the SMPY class­es.

Fox 1981

“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted”, Fox 1981:

Var­i­ous cri­te­ria for iden­ti­fy­ing the aca­d­e­m­i­cally gift­ed, such as scores on gen­eral intel­li­gence and cre­ativ­ity tests, teacher rec­om­men­da­tions, and scores on stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests, have been used. The author points out their lim­i­ta­tions and rec­om­mends an iden­ti­fi­ca­tion process devel­oped by J. C. Stan­ley (1976) that equates pre­coc­ity with aca­d­e­mic tal­ent by focus­ing on chil­dren with excep­tion­ally high per­for­mance on advanced tests of spe­cific sub­ject mat­ter. Pro­grams that begin with this process and then sup­ple­ment it with fur­ther diag­nos­tic test­ing, clin­i­cal meth­ods, and eval­u­a­tion of stu­dents’ prod­ucts are dis­cussed. It is noted that use of these pro­ce­dures with dis­ad­van­taged pop­u­la­tions has iden­ti­fied more aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted stu­dents than other pro­ce­dures had found.

Stanley 1981

“The pre­dic­tive value of the SAT for bril­liant sev­en­th-and eighth-graders”, Stan­ley 1981, The Inter­na­tional schools jour­nal (ISSN: 0264-7281), 1981, p.39:

At the Jan­u­ary 1978 admin­is­tra­tion of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test there were, for the first time, more than a few 12- and 13-year-olds. They were among the 2,000 gifted stu­dents in that age group, who, through the efforts of Julian Stan­ley, direc­tory of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, may be able to accel­er­ate in school at a rate that allows them to achieve at their own pace, and study at the under­grad­u­ate and grad­u­ate lev­els when they are ready. SMPY’s tal­ent search­es, of which the pri­mary eval­u­a­tive tool is the SAT-mathematical score, have broad­ened beyond the Bal­ti­more area since 1971 to include stu­dents from many other States. Maths teach­ers abroad will wel­come this sim­ple pro­ce­dure for iden­ti­fy­ing gifted young math­e­mati­cians.

Bartkovich & Mezynski 1981

“Fast-Paced Pre­cal­cu­lus Math­e­mat­ics for Tal­ented Junior High Stu­dents: Two Recent SMPY Pro­grams”, Bartkovich & Mezyn­ski 1981:

…Dur­ing the sum­mers of 1978 and 1979, math­e­mat­ics classes spon­sored by SMPY were held pri­mar­ily for sev­en­th-grade-age (12 or 13 years old) stu­dents. The objec­tive of both sum­mer pro­grams was that each par­tic­i­pant learn well and at a high level of under­stand­ing as much pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics as was fea­si­ble dur­ing the eight-week pro­gram. The stu­dents who were selected to par­tic­i­pate were excep­tion­ally able in math­e­mat­ics rel­a­tive to national age-grade norms. The 1978 group was the abler, as dis­cussed later in this paper, in terms of their scores on the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of the SAT, and achieve­ment dur­ing the sum­mer pro­gram.

Benbow 1981

Ben­bow, C.P. (1981) “Devel­op­ment of supe­rior math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity dur­ing ado­les­cence”, the­sis, The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, Bal­ti­more, MD:

Between 1972 and 1974 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2000 7th and 8th grade stu­dents who scored as well as a national sam­ple of 11th and 12th grade females on the Col­lege Board’s SAT-Mathematics or SAT-Verbal tests. The aca­d­e­mic and social devel­op­ment of these intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents over the fol­low­ing 5 years was lon­gi­tu­di­nally inves­ti­gat­ed. Over 91% (1996 out of the 2188 SMPY stu­dents) par­tic­i­pat­ed.

Five years later the SMPY stu­dents reaffirmed their ini­tial aca­d­e­mic supe­ri­or­ity by scor­ing on the aver­age 200 points (SAT-M) or 170 points (SAT-V) bet­ter than col­lege-bound 12th grade stu­dents. Their mean scores on the Col­lege Board Achieve­ment Tests for all such tests were 100 points above the aver­age for col­lege-bound seniors. The high­est scores were not nec­es­sar­ily in math­e­mat­ics. On not one test did the SMPY group score lower than the aver­age of col­lege-bound seniors.

The mean num­ber of semes­ters of math­e­mat­ics taken by SMPY stu­dents was two more than col­lege-bound seniors. SMPY stu­dents were ten times more likely to take cal­cu­lus in high school than high school stu­dents in gen­er­al. Their achieve­ment in high school sci­ence courses was almost as out­stand­ing and com­pared favor­ably to that of col­lege-bound seniors.

Math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence were their favorite courses in high school. Math­e­mat­ics was most pre­ferred but biol­o­gy, chem­istry, and physics were also well liked. SMPY stu­dents fre­quently par­tic­i­pated in sci­ence fairs and math­e­mat­ics con­tests. Within this homo­ge­neous group, how­ev­er, SAT-M scores could not pre­dict the degree of inter­est for math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence.

Many SMPY stu­dents accel­er­ated their edu­ca­tion. These accel­er­ants believed they had ben­e­fited in their edu­ca­tion­al, social, and emo­tional devel­op­ment, and they achieved sim­i­larly in high school to their non-ac­cel­er­ated coun­ter­parts who went to col­lege, but in less time.

SMPY stu­dents engaged in a wide vari­ety of out­-of-school activ­i­ties. Read­ing, social, and per­form­ing arts activ­i­ties were the most pop­u­lar. Most SMPY stu­dents received one or more awards or hon­ors. A high per­cent­age of these awards were aca­d­e­m­ic. From the tal­ent search SAT scores the num­ber of aca­d­e­mic awards won could not be pre­dict­ed. Over­all, SMPY stu­dents did not exhibit a nar­row range of inter­ests and par­tic­i­pated in a wide range of activ­i­ties.

By 1980 over 90& of the stu­dents were attend­ing col­lege, typ­i­cally at aca­d­e­m­i­cally and socially pres­ti­gious uni­ver­si­ties, and said they were enjoy­ing it. At least half of the SMPY stu­dents intended to major in the math­e­mat­i­cal sci­ences, sci­ence, or engi­neer­ing. Fur­ther­more, since at least 96% of the group wanted to receive at least a bach­e­lor’s degree, their edu­ca­tional aspi­ra­tions were high. A doc­toral degree was their most fre­quently named goal. Tal­ent search SAT scores related to their high school achieve­ments.

Sex differ­ences favor­ing males were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment tests. SMPY females received bet­ter grades in their math­e­mat­ics cours­es, while SMPY boys became slightly more accel­er­at­ed. Few sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences were found in atti­tudes toward math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. A rela­tion­ship between the sex differ­ence on SAT-M and sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment was estab­lished. The influ­ence of SMPY upon these stu­dents was per­ceived as ben­e­fi­cial. Most felt SMPY had helped edu­ca­tion­al­ly, while not detract­ing from their social and emo­tional devel­op­ment.

Benbow & Stanley 1982a

“Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Boys and Girls: Edu­ca­tional Pro­files”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1982a:

…An impor­tant aspect of any lon­gi­tu­di­nal research pro­gram is to describe the sub­jects ini­tially because that pro­vides base­line data. For the SMPY pro­gram, this char­ac­ter­i­za­tion can also be of great util­ity when eval­u­at­ing the long-term effec­tive­ness of its devel­op­ment role, in study­ing sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b, 1981) and math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment (Ben­bow, 1981; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, in press, a, b; Fox, 1977), and when iden­ti­fy­ing pos­si­ble deter­mi­nants of later behav­ior in the group. In the present work we try to meet this need by describ­ing and con­trast­ing by sex the edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences and atti­tudes of the par­tic­i­pants in an SMPY tal­ent search…

[SAT-M scores split by sex, grade, school type; school/math/biology/chemistry/physics-liking atti­tudes; use of G&T or other spe­cial edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties]

Benbow & Stanley 1982b

“Con­se­quences in high school and col­lege of sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal per­spec­tive”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1982b:

Between 1972 and 1974 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2,000 7th and 8th graders who scored as well as a national sam­ple of 11th and 12th grade females on the Col­lege Board’s Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT) Math­e­mat­ics or Ver­bal tests. A sub­stan­tial sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity was found (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b, 1981). The con­se­quences and devel­op­ment of this sex differ­ence over the fol­low­ing 5 years were inves­ti­gated lon­gi­tu­di­nal­ly. Over 91% (1,996 out of 2,188 SMPY stu­dents) par­tic­i­pat­ed. This study estab­lished that the sex differ­ence per­sisted over sev­eral years and was related to sub­se­quent sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics achieve­ment. The sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­ics did not reflect differ­en­tial math­e­mat­ics course tak­ing. The abil­i­ties of males devel­oped more rapidly than those of females. Sex differ­ences favor­ing males were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics achieve­ment and Advanced Place­ment Pro­gram exam­i­na­tions. SMPY females received bet­ter grades in their math­e­mat­ics courses than SMPY males did. Few sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences were found in atti­tudes toward math­e­mat­ics.

Moore 1982

“The Joys and Chal­lenges in Rais­ing a Gifted Child”, Moore 1982:

[Parental mem­oir of rais­ing a gifted girl: advanced one grade in ele­men­tary school, this proved insuffi­cient, lead­ing to bore­dom, behav­ioral prob­lems, and care­less­ness; a trans­fer to a pri­vate school wors­ened mat­ters; dis­cov­ered in SMPY’s test­ing at 12, she took a SMPY sum­mer course where she blos­somed, lead­ing her par­ents to bat­tle for early enroll­ment in high school, tak­ing senior & col­lege courses on the side and grown into a happy teenag­er.]

Sawyer & Daggett 1982

“Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram”, Sawyer & Daggett 1982:

[Re­vised ver­sion of a speech given by Dr. Robert N. Sawyer at the Tenth Annual Hyman J. Blum­berg Sym­po­sium On Research in Early Child­hood Edu­ca­tion at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, Nov. 14–16, 1980.]

In Novem­ber of 1979 the senior author trav­elled to The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity to observe the activ­i­ties of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youths (SMPY) and the Office of Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and Devel­op­ment (OTID)…The deci­sion was made that Duke should move ahead as swiftly as pos­si­ble to iden­tify ver­bally and math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths in a thir­teen-s­tate area. The goals of the Duke pro­gram were set forth as fol­lows:

  1. iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of gifted youths;
  2. devel­op­ment of the intel­lec­tual poten­tial of the stu­dents iden­ti­fied;
  3. assis­tance in the place­ment of these youths in insti­tu­tions of higher edu­ca­tion with pro­grams con­sis­tent with the stu­dents’ inter­ests and capa­bil­i­ties; and
  4. research per­tain­ing to the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the gift­ed, nature of gift­ed­ness, and cur­ricu­lum for the gift­ed.

…The tar­get area rep­re­sents 25% of the United States and approx­i­mately 28% of the 12-year-olds in the United States…­More than 380 par­tic­i­pants obtained com­bined SAT(M+V) scores greater than 1000. The high­est scor­ing young­ster received a com­bined SAT (M+V) score of 1400.

One hun­dred and fifty-one very high­-s­cor­ing 12- and 13-year old stu­dents from 25 states com­pleted an inten­sive, fast-paced course in either Math­e­mat­ics, Expos­i­tory Writ­ing, Amer­i­can His­to­ry, or Ger­man. One hun­dred and eigh­teen stu­dents com­pleted the fast-paced pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics pro­gram…All but one com­pleted at least one pre­cal­cu­lus math course such as Alge­bra I in three weeks; some com­pleted as many as four. The math pro­gram was set up in accor­dance with the Diag­nos­tic Test­ing fol­lowed by Pre­scrip­tive Instruc­tion (DT PI) model excel­lently out­lined in Bartkovich and George (1980)…We at TIP look for­ward to expanded efforts in the devel­op­ment and research areas, as well as the devel­op­ment of a coun­sel­ing pack­age for our stu­dents and their fam­i­lies.

Stanley & Benbow 1982

“Edu­cat­ing Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youths: Twelve Pol­icy Rec­om­men­da­tions”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1982:

Pol­icy Rec­om­men­da­tions: On the basis of SMPY’s 13 years of work with tal­ented stu­dents and their lon­gi­tu­di­nal fol­low-up, we offer the fol­low­ing edu­ca­tional pol­icy rec­om­men­da­tions: 1. Stu­dents who are capa­ble of achiev­ing at a high level and are good prospects for edu­ca­tional facil­i­ta­tion should be iden­ti­fied early nation­wide. … 2. Stu­dents should be allowed to take math­e­mat­ics courses appro­pri­ate to their abil­ity and achieve­ment lev­els, regard­less of their age. … 3. Intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents should be able to sub­sti­tute courses such as col­lege alge­bra and cal­cu­lus, taken as a part-time col­lege stu­dent, for high school courses that are either unavail­able or too ele­men­tary. … 4. Tak­ing Advanced Place­ment Pro­gram (AP) exam­i­na­tions by highly able stu­dents should be encour­aged in all pos­si­ble ways. … 5. Some aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents should enter col­lege as ful­l-time stu­dents while still younger than the typ­i­cal age, with or with­out hav­ing earned a high school diplo­ma. … 6. The age restric­tions on all the National Sci­ence Foun­da­tion (NSF) sum­mer insti­tutes should be low­ered. … 7. NSF should require that at least half of the NSF sum­mer insti­tutes be highly accel­er­a­tive. … 8. Stu­dents who com­plete both a bach­e­lor’s and a mas­ter’s degree in eight semes­ters or less should be eli­gi­ble for NSF fel­low­ships. … 9. Gov­ern­ment agen­cies and pri­vate foun­da­tions should con­sider allo­cat­ing more finan­cial sup­port for the descrip­tive and long-term fol­low-up aspects of lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies such as char­ac­ter­ize SMPY’s learn­ing how its high­-s­cor­ing tal­ent search par­tic­i­pants turn out in the year 2000. … 10. Research should be con­ducted to dis­cover why females tend to have less well devel­oped math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity than males and to dis­cover pos­si­ble reme­dies. … 11. Teach­ing gifted chil­dren how to use study time effec­tively should be a pri­or­i­ty. … 12. Research should be pur­sued on the causes of the great hos­til­ity toward pre­co­cious intel­lec­tual achieve­ment that is endemic in this coun­try and on ways to coun­ter­act it. …

With these 12 pol­icy rec­om­men­da­tions, some of which have sev­eral parts, we con­clude the pre­sen­ta­tion of cer­tain edu­ca­tional impli­ca­tions that have grown out of SMPY’s decade of work with many thou­sands of boys and girls who, iden­ti­fied when most of them were 12-year-old sev­en­th-graders, rea­soned extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Stu­dents such as these form the major basis for our coun­try’s sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal future. We can and must help them use their abil­i­ties far bet­ter than is per­mit­ted at pre­sent. Oth­er­wise, the United States is likely to fall far behind the Soviet Union and sev­eral other coun­tries in sci­en­tific research and tech­no­log­i­cal devel­op­ment…

Academic Precocity, Benbow & Stanley 1983a

Aca­d­e­mic Pre­coc­i­ty: Aspects of its Devel­op­ment, ed Ben­bow & Stan­ley et al 1983 (ISBN 0801829909): anthol­o­gy.

  1. “Intro­duc­tion”, Julian C. Stan­ley

  2. “Ado­les­cence of the Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious: A Five-Year Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow

    SMPY’s first set of lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings are strong indi­ca­tors that SMPY’s iden­ti­fi­ca­tion mea­sure is effec­tive in select­ing stu­dents in the sev­enth grade who achieve at a supe­rior level in high school, espe­cially in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. Ques­tion­naire data obtained from 1,996 stu­dents who as sev­en­th- or eighth-graders had scored bet­ter on the SAT than a ran­dom sam­ple of eleven­th- and twelfth-grade females were ana­lyzed. Rel­a­tive to the com­par­i­son groups SMPY stu­dents were supe­rior in both abil­ity and achieve­ment, expressed stronger inter­est in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ences, were accel­er­ated more fre­quent­ly, and were more highly moti­vated edu­ca­tion­al­ly, as indi­cated by their desire for advanced degrees from diffi­cult schools. Sex differ­ences were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, per­for­mance on the SAT-M, and the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment tests. The major­ity of the stu­dents felt that SMPY had helped them edu­ca­tion­ally while not detract­ing from their social and emo­tional devel­op­ment. The SAT-M score of an intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented sev­en­th- or eighth-grader has much pre­dic­tive valid­i­ty.

  3. “Man­i­fes­ta­tion of Cre­ative Behav­iors by Matur­ing Par­tic­i­pants in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, William B. Michael:

    The cre­ative per­for­mance of math­e­mat­i­cally apt ado­les­cents was inves­ti­gat­ed. In order to pro­vide a frame­work for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and eval­u­a­tion of the pre­dic­tors of cre­ative behav­ior reported by SMPY stu­dents, two empir­i­cal stud­ies based on SMPY data were reviewed briefly. A sum­mary of the sta­tis­ti­cal results of the first three tal­ent searches and of the fol­low-up showed that SAT-M score is neg­a­tively related to par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence fairs for girls and pos­i­tively related to par­tic­i­pa­tion in math­e­mat­ics con­tests for boys. Major atten­tion was given to the prob­lems encoun­tered in ana­lyz­ing these stud­ies. The ambi­gu­ity and incon­clu­sive­ness of the results were attrib­uted to sub­stan­tive lim­i­ta­tions asso­ci­ated with the con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of cre­ativ­i­ty, the oper­a­tional­iza­tion of the con­struct, and the nature of the learn­ing envi­ron­ment. Method­olog­i­cal diffi­cul­ties occur­ring in rela­tion to the unre­li­a­bil­ity of the mea­sures, the restricted abil­ity range, and the vio­la­tion of assump­tions cen­tral to the sta­tis­ti­cal pro­ce­dures used were iden­ti­fied. In con­clu­sion, sev­eral rec­om­men­da­tions for future inves­ti­ga­tions were offered.

  4. “Math­e­mat­ics Taught at a Fast Pace: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Eval­u­a­tion of SMPY’s First Class”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow, Susan Perkins, and Julian C. Stan­ley:

    Fast-paced classes have been advo­cated in SMPY’s pro­pos­als for cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­i­ty. To eval­u­ate the long-term effects of such a class, the responses to two ques­tion­naires com­pleted nine years later by both the par­tic­i­pants and the non­par­tic­i­pants of SMPY’s first two math­e­mat­ics classes were ana­lyzed. The par­tic­i­pants scored sig­nifi­cantly higher in high school on the SAT-M, expressed greater inter­est in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, and accel­er­ated their edu­ca­tion much more than the non­par­tic­i­pants. Gaps in knowl­edge of math­e­mat­ics by the par­tic­i­pants were not found. All groups attended selec­tive col­leges, but the stu­dents who com­pleted the fast-paced class chose the most aca­d­e­m­i­cally diffi­cult. It is con­cluded that when highly able youths are pre­sented the oppor­tu­ni­ty, many of them will accu­mu­late edu­ca­tional advan­tage.

  5. “Fast-Paced Math­e­mat­ics Classes for a Rural County”, John F. Lun­ny:

    A fast-paced math­e­mat­ics pro­gram adapted from the SMPY model was devel­oped to meet the needs of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents in a rural coun­ty. After meet­ing screen­ing require­ments, eighth-grade stu­dents are selected on the basis of PSAT scores. Com­bin­ing enrich­ment and accel­er­a­tion, the pro­gram offers weekly two hour evening classes in math­e­mat­ics to stu­dents who take related classes dur­ing the day. The entire pre­cal­cu­lus sequence as well as com­puter sci­ence can be com­pleted at the end of three years in this pro­gram. Cal­cu­lus can then be pur­sued for col­lege cred­it, free of charge, at the local com­mu­nity col­lege. The use of pre- and post-tests with appro­pri­ate review ses­sions enables the stu­dents’ progress to be mon­i­tored close­ly. Approx­i­mately 25% of each year’s ini­tial pro­gram enroll­ment com­pletes the three­-year pro­gram, through com­puter sci­ence. Thus SMPY’s model works fairly effec­tively even when the num­ber of stu­dents is small.

  6. “Help­ing Youths Score Well on AP Exam­i­na­tions in Physics, Chem­istry, and Cal­cu­lus”, Karen Mezyn­ski, Julian C. Stan­ley, and Richard F. McCoart

    Spe­cial sup­ple­men­tary courses in physics, chem­istry, and cal­cu­lus were devel­oped to pre­pare math­e­mat­i­cally apt high­-school stu­dents for the AP exam­i­na­tions in those areas. The cours­es, texts, and instruc­tional approaches are described. Over­all, SMPY stu­dents who remained in the classes through­out the year scored as high as or higher than the aver­age highly able stu­dent tak­ing the exam­i­na­tion; most scored well enough to qual­ify for col­lege cred­it. The stu­dents for whom the AP-level classes proved most ben­e­fi­cial were young, ori­ented toward careers in sci­ence or math­e­mat­ics, aca­d­e­m­i­cally moti­vat­ed, and highly able math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Sev­eral spe­cific rec­om­men­da­tions for improv­ing future courses of this type are offered.

  7. “An Accel­er­ated Math­e­mat­ics Pro­gram for Girls: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Eval­u­a­tion”, Lynn H. Fox, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow, and Susan Perkins

    Mod­er­ately gifted sev­en­th-grade girls were invited to attend a fast-paced sum­mer class in alge­bra I that pro­vided for the spe­cial needs of girls. In addi­tion to empha­siz­ing alge­bra, the pro­gram catered to the social needs of girls, pro­vided inter­ac­tion with female role mod­els who had careers in the math­e­mat­i­cal sci­ences, and encour­aged the girls to study a num­ber of years of math­e­mat­ics. Two con­trol groups, one of boys and one of girls, sim­i­lar in abil­ity and parental vari­ables, were cho­sen. Seven years after the class, its long-term effects were inves­ti­gated by ana­lyz­ing the group’s responses to two ques­tion­naires. Girls who com­pleted the pro­gram suc­cess­fully (i.e., were placed in alge­bra II the fol­low­ing fall) were more accel­er­ated and took more math­e­mat­ics courses in high school and col­lege. Those were, how­ev­er, the only major differ­ences between the girls who con­sti­tuted the exper­i­men­tal group and the two con­trol groups. No such effects were found for the girls who attended the class but were not suc­cess­ful in it. There were no major differ­ences in edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences, edu­ca­tional aspi­ra­tions, or career goals. Girls per­ceived the lack of role mod­els as the great­est bar­rier women face when con­tem­plat­ing a career in math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence. Boys, how­ev­er, felt that for women the diffi­culty of com­bin­ing career and fam­ily respon­si­bil­i­ties was the great­est bar­ri­er. It is con­cluded that in order for girls to receive the long-term ben­e­fits of an early inter­ven­tion pro­gram, they must com­plete the pro­gram suc­cess­fully and also be math­e­mat­i­cally abler than most of these girls were.

  8. “A Case for Rad­i­cal Accel­er­a­tion: Pro­grams of the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton”, Hal­bert B. Robin­son:

    Com­mon argu­ments for and against accel­er­ated pac­ing are pre­sent­ed. The con­clu­sion is reached that edu­ca­tional pro­grams must be adapted to fit the needs of the intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dent. SMPY at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the Child Devel­op­ment Research Group at the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, both of which espouse cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity and empha­size rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion, are described and exem­pli­fied by indi­vid­ual case stud­ies. The descrip­tion of the Wash­ing­ton pro­gram stresses the Rad­i­cal Accel­er­a­tion Group of the Early Entrance Pro­gram (EEP). This aspect of the pro­gram involves early entrance to the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton for those stu­dents 14 years old and under, not yet in the tenth grade, who score bet­ter than col­lege fresh­men on the Wash­ing­ton Pre-Col­lege Test. Pro­vid­ing a struc­tured sup­port sys­tem, the pro­gram aids in the tran­si­tion from junior-high to col­lege-level work. Although some prob­lems have been encoun­tered, over­all the stu­dents have made sat­is­fac­tory aca­d­e­mic and social progress in col­lege.

  9. “The Effects of Accel­er­a­tion on the Social and Emo­tional Devel­op­ment of Gifted Stu­dents”, Lynn Daggett Pollins:

    From the two per­spec­tives of a lit­er­a­ture review and a lon­gi­tu­di­nal com­par­i­son of accel­er­ants and nonac­cel­er­ants, an exam­i­na­tion of the poten­tial effects of accel­er­a­tion on the social and emo­tional devel­op­ment of gifted stu­dents revealed no iden­ti­fi­able neg­a­tive effects. The lit­er­a­ture review dis­cusses sev­eral major stud­ies with respect to issues cen­tral to the prob­lem: the differ­en­tial effects of vary­ing meth­ods of accel­er­a­tion, the defi­n­i­tion of the “social and emo­tional devel­op­ment” con­struct, and’ the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of appro­pri­ate ref­er­ence groups. The lon­gi­tu­di­nal com­par­i­son presents the results of a study of twen­ty-one male rad­i­cal accel­er­ants and twen­ty-one nonac­cel­er­ants matched on age and abil­ity at the time of the tal­ent search. A com­par­i­son on sev­eral vari­ables revealed that the two groups were very sim­i­lar at age 13. Five years lat­er, how­ev­er, differ­ences favor­ing the accel­er­ants were found in edu­ca­tional aspi­ra­tions and in the per­ceived use of edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties, amount of help they reported hav­ing received from SMPY, and their eval­u­a­tion of SMPY’s influ­ence on their social and emo­tional devel­op­ment.

  10. “Statewide Repli­ca­tion in Illi­nois of the Johns Hop­kins Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Joyce Van Tas­sel-Baska:

    After the suc­cess­ful pilot test­ing of a pro­gram mod­eled after the SMPY approach, Illi­nois began in 1978 a statewide math­e­mat­ics search using as a Selec­tion cri­te­rion for edu­ca­tional facil­i­ta­tion a score of 420 or bet­ter on the School and Col­lege Abil­ity Test-Math­e­mat­ics. Spe­cial fast-paced math­e­mat­ics classes were estab­lished in areas where there were enough high scor­ers. Although these classes var­ied in num­ber of stu­dents and amount of mate­r­ial cov­ered, a large per­cent­age of their par­tic­i­pants com­pleted the pro­gram suc­cess­ful­ly. Because of this suc­cess a ver­bal pro­gram was begun in 1979. Fol­low­ing brief descrip­tions of the ver­bal and math­e­mat­ics class­es, sev­eral prob­lems and con­cerns encoun­tered in the func­tion­ing of the classes are pre­sent­ed. The author con­cludes with the pos­i­tive impli­ca­tions of such a pro­gram.

  11. “Eclec­ti­cism: A Com­pre­hen­sive Approach to Edu­ca­tion of the Gifted”, John F. Feld­husen:

    The argu­ment is advanced that an eclec­tic, or inte­gra­tive, approach, uti­liz­ing all pos­si­ble resources, is most appro­pri­ate for meet­ing the needs of gifted stu­dents. Char­ac­ter­is­tics of the inte­gra­tive approach and descrip­tions of classes uti­liz­ing it are pro­vid­ed. The Pro­gram for Aca­d­e­mic and Cre­ative Enrich­ment (PACE) and the Indi­vid­ual Edu­ca­tional Pro­gram for the Gifted (IEPG), both based on the author’s three­-stage model for edu­cat­ing the gift­ed, are pre­sent­ed. The author con­cludes that since “gift­ed, cre­ative, tal­ent­ed, and high­-a­bil­ity stu­dents have diverse needs, they should have indi­vid­ual coun­sel­ing and guid­ance.”

  12. “An Eight-Year Eval­u­a­tion of SMPY: What Was Learned?”, Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow and Julian C. Stan­ley

Benbow & Stanley 1983b

“Sex Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing: More Facts”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983b:

Almost 40,000 selected sev­en­th-grade stu­dents from the Mid­dle Atlantic region of the United States took the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test as part of the Johns Hop­kins regional tal­ent search in 1980, 1981, and 1982. A sep­a­rate nation­wide tal­ent search was con­ducted in which any stu­dent under age 13 who was will­ing to take the test was eli­gi­ble. The results obtained by both pro­ce­dures estab­lish that by age 13 a large sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity exists and that it is espe­cially pro­nounced at the high end of the dis­tri­b­u­tion: among stu­dents who scored greater than or equal to 700, boys out­num­bered girls 13 to 1. Some hypoth­e­sized expla­na­tions of such differ­ences were not sup­ported by the data.

Benbow & Stanley 1983c

“Con­struct­ing Edu­ca­tional Bridges Between High School and Col­lege”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983c:

For many intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, high school is period of mark­ing time. The courses are not chal­leng­ing enough and the pace of instruc­tion is slow. As a con­se­quence, some lose inter­est in edu­ca­tion and/or develop poor study skills. For those who are eager and well moti­vated to fur­ther their edu­ca­tional devel­op­ment there are sev­eral ways to cir­cum­vent this sit­u­a­tion. Derived while work­ing for more than a dozen years with the thou­sands of gifted stu­dents in regional tal­ent searches con­ducted by The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, the mech­a­nisms basi­cally involve the con­cept of enter­ing col­lege early and/or with advanced stand­ing.

We shall out­line var­i­ous options the staffs of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and the Cen­ter for the Advance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth (CTY) (the lat­ter now con­ducts the tal­ent searches and the asso­ci­ated edu­ca­tional pro­grams) present to those stu­dents who express a desire for more rapid edu­ca­tional growth. Exten­sive expe­ri­ence has shown how suc­cess­ful SMPY’s approach has been for many stu­dents in a vari­ety of set­tings (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1983; Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1982 a, b; 1983 a, b). The main attrac­tion of these alter­na­tives is that they are extremely flex­i­ble. Each stu­dent can choose and adapt them in ways best suited to their indi­vid­ual abil­i­ty, needs, and inter­ests.

  1. The alter­na­tive least unset­tling for many stu­dents is to take as many stim­u­lat­ing high school courses as pos­si­ble, yet enough oth­ers to ensure high school grad­u­a­tion. At the same time, he or she takes one or two col­lege courses a semes­ter from a local insti­tu­tion on released time from school, at night or dur­ing sum­mers. …
  2. In lieu of the above option, or in addi­tion to it, the bright stu­dent may also try to receive col­lege credit for high school course-work through exam­i­na­tion. …
  3. Take cor­re­spon­dence courses at the high school or col­lege level from a major uni­ver­si­ty, such as Wis­con­sin or Cal­i­for­nia. …
  4. The mech­a­nism of choice for many gifted stu­dents is sub­jec­t-mat­ter accel­er­a­tion. …
  5. Con­dense grades 9–12 into three years, thereby grad­u­at­ing from high school a year ear­ly. …
  6. Attend an early entrance col­lege or pro­gram in lieu of high school. …
  7. Enter col­lege at the end of the tenth or eleventh grade with­out the high school diplo­ma. …

[2 short case stud­ies]

Benbow & Stanley 1983d

“Open­ing Doors for the Gifted”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1983d; abstract/summary from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Objec­tive: To make a case for pro­vid­ing a flex­i­ble cur­ricu­lum for gifted stu­dents.

Design: A review of research lit­er­a­ture regard­ing the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Set­ting: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Assess­ment of Vari­ables: Research arti­cles were reviewed for evi­dence regard­ing iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and char­ac­ter­is­tics of gifted stu­dents, edu­ca­tional options for the gift­ed, and accel­er­a­tion.

Main Results: The authors begin by out­lin­ing a case for a flex­i­ble cur­ricu­lum based on devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gy. They ascribe to the beliefs that learn­ing is a sequen­tial and devel­op­men­tal process; there are large differ­ences in learn­ing sta­tus among indi­vid­u­als; effec­tive teach­ing involves assess­ing stu­dents’ sta­tus in the learn­ing process and pos­ing prob­lems that slightly exceed their level of mas­tery. These prin­ci­ples are seen to have impor­tant impli­ca­tions for teach­ers of gifted stu­dents. It is par­tic­u­larly impor­tant to address issues con­cern­ing access to an appro­pri­ately chal­leng­ing cur­ricu­lum. It is argued that it is impos­si­ble for highly gifted chil­dren to access such a cur­ricu­lum in the reg­u­lar class­room.

Before a cur­ricu­lum can be adapted to bet­ter suit gifted chil­dren, issues of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and char­ac­ter­i­sa­tion should be addressed. Gifted stu­dents need to be iden­ti­fied in a sys­tem­atic man­ner. Research shows that teacher rec­om­men­da­tion is ineffec­tive for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion. SMPY has devel­oped the Tal­ent Search method for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of stu­dents with out­stand­ing math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Stu­dents in 7th and 8th grades take the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT), math­e­mat­ics and ver­bal sec­tions. This is a test designed for stu­dents in 11th and 12th grades. Younger stu­dents who do well on this test have already devel­oped apti­tudes in line with stu­dents who are up to five years old­er.

Stu­dents iden­ti­fied by SMPY as pos­sess­ing pre­co­cious math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity are invited to take fur­ther test­ing in an effort to iden­tify char­ac­ter­is­tics need­ing to be addressed by edu­ca­tion pro­grams. These stu­dents have been found to be advanced not only in math­e­mat­ics but also in spe­cific abil­ity areas and in their knowl­edge of sci­ence. They are gen­er­ally more inter-per­son­ally effec­tive and socially mature than their non-gifted peers. They tend to pre­fer inves­tiga­tive careers. These stu­dents tend to come from larger than aver­age fam­i­lies with well-e­d­u­cated par­ents. SAT scores have been found to relate pos­i­tively to par­ents’ edu­ca­tional level and fathers’ occu­pa­tional sta­tus, but not to the num­ber of sib­lings in the fam­ily or sib­ling posi­tion.

Once stu­dents have been iden­ti­fied and their char­ac­ter­is­tics not­ed, an appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tional pro­gram can be devised. SMPY has found that the best method for doing this is to offer stu­dents a large choice of accel­er­a­tive options from which they can choose. These include grade-skip­ping, grad­u­at­ing early from high school, enter­ing courses a year or more ear­ly, com­plet­ing two or more years of a sub­ject in one year, being tutored, tak­ing col­lege courses on a part-time basis while still enrolled at school, and earn­ing col­lege credit through exam­i­na­tion cours­es.

The staff at SMPY work with schools to imple­ment the cho­sen options. There is no attempt to change pro­gram­ming at schools, as this would take too long. If a school is will­ing to be flex­i­ble each stu­dent can be catered for within the pre-ex­ist­ing struc­tures. It is sug­gested that most schools tend not to be flex­i­ble enough in their approach to the teach­ing of excep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents. The best sce­nario would be a school that is flex­i­ble about place­ment, allow­ing a stu­dent of any age to progress to higher grades as their abil­ity devel­ops. The authors illus­trate this process by pre­sent­ing a case of a stu­dent for whom options led to rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion and early entry to uni­ver­si­ty.

Researchers at SMPY have found that options allow­ing for edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion are best for address­ing the needs of highly gifted chil­dren. The authors quote a num­ber of stud­ies that show no detri­men­tal effect of accel­er­a­tion on a stu­den­t’s social and emo­tional devel­op­ment.

Con­clu­sion: Aca­d­e­m­i­cally advanced stu­dents need to be iden­ti­fied in a sys­tem­atic man­ner. The Tal­ent Search process devel­oped by SMPY illus­trates how iden­ti­fi­ca­tion might take place. Char­ac­ter­is­tics of each gifted child need to be doc­u­mented and this requires fur­ther assess­ment. Once this process has been car­ried out, a plan can be for­mu­lat­ed, based on pre-ex­ist­ing school frame­works, to meet the needs of highly gifted chil­dren. Schools need to allow for cur­ricu­lum flex­i­bil­ity rather than chang­ing stan­dard learn­ing pro­grams. Options that allow for rad­i­cal edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion work best for excep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents.

Com­men­tary: This arti­cle doc­u­ments the process of tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment as under­taken at SMPY. Insight is gained into the the­ory guid­ing this process, along with research find­ings that have informed pro­gram change. As such, this arti­cle is valu­able for the guid­ance it can offer oth­ers who are involved in coor­di­nat­ing edu­ca­tion for gifted stu­dents.

Benbow et al 1983a

“Struc­ture of intel­li­gence in intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren and in their par­ents”, Ben­bow et al 1983a:

Stu­dents rep­re­sent­ing the top 0.03% of their age group in intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, who were iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980), were tested along with their par­ents using a bat­tery of specifi­cally designed cog­ni­tive tests. These highly intel­li­gent chil­dren had less intel­li­gent, but yet quite bright par­ents. Ver­non’s (1961) model of intel­li­gence best fits our results. His fol­low­ing two fac­tors explained most of the vari­ance in the per­for­mance of the stu­dents and par­ents: ver­bal-e­d­u­ca­tional and prac­ti­cal-s­pa­tial-me­chan­i­cal. More­over, there was poten­tial evi­dence for a gen­eral fac­tor. Among the chil­dren, who were mostly past puber­ty, age related to devel­op­ment of ver­bal abil­i­ties, but not spa­tial or mechan­i­cal abil­i­ties. Sex differ­ences favor­ing the males were found on the spa­tial abil­ity and mechan­i­cal com­pre­hen­sion tests.

Benbow et al 1983b

“Assor­ta­tive mar­riage and the famil­ial­ity of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties in fam­i­lies of extremely gifted stu­dents”, Ben­bow et al 1983b:

The top 1% of the extremely bright stu­dents iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1980b) were tested along with their par­ents, using a bat­tery of specifi­cally designed cog­ni­tive tests. These stu­dents rep­re­sented the top 0.03% of their age group in intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty. The results showed that the par­ents were extremely able and resem­bled one another sig­nifi­cantly more than par­ents in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion. In addi­tion, the intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren resem­bled their par­ents to a lesser extent than chil­dren of aver­age abil­ity resem­ble their par­ents. These results sug­gest that con­sid­er­able assor­ta­tive mat­ing has occurred among the par­ents of these extremely gifted youth, but that extreme gift­ed­ness can­not be pre­dicted reli­ably solely as a result of the mat­ing of bright par­ents.

Vining 1985

“Famil­ial­ity esti­mates from restricted sam­ples”, Vin­ing 1985:

In a recent paper here, Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley (1983) report that the coeffi­cient of regres­sion of off­spring IQ on parental IQ is much lower among the gifted than in the pop­u­la­tion at large. Thus, Ben­bow, Stan­ley, Kirk, and Zon­der­man con­clude in a sec­ond paper, the gifted resem­ble their par­ents less than do peo­ple in gen­er­al. In this paper, I show that this result is an arti­fact of the par­tic­u­lar esti­ma­tor of the regres­sion coeffi­cient employed by Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley. The least­-squares esti­ma­tor, which they employ, is severely biased down­ward, if the sam­ple on the depen­dent vari­able is restricted to the upper tail of the dis­tri­b­u­tion, and this is pre­cisely the nature of Ben­bow et al.’s sam­ple. That is to say, in a bivari­ate nor­mal dis­tri­b­u­tion with con­stant regres­sion coeffi­cient, sam­ples restricted to val­ues of the depen­dent vari­able (here, child’s IQ) above a cer­tain value will always pro­duce a lower regres­sion coeffi­cient than unre­stricted sam­ples drawn from the entire but same dis­tri­b­u­tion. I intro­duce an unbi­ased esti­ma­tor that can be cal­cu­lated from the sam­ple sta­tis­tics reported in the Ben­bow, Zon­der­man, and Stan­ley arti­cle and find that the coeffi­cient of regres­sion of gifted child’s IQ on parental IQ is, in fact, higher than the regres­sion coeffi­cients reported in the lit­er­a­ture for unre­stricted sam­ples. That is, Ben­bow et al.’s data sug­gest that the gifted in fact resem­ble their par­ents more than do per­sons in gen­er­al.

Gleser 1985

“Assess­ing Famil­ial­ity of Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity”, Gleser 1985:

In a recent paper in this jour­nal, Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley (1983) con­clude that intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious chil­dren resem­ble their par­ents to a lesser extent than do chil­dren of lesser abil­i­ty. In reply, Vin­ing (1985) asserts that Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley’s results are arti­facts of selec­tion and their sta­tis­ti­cal method­ol­o­gy, and that a more appro­pri­ate sta­tis­ti­cal method­ol­ogy yields quite the oppo­site con­clu­sion. The present paper has two pur­pos­es: (1) to show that Vin­ing’s crit­i­cism is mis­di­rect­ed, stem­ming from a mis­un­der­stand­ing of how Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley selected their Sub­jects, and (2) to point out some prob­lems in the mod­el, indices of famil­ial­ity and design used by Ben­bow, Zon­der­man and Stan­ley which need to be addressed before future com­par­a­tive stud­ies of famil­ial­ity are attempt­ed.

Stanley 1983

“Edu­ca­tion in the Fast Lane: Method­olog­i­cal Prob­lems of Eval­u­at­ing Its Effects”, Stan­ley 1983:

…be­cause of my work since 1971 with youths who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cally I face no dearth of eval­u­a­tion prob­lems. In his lon­gi­tu­di­nal, one-co­hort gift­ed-child research that began in 1921, the late Lewis M. Ter­man of Stan­ford Uni­ver­sity had plenty of trou­ble con­vinc­ing armies of doubt­ing Thomases that his high­-IQ sub­jects were as suc­cess­ful and free of emo­tional prob­lems as they seemed to be. His was meant to be purely a study of the intel­li­gent human ani­mal in its native habi­tat, with­out inter­ven­tion on their behalf.’ Our Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), which began 50 years lat­er, was intended from the start to exert pow­er­ful aca­d­e­m­i­cally accel­er­a­tive forces on intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young stu­dents to help them pur­sue their edu­ca­tions far faster and bet­ter than is usu­ally per­mit­ted in the reg­u­lar class­room. Of course, the word “bet­ter” plunged us into the area of value judg­ments right away.

Stanley 1983b

“New Pro­jects: Seek­ing Youths Who Rea­son Extremely Well Math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley & Whit­man 1983: adver­tise­ment for SMPY tal­ent search.

Stanley & Benbow 1983a

“Extremely young col­lege grad­u­ates: Evi­dence of their suc­cess”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1983a:

Place­ment accord­ing to the indi­vid­u­al’s level of com­pe­tence is a prin­ci­ple widely accepted in many domains, such as music or ath­let­ics. With regard to aca­d­e­mic endeav­ors, how­ev­er, there exist strong prej­u­dices against edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion even though a solid research base sup­ports the prac­tice (e.g., Stan­ley, 1974; Solano and George, 1976; Eisen­berg and George, 1979; George, Cohn, and Stan­ley, 1979; Mer­cu­rio, 1980; Ben­bow and Stan­ley, In press). Show­ing that edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion does usu­ally result in highly effec­tive indi­vid­u­als could per­haps ease fears about the use of accel­er­a­tion and open col­lege doors to young and able stu­dents. Study­ing the later suc­cess of young grad­u­ates from col­lege would pro­vide impor­tant data.

Results: …It is clear from Table I that the early grad­u­ates expe­ri­enced suc­cess at Hop­kins. Of the 31 for whom hon­ors records were avail­able, 20 (65 per cent) grad­u­ated with hon­ors, 11 with mem­ber­ship in Phi Beta Kap­pa, and 4 with NSF grad­u­ate schol­ar­ships (most of the 31 were not tech­ni­cally eli­gi­ble for this award). One young lady became a Rhodes scholar and one young man a Churchill schol­ar. Inspec­tion of Table I will also show that the early grad­u­ates earned mem­ber­ship in var­i­ous other honor soci­eties and won other fel­low­ships. Clear­ly, suc­cess at the under­grad­u­ate level by these early grad­u­ates was quite remark­able.

But how suc­cess­ful are these “rad­i­cal accel­er­ants” likely to become, pro­fes­sion­ally and per­son­al­ly? Clues to this can be gleaned from the known records of the 12 old­est of the 32 per­sons listed in Table I. For exam­ple, Hask­ins, fourth in the table, Ph.D. degree at age 19, had a dis­tin­guished career as both a medieval his­to­rian and the dean of the Grad­u­ate School of Arts and Sci­ences at Har­vard. No. 6, Stern­berg, became a pro­fes­sor of math­e­mat­ics at Har­vard by age 30. He is the author of a widely known book on celes­tial mechan­ics and also a noted Torah schol­ar. Eagle is a promi­nent biol­o­gist, widely known for devel­op­ing the Eagle medi­um. Dry­den was an emi­nent physi­cist. Kur­relmeyer had a long career as a pro­fes­sor of physics. Schaffer, who com­pleted his M.D. degree at age 21, was well known in pedi­atrics. Fax, Wasser­man (M.D. at age 22, and still prac­tic­ing at 83), Raffel, Thom­sen, Zafren, and Birx (Ph.D. degree at age 23) have all done well. There are no hints of “early ripe, early rot.” It is appar­ent that these early grad­u­ates have led or are still lead­ing highly effec­tive adult lives.

…In this paper we show that stu­dents who have used var­i­ous com­bi­na­tions of enter­ing col­lege early and forg­ing ahead fast in the cur­ricu­lum have led or are lead­ing highly effec­tive lives. Par­ents and edu­ca­tors should have less fear when attempt­ing to accel­er­ate a child. Col­lege admin­is­tra­tors would be well advised to open their doors to young, but extremely able, stu­dents. Col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties that pro­vide appro­pri­ate sup­port sys­tems for intel­lec­tu­ally highly tal­ent­ed, well-mo­ti­vated stu­dents eager to study ful­l-time, often before earn­ing a high­-school diplo­ma, are likely to mine a rich vein of tal­ent in the years ahead.

Stanley & Benbow 1983b

SMPY’s first decade: Ten years of pos­ing prob­lems and solv­ing them”, Stan­ley & Ben­bow 1983b:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) began in 1971 with the pur­pose of devis­ing ways of iden­ti­fy­ing and facil­i­tat­ing the edu­ca­tion of such stu­dents. The solu­tions and their lon­gi­tu­di­nal eval­u­a­tion are described. Use of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT) was shown to be an effec­tive way of iden­ti­fy­ing stu­dents in the 7th grade who would achieve aca­d­e­m­i­cally at a supe­rior level in high school. More­over, accel­er­a­tion was deemed an effec­tive alter­na­tive for edu­cat­ing gifted chil­dren. Cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity rather than spe­cial pro­grams for the gifted has proved the most effec­tive way to facil­i­tate the edu­ca­tion of pre­co­cious stu­dents. For the math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious, SMPY devised fast-paced math­e­mat­ics class­es. These were shown to have long-term effects. SMPY has also dis­cov­ered large sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity and in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ments in high school.

Stanley & Durden 1983

“Sup­ple­men­tal Teach­ers of Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Stan­ley & Dur­den 1983

Tursman 1983

“Chal­leng­ing Gifted Stu­dents”, Turs­man 1983, School Admin­is­tra­tor, v40 n1 p9 (1983-01-12): TODO

Start­ing on the cov­er, this arti­cle describes pro­grams devel­oped by Julian Stan­ley’s Study for Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity (Mary­land) for the early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and accel­er­ated train­ing of math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally gifted stu­dents. Also dis­cussed are SMPY spin­off pro­grams and the short­age of math and sci­ence teach­ers.

Benbow & Benbow 1984

“Bio­log­i­cal Cor­re­lates of High Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity”, Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has gath­ered exten­sive data show­ing that large sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity which favor males, exist before age 13. In this paper we eval­u­ate some of the major “envi­ron­men­tal” hypothe­ses that have been pro­posed to account for this differ­ence. We will con­clude that these “envi­ron­men­tal” hypothe­ses need to be refor­mu­lated in order to account for the find­ings with our pop­u­la­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youths. While it is pos­si­ble to adapt these exclu­sively envi­ron­men­tal hypothe­ses to fit our data, we pro­pose to take an alter­na­tive approach, which involves both envi­ron­men­tal and bio­log­i­cal causes for the observed sex differ­ence. …We now wish to pro­pose that a com­bi­na­tion of exoge­nous and endoge­nous fac­tors also deter­mines the sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. In sup­port of this hypoth­e­sis we present some new find­ings on pos­si­ble bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of extremely high math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ties.

[re­view of greater male vari­ance, imbal­ance in SAT-M scores at increas­ing thresh­olds; dis­cus­sion of how math courses can­not cause the sex differ­ence, social­iza­tion pres­sures hypoth­e­sis is con­tra­dicted by sim­i­lar favor­able atti­tudes in SMPY par­tic­i­pants and lack of math anx­i­ety, min­i­mal differ­ence in fam­ily back­grounds, sta­bil­ity of the SAT-M imbal­ance; pos­si­bil­i­ties: sex-linked genes, lat­er­al­iza­tion, hor­mones; phys­i­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates in SMPY include dou­bled rates of left-handedness/ambidexterity with ele­vated rate in rel­a­tives, allergies, nearsighted/glasses, but no blood­-group cor­re­lates. Ben­bow & Ben­bow pro­pose a model in which higher fetal testos­terone lev­els retard left­-hemi­sphere growth, lead­ing to less lat­er­al­iza­tion and more depen­dency on right-brain-con­nected visu­ospa­tial cog­ni­tion, and ulti­mately more math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty.]

[See also “Spa­tial Abil­ity and Testos­terone”, Gowan 1984.]

Benbow & Stanley 1984

“Gen­der and the sci­ence major: a study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1984; in Advances in Moti­va­tion and Achieve­ment: Women in Sci­ence, ed Steinkamp & Maehr 1984 (ISBN 0892322888): TODO

Holmes et al 1984

“Colin Camer­er: The early years of a rad­i­cal edu­ca­tional accel­er­ant”, Holmes et al 1984 (see also Time 1977); summary/commentary from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Objec­tive: To present an instance of rad­i­cal edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion.

Design: Case study.

Set­ting: Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Par­tic­i­pant: Colin Far­rell Camerer

Assess­ment of Vari­ables: The par­tic­i­pant and his moth­er, Mary Far­rell Camerer were inter­viewed and stu­dent records at SMPY were accessed to reveal details about Colin Far­rell Camer­er. Infor­ma­tion was pre­sented on his early life, col­lege and grad­u­ate years, and his views on accel­er­a­tion.

Main Results: Colin was an unusu­ally quiet child but oth­er­wise had a nor­mal child­hood. His par­ents were unaware of any signs of pre­coc­ity until the age of 5, when he was found to be read­ing TIME mag­a­zine. His par­ents do not know when he began to read and Colin can­not remem­ber ever learn­ing to read. Colin began school at the usual age. His kinder­garten teacher thought him very intel­li­gent and arranged for him to be assessed by the school psy­chol­o­gist. He was found to be unusu­ally bright and the school allowed him to work ahead of his age peers. He was com­plet­ing fourth and fifth grade work in sec­ond grade.

After the sec­ond grade, Colin moved with his fam­ily to Bal­ti­more. His school referred him to Mr Ray­mond Trim­mer, the edu­ca­tional direc­tor of the Mary­land Acad­emy of Sci­ences, in the hope that he could help Colin to access cur­ricu­lum appro­pri­ate for his age and abil­i­ty. Mr Trim­mer, in turn, intro­duced Colin and his par­ents to Dr Julian Stan­ley, a researcher at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity with a spe­cial inter­est in gifted chil­dren. Dr Stan­ley assessed Col­in’s capa­bil­i­ties using achieve­ment tests designed for older stu­dents as well as tests of abil­i­ty. At the age of 11 years Colin was found to have a Stan­ford-Bi­net IQ of 160. At age 13 he scored 750 out of a pos­si­ble 800 on the Scholas­tic Apti­tude 95Test-Math­e­mat­ics (SAT-M) and 610 out of 800 on the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test-Ver­bal (SAT-V) (cor­re­spond­ing to the 99th and 93rd per­centiles, respec­tive­ly, for col­lege-bound 12th-grade males).

Colin pro­ceeded to accel­er­ate his edu­ca­tion, under the guid­ance of Dr Julian Stan­ley. He moved from sixth grade in ele­men­tary school to the eighth grade in junior high. He fin­ished stud­ies in pre-cal­cu­lus in 120 hours at Sat­ur­day morn­ing ‘speed­ed-math’ class. He also took an intro­duc­tory com­puter course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Colin then skipped the last year of junior high and the first year of senior high. He took Advanced Place­ment (AP) cal­cu­lus at school, worked through AP physics on his own, and attended Tow­son Uni­ver­sity at night. His AP scores were 5 out of 5 for Cal­cu­lus AB and 4 out of 5 for Physics B. Con­fi­dent that he could han­dle the advanced course­work, Colin applied for admis­sion to Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Colin entered uni­ver­sity at age 14 with 34 cred­its and sopho­more stand­ing. He grad­u­ated at the age of 17 years and 1 month and went on to attend the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago for its out­stand­ing Ph.D. pro­gram. Colin received his M.B.A. from the Uni­ver­sity of Chicago at age 19 and com­pleted his Ph.D. in Behav­ioural Deci­sion The­ory two years lat­er. While com­plet­ing his Ph.D., and at the age of 21, Colin accepted a posi­tion as an assis­tant pro­fes­sor of busi­ness pol­icy in the Kel­logg Grad­u­ate School of Man­age­ment at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. Dur­ing this time he had sev­eral arti­cles pub­lished in aca­d­e­mic jour­nals. At the time this arti­cle was writ­ten (1984) Colin was involved in numer­ous research projects and was teach­ing Mas­ter’s-level research sem­i­nars.

Colin holds pos­i­tive views of his expe­ri­ences of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion. He believes that, with­out accel­er­a­tion his life would be vastly differ­ent and he would prob­a­bly be employed in a low-level man­age­ment posi­tion. He has found social adjust­ment some­what diffi­cult all his life. He believes this is due to his nat­ural loner/introvert ten­den­cies and does not blame the accel­er­a­tion process. Colin feels that the options to rad­i­cally accel­er­ate which were made avail­able to him should be avail­able to many more chil­dren, although he con­cludes that accel­er­a­tion is not suit­able for all stu­dents. He sug­gests that it is par­tic­u­larly impor­tant for stu­dents to be emo­tion­ally sta­ble before accel­er­a­tion is con­sid­ered. He con­tributes the suc­cess of his accel­er­a­tion to the sup­port offered him by Dr Julian Stan­ley and oth­ers at SMPY, as well as encour­age­ment from his par­ents.

Con­clu­sion: A case is pre­sented of a highly suc­cess­ful, rad­i­cally accel­er­ated pro­tégé. Col­in’s case is a strong argu­ment in favour of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion. The authors name another three males who share sim­i­lar suc­cess sto­ries and make the point that Col­in’s accel­er­a­tion pro­gram is not an iso­lated instance. They sug­gest the need to fol­low up and report on other indi­vid­u­als who have rad­i­cally accel­er­ated their edu­ca­tion.

Com­men­tary: This detailed study of a sin­gle case of rad­i­cal edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion tracks one pos­si­ble path for accel­er­a­tion whilst reveal­ing that there are many accel­er­a­tion options avail­able. It allows for a real­i­sa­tion of the huge scope of accel­er­a­tive options, and blend of options from which stu­dents might be able to choose to accel­er­ate their edu­ca­tion. This case reveals fac­tors that were obvi­ously cru­cial for suc­cess­ful rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion. These fac­tors include the per­sonal char­ac­ter­is­tics of the stu­dent, includ­ing a desire to accel­er­ate and suc­ceed. Also impor­tant is the sup­port of cru­cial oth­ers, in this case edu­ca­tion­al­ists knowl­edge­able about accel­er­a­tion options and par­ents who pro­vide steady encour­age­ment.

Reynolds et al 1984

Writ­ing instruc­tion for ver­bally tal­ented youth: The Johns Hop­kins Model, Reynolds et al 1984:

The book by Ben Reynolds con­tains spe­cific les­son plans, stu­dent assign­ments, and cri­te­ria and sug­ges­tions for eval­u­a­tion of stu­dent work. The book con­tains the com­plete con­tent of the first writ­ing courses for ver­bally tal­ented youth designed by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in the early 1980’s. This course was designed orig­i­nally for 7th grade stu­dents who scored 430 or above on the ver­bal sec­tion of the SAT.

Wood & Bran­sky 1987 book review:

Writ­ing Instruc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth is differ­ent. Authors Reynolds, Kopelke, and Dur­den assume that highly ver­bal young­sters already have ideas and some expe­ri­ence in express­ing them in writ­ing. What they offer goes beyond this ele­men­tary level to the real work of writ­ing, cri­tique, and revi­sion. The book describes the method and exer­cises used in an intro­duc­tory writ­ing course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty’s Cen­ter for the Advance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth (CTY). While the method and exer­cises were devel­oped for use with ver­bally tal­ented youth, for whom they are espe­cially appro­pri­ate, they are also applic­a­ble to aver­age-a­bil­ity youth. A cen­tral fea­ture of the method is the work­shop in which stu­dents cri­tique and edit each oth­er’s work.

Writ­ing Instruc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth has 13 chap­ters, divided into sec­tions Excep­tional Chil­dren Frank H. Wood Depart­ment Edi­tor enti­tled “Prepar­ing to Write”, “Writ­ing”, and “Rewrit­ing”. Each chap­ter is a les­son with clearly stated objec­tives, notes for the teacher, exer­cis­es, exam­ples where appro­pri­ate, con­clud­ing com­ments and/or post-as­sign­ments, and ref­er­ences. As the authors state, the lessons need not be used in the order pre­sent­ed; rather, they will be most effec­tive when used in response to writ­ing ques­tions and prob­lems aris­ing in the work­shop ses­sions.

…Writ­ing Instruc­tion for Ver­bally Tal­ented Youth is not a primer. It assumes that the teacher has some sophis­ti­ca­tion in lit­er­ary analy­sis and in the writ­ing process. The value of the book is in its approach to the teach­ing of writ­ing, and the exer­cises and mate­ri­als that will enable the knowl­edge­able teacher to guide stu­dents through the writ­ing, cri­tique, and revi­sion process­es. It should be a wel­come source of ideas and direc­tion for the sec­ondary-level Eng­lish teacher or the fac­ulty spon­sor of a school lit­er­ary pub­li­ca­tion. It would also be a good addi­tion to an instruc­tional meth­ods course for Eng­lish majors who will teach writ­ing at the sec­ondary (in­clud­ing junior high) or col­lege level …

From the Pref­ace:

…The pro­grams devel­oped by CTY are dis­tinc­tive. In the pre­cal­cu­lus course, stu­dents com­plete high school math­e­mat­ics at a pace com­men­su­rate with their abil­i­ties. The ver­bal and sci­ence course­work can also be accel­er­a­tive; stu­dents may obtain col­lege credit through the Col­lege Board’s Advanced Place­ment Pro­gram exam­i­na­tions. How­ev­er, most ver­bal and sci­ence course­work is not meant to accel­er­ate a stu­den­t’s progress through the school grades, but instead to estab­lish the intel­lec­tual foun­da­tion for future advanced work in these dis­ci­plines. The classes are inten­sive and, for the most part, com­pa­ra­ble to col­lege fresh­man-level work.

CTY selects teach­ers from the Johns Hop­kins com­mu­ni­ty, from the Mary­land Acad­emy of Sci­ences, and from among the lead­ing advanced-place­ment high school teach­ers through­out the United States. They are dis­tin­guished by their intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, their mas­tery of a sub­ject area, and their enthu­si­asm for teach­ing. Many of the staff are for­mer pro­teges of the pro­grams and thus serve as out­stand­ing role mod­els for their stu­dents. For exam­ple, a major­ity of the math teach­ers com­pleted under­grad­u­ate stud­ies at an early age, and some earned grad­u­ate degrees much ear­lier than usu­al. A few have been hon­ored as Rhodes Schol­ars at Oxford Uni­ver­si­ty, Eng­land, and as Churchill Schol­ars at Cam­bridge Uni­ver­si­ty, Eng­land.

Com­muter classes are offered on week­ends dur­ing the aca­d­e­mic year and week­days dur­ing the sum­mer at Johns Hop­kins sites in Bal­ti­more and Wash­ing­ton, D.C., at satel­lite cen­ters in Los Ange­les and Philadel­phia, and at five sites in New Jer­sey. A spe­cial fea­ture of CTY is the 3-to-6 week sum­mer res­i­den­tial pro­grams located on two col­lege cam­puses in Penn­syl­va­nia, at Dick­in­son Col­lege in Carlisle and at Franklin & Mar­shall Col­lege in Lan­cast­er, where gifted stu­dents may both pur­sue a rig­or­ous aca­d­e­mic course and inter­act social­ly. A com­ment from the par­ent of a for­mer stu­dent of the pro­gram rep­re­sents the impact of CTY’s efforts:

The pro­gram was impor­tant [to my child’s] edu­ca­tion. … I wanted to express our grat­i­tude in other than trite words, but old stand­bys like “mean­ing­ful” kept com­ing to mind. The expe­ri­ence was mean­ing­ful; in addi­tion to putting our child a lit­tle far­ther down the road by the accel­er­a­tion of his stud­ies, the pro­gram also gave him a chance to mix with his peers, those intel­lec­tu­ally his equal and/or supe­ri­ors. In all, the expe­ri­ence was an eye­-opener for all three of us (moth­er, father, and child). Our child had a chance, also, to put his intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in a bet­ter per­spec­tive. He has made some choices about what he wants in the future, in what his goals are, and in what he wants to do with his life.

Such a strong impact results from two points in the edu­ca­tional phi­los­o­phy of PVGY. The first is the con­vic­tion that at an early age ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity can be guided ben­e­fi­cially by a dis­ci­plined and sys­tem­atic expo­sure to the basic tools of writ­ten com­mu­ni­ca­tion. “Basic” here does not mean sim­ple and unequiv­o­cal, but rather that which is fun­da­men­tal to lan­guage con­ceived as a pow­er­ful com­mu­nica­tive tool. The sec­ond point is that writ­ing is not an insu­lar sub­ject, but rather a com­plex of related dis­ci­plines com­bin­ing to inform the stu­dent of a lan­guage’s tra­di­tions, lim­i­ta­tions, and pos­si­bil­i­ties. Thus, in addi­tion to its Writ­ing Skills pro­gram, PVGY offers courses in Ger­man, Chi­ne­se, Ancient Greek, Lat­in, ety­molo­gies, and Amer­i­can his­to­ry.

The ped­a­gog­i­cal objec­tive of the Writ­ing Skills pro­gram, as of all PVGY cours­es, is to pro­vide ver­bally gifted youth aca­d­e­mic chal­lenges com­pa­ra­ble to those already offered youths with other types of tal­ent. Writ­ing Skills does not attempt to teach cre­ativ­ity as an objec­tive. While imag­i­na­tion and indi­vid­ual thought are encour­aged, the pro­gram’s goals are prac­ti­cal. Form is given to the cre­ative impulse; that form is an effec­tive and imag­i­na­tive writ­ing style. With par­tic­u­lar delight, we present in this book a descrip­tion of lessons from the Writ­ing Skills I course. We hope it assists every­one who is con­cerned about the writ­ing skills of our nation’s youth, and we remind you of an old (and some­times for­got­ten) max­im: A les­son is only as good as its teacher. The tech­niques described here work effec­tively when highly tal­ented and moti­vated stu­dents are joined with teach­ers who believe in gifted chil­dren and who are extremely knowl­edge­able about what they teach….

Stanley 1984a

“Use of gen­eral and spe­cific apti­tude mea­sures in iden­ti­fi­ca­tion: Some prin­ci­ples and cer­tain cau­tions”, Stan­ley 1984a:

[IQ test­ing for selec­tion, false pos­i­tives & neg­a­tives; use of DAT & SAT; pit­falls of test­ing: younger test­ing means more inter­ven­tion oppor­tu­nity but lower reli­a­bil­i­ty, com­pos­ite IQ scores mask sub­jec­t-spe­cific strengths/weaknesses and pref­er­ences, risk of hit­ting ceil­ings, and of shoe­horn­ing into cours­es]

Stanley 1984b

“In Brief: The excep­tion­ally tal­ented”, Stan­ley 1984b: [1pg sum­mary & adver­tise­ment for SMPY]

Durden 1985

“Early instruc­tion by the col­lege: Johns Hop­kin­s’s cen­ter for tal­ented youth”, Dur­den 1985:

The Cen­ter for the Advance­ment of Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Youth demon­strates the con­tri­bu­tion that col­leges can make to the edu­ca­tion of stu­dents who are ready for a level and pac­ing of instruc­tion not read­ily avail­able in the schools. Its suc­cess also reflects the bur­geon­ing demand for such instruc­tion.

Stanley 1985a

“Find­ing Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youths and Help­ing Them Edu­ca­tion­ally”, Stan­ley 1985a:

This is a dis­cus­sion of the first 14 years (1971–1985) of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and the spread of its influ­ence across the coun­try. Many youths who rea­soned excep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally were iden­ti­fied, stud­ied fur­ther, and aid­ed.

Stanley 1985b

“A bak­er’s dozen of years apply­ing all four aspects of the study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth (SMPY)”, Stan­ley 1985b:

Since its incep­tion in 1971, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has expanded from a local pro­gram serv­ing 19 mostly sev­enth graders to a national pro­gram with an enroll­ment of 1600. This arti­cle dis­cusses trends expe­ri­enced dur­ing the thir­teen-year period and their impli­ca­tions for the pro­gram’s future.

Stanley 1985d

“Young Entrants to Col­lege: How Did They Fare?”, Stan­ley 1985d:

A fol­lowup study of Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity stu­dents who began col­lege two or more years ahead of their age group exam­ined their aca­d­e­mic pro­gress, ages at grad­u­a­tion, majors, course loads, grades, pro­gram length, and the progress of a spe­cial group of stu­dents iden­ti­fied through a study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth.

Stanley & McGill 1986

“More About ‘Young Entrants to Col­lege: How Did They Fare?’”, Stan­ley & McGill 1986:

This study reports on a group of 25 edu­ca­tion­ally accel­er­ated entrants to Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. It sup­ports the abil­ity of stu­dents who enter a highly selec­tive col­lege two to five years early to make good grades, win hon­ors, and grad­u­ate prompt­ly.

Benbow 1986

SMPY’s model for teach­ing math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents”, Ben­bow 1986 (in ed Ren­zulli et al 1986, Sys­tems and Mod­els for Devel­op­ing Pro­grams for the Gifted and Tal­ented (First Edi­tion)):

One prac­ti­cal model for pro­vid­ing sound pro­gram­ming for most intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents can sim­ply be accom­plished by schools’ allow­ing cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­i­ty. For over a dozen years, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins has uti­lized already avail­able edu­ca­tional pro­grams to meet the needs of its tal­ented stu­dents through edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion. SMPY stu­dents are offered a “smor­gas­bord” of spe­cial edu­ca­tional Oppor­tu­ni­ties from which to choose what­ever com­bi­na­tion, includ­ing noth­ing, best suits the indi­vid­ual.

Some of the options are enter­ing a course a year or more ear­ly, skip­ping grades, grad­u­at­ing early from high school, com­plet­ing two or more years of a sub­ject in one year, tak­ing col­lege courses on a part-time basis while still in sec­ondary school, tak­ing sum­mer cours­es, and credit through exam­i­na­tion. Clear­ly, SMPY uti­lizes already avail­able edu­ca­tional pro­grams to meet the spe­cial needs of tal­ented stu­dents. Because this approach is extremely flex­i­ble, teach­ers or admin­is­tra­tors can choose and adapt the var­i­ous options in ways to fit their schools’ unique cir­cum­stances and their stu­dents’ indi­vid­ual abil­i­ties, needs, and inter­ests.

More­over, this method avoids the com­mon crit­i­cism of elit­ism and costs lit­tle for a school sys­tem to adopt. Actu­al­ly, the var­i­ous accel­er­a­tive and enrich­ing options devised by SMPY may save the school sys­tem mon­ey, Yet this rather sim­ple adjust­ment, i.e., advanc­ing a gifted child in each school sub­ject to the level of his/her intel­lec­tual peers, is rarely made because of bias against accel­er­a­tion. It is impor­tant to note, how­ev­er, that no research study to date has found prop­erly effected edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion detri­men­tal, but rather the con­trary.

Benbow & Minor 1986

“Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented males and females and achieve­ment in the high school sci­ences”, Ben­bow & Minor 1986:

Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth, whether male or female, tend to have favor­able atti­tudes toward sci­ence and to par­tic­i­pate in the sci­ences at a level much higher than aver­age. There were no over­all sex differ­ences in course-tak­ing or course-grades in the sci­ences. Indi­ca­tions of sex differ­ences favor­ing males, how­ev­er, were found in par­tic­i­pa­tion in high school physics, the tak­ing of and per­for­mance on high school and col­lege level sci­ence achieve­ment tests, and inten­tion to major in the more quan­ti­ta­tively ori­ented fields of physics and engi­neer­ing. No sub­stan­tial sex differ­ences in atti­tudes toward the sci­ences, except pos­si­bly physics, were detect­ed. Over­all atti­tude toward sci­ence did relate some­what to par­tic­i­pa­tion in sci­ence. More­over, sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity may explain some of the sex differ­ence in sci­ence par­tic­i­pa­tion and achieve­ment. These results may bear on why women are under­rep­re­sented in the sci­ences

Brody & Benbow 1986

“Social and emo­tional adjust­ment of ado­les­cents extremely tal­ented in ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing”, Brody & Ben­bow 1986:

Per­cep­tions of self­-es­teem, locus of con­trol, pop­u­lar­i­ty, depres­sion (or unhap­pi­ness), and dis­ci­pline prob­lems as indices of social and emo­tional adjust­ment were inves­ti­gated in highly ver­bally or math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented ado­les­cents. Com­pared to a group of stu­dents who are much less gift­ed, the highly gifted stu­dents per­ceive them­selves as less pop­u­lar, but no differ­ences were found in self­-es­teem, depres­sion, or the inci­dence of dis­ci­pline prob­lems. The gifted stu­dents reported greater inter­nal locus of con­trol. Com­par­isons between the highly math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents and the highly ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents sug­gested that the stu­dents in the lat­ter group per­ceive them­selves as less pop­u­lar. Within both the gifted and com­par­i­son groups, there were also slight indi­ca­tions that higher ver­bal abil­ity may be related to some social and emo­tional prob­lems.

Stanley et al 1986

  • Stan­ley, J.C, Huang, J., & Zu, X. (1986). SAT-M scores of highly selected stu­dents in Shang­hai tested when less than 13 years old”. Col­lege Board Review, 140, 10–13 & 28–29, Sum­mer 1986:

    The ini­tial effort in apply­ing the SAT-M to young Chi­nese stu­dents revealed that many of them rea­son extra­or­di­nar­ily well math­e­mat­i­cally before age 13 and before hav­ing cov­ered the bulk of the high­-school math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum. The con­clu­sion seems to be that they must have keen ana­lyt­i­cal abil­i­ty.

University of North Texas, Julian C. Stanley archival materials (1986–1989)

UNT dig­i­tal archives include 11 entries per­tain­ing to Julian C. Stan­ley, rang­ing from arti­cle reprints to his CV to tes­ti­mony to let­ters regard­ing set­ting up tal­ent searches in Tex­as:

Benbow 1987a

“Pos­si­ble bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of pre­co­cious math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity”, Ben­bow 1987a (see Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984 for more details)

Extreme math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, a crit­i­cal com­po­nent of math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent, has pos­si­bly six bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates. These are left­-hand­ed­ness, allergies, myopia, and gen­der (i.e. being male) and pos­si­bly hor­mones and bi-hemi­spheric rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cog­ni­tive func­tions. Extremely high ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity shares these same bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates, except gen­der. These results may bear on the biol­ogy of extreme intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties.

Benbow & Benbow 1987b

“Extreme Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: A Hor­mon­ally Induced Abil­i­ty?”, Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1987b:

[ex­tends Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1984 with new cor­re­lates: SMPYers are more likely to be con­ceived in months with >12 hours day­light; first-borns (birth order effec­t); and are bet­ter at reac­tion time tasks draw­ing on the right hemi­sphere]

Brody & Benbow 1987

“Accel­er­a­tive strate­gies: How effec­tive are they for the gift­ed?”, Brody & Ben­bow 1987:

Accel­er­a­tive strate­gies offer gifted stu­dents the oppor­tu­nity to par­tic­i­pate in edu­ca­tional pro­grams suited to their par­tic­u­lar needs and inter­ests. Yet, fear of pos­si­ble neg­a­tive effects of accel­er­a­tion pre­vents many edu­ca­tors from advo­cat­ing these options. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has eval­u­ated the long-term effects of a vari­ety of accel­er­a­tive options for a group of highly gifted stu­dents. Aca­d­e­mic achieve­ments, extracur­ric­u­lar activ­i­ties, goals and aspi­ra­tions, and social and emo­tional adjust­ment were con­sid­ered, and no dis­cernible neg­a­tive effects of var­i­ous accel­er­a­tive strate­gies were found.

Fox 1987

“Sex differ­ences among the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted”, Fox 1987

Stanley 1987a

“Mak­ing the IMO team: The power of early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and encour­age­ment”, Stan­ley 1987a:

[brief descrip­tion of SMPY & of the 4 SMPYers on the 1986 US team, of 6 mem­bers total]

Stanley 1987b

“State Res­i­den­tial High Schools for Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Youth”, Stan­ley 1987b:

How can states pro­mote the prepa­ra­tion of more highly qual­i­fied stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics? One way, says Mr. Stan­ley, would be to estab­lish res­i­den­tial high schools for the best and the bright­est.

[See also Brody & Mura­tori 2004 and Stan­ley’s 1988 Mary­land tes­ti­mony advo­cat­ing a res­i­den­tial high school.]

Stanley 1987c

“Note About Pos­si­ble Bias Result­ing When Under­-S­ta­tis­ti­cized Stud­ies are Excluded from Meta-Analy­ses”, Stan­ley 1987c:

Reviews and meta-analy­ses of research on a given topic may exclude’ a siz­able per­cent­age of reports because they do not lend them­selves to the type of sum­ma­riz­ing pro­ce­dures used. If the excluded arti­cles con­tain rel­e­vant infor­ma­tion, this may bias the con­clu­sions of the analy­sis. It seems likely that, when com­put­ing sta­tis­tics from their data, researchers will need to con­sider this aspect. A sim­ple illus­tra­tion of how that can some­times be done read­ily is pre­sent­ed. A robust cor­re­la­tion coeffi­cient eas­ily com­putable from pub­lished data is shown to indi­cate a siz­able rela­tion­ship that is con­trary to the main con­clu­sion of a meta-analy­sis.

Stanley 1987d

“Math­e­mat­i­cal Apti­tude in China”, Stan­ley 1987d (UNT preprint):

[The devel­oper of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth Pro­gram (SMPY) recounts his impres­sions dur­ing a tour of edu­ca­tion pro­grams in the Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of Chi­na, address­ing the appar­ent love of learn­ing, empha­sis on math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment, schol­arly activ­i­ties of uni­ver­sity fac­ul­ty, and test­ing issues.]

…If China can pre­serve its devo­tion to edu­ca­tion of the tal­ented and avoid another deba­cle such as the Cul­tural Rev­o­lu­tion, by the year 2025 or ear­lier it may have chal­lenged us indus­tri­ally far beyond what Japan has already done… My asso­ci­ates-by-mail and I had already found 21 twelve-year-olds in Shang­hai who scored 700 or more on SAT-M. They came from only 279 highly selected youths who took the test, trans­lated into Chi­nese (Stan­ley, Huang, & Zu, 1986). We talked with 19 of them and their math­e­mat­ics teach­ers for 2 hours. They were vir­tu­ally indis­tin­guish­able from Chi­ne­se-Amer­i­cans in appear­ance and demeanor, but some­what less advanced in their knowl­edge of math­e­mat­ics than many mem­bers of SMPY’s 700–800M group are (Moore & Stan­ley, 1986). They attend highly selec­tive mid­dle or high schools, but, as in many US schools, have a tight cur­ric­u­lar lock­step…

Stanley 1987e

“Sum­mary of Points Made in the Sym­po­sium”, Stan­ley 1987e; ERIC abstract:

This paper is an overview of some points made at the Annual Meet­ing of the Amer­i­can Edu­ca­tional Research Asso­ci­a­tion in April of 1987. Gen­der effects were com­puted on 82 nation­ally stan­dard­ized tests designed to deter­mine pre­coc­ity among youth. The effect sizes ranged from a mag­ni­tude of 0.50 (fa­vor­ing females) for spelling in grade 12 on the Differ­en­tial Apti­tude Tests (DATs) to 0.89 (fa­vor­ing males) for mechan­i­cal rea­son­ing on the DATs in grade 12. The largest effect size on any of the other 80 tests was 0.76 (fa­vor­ing males) for the advanced exam­i­na­tion in polit­i­cal sci­ence of the Grad­u­ate Record Exam­i­na­tions. The results of this research indi­cate that there was a strong ten­dency for tests taken mainly by males to yield the largest effect sizes favor­ing males and for tests taken mainly by females to yield small effect sizes, some of which favored females. All of the tests exam­ined, except the DATs, are used pri­mar­ily for selec­tion or award­ing of advanced stand­ing in col­lege. Although research indi­cates that girls and young women tend to be bet­ter stu­dents than do boys and young men, female stu­dents tend to be out­per­formed by male stu­dents on most stan­dard­ized tests. Study results also indi­cate that women seem more ori­ented toward social, aes­thet­ic, and reli­gious sub­ject mat­ter, while men seem more inter­ested in sci­ence, prac­ti­cal­i­ty, con­spic­u­ous con­sump­tion, pow­er, and con­trol. The All­port-Ver­non-Lindzey inven­tory of eval­u­a­tive atti­tudes might help researchers under­stand females’ pref­er­ences and sub­jec­t-mat­ter ori­en­ta­tions. (TJH)

[Un­known where a copy might be find­able for this.]

Benbow 1988

“Sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity in intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented pread­o­les­cents: Their nature, effects, and pos­si­ble causes”, Ben­bow 1988 (spe­cial issue—ar­ti­cle + commentaries/replies):

Sev­eral hun­dred thou­sand intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 12- to 13-year-olds have been tested nation­wide over the past 16 years with the math­e­mat­ics and ver­bal sec­tions of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT). Although no sex differ­ences in ver­bal abil­ity have been found, there have been con­sis­tent sex differ­ences favor­ing males in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, as mea­sured by the math­e­mat­ics sec­tion of the SAT (SAT-M). These differ­ences are most pro­nounced at the high­est lev­els of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing, they are sta­ble over time, and they are observed in other coun­tries as well. The sex differ­ence in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity can pre­dict sub­se­quent sex differ­ences in achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence and is there­fore of prac­ti­cal impor­tance. To date a pri­mar­ily envi­ron­men­tal expla­na­tion for the differ­ence in abil­ity has not received sup­port from the numer­ous stud­ies con­ducted over many years by the staff of Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and oth­ers. We have stud­ied some of the clas­si­cal envi­ron­men­tal hypothe­ses: atti­tudes toward math­e­mat­ics, per­ceived use­ful­ness of math­e­mat­ics, con­fi­dence, expectations/encouragement from par­ents and oth­ers, sex-typ­ing, and differ­en­tial course-tak­ing. In addi­tion, sev­eral phys­i­o­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of extremely high math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity have been iden­ti­fied (left­-hand­ed­ness, allergies, myopia, and per­haps bilat­eral rep­re­sen­ta­tion of cog­ni­tive func­tions and pre­na­tal hor­monal expo­sure). It is there­fore pro­posed that the sex differ­ence in SAT-M scores among intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, which may be related to greater male vari­abil­i­ty, results from both envi­ron­men­tal and bio­log­i­cal fac­tors.

Thomas 1993

“A the­ory explain­ing sex differ­ences in high math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity has been around for some time”, Thomas 1993 (re­ply to Ben­bow 1988 not included in the com­men­tary issue):

…Yet, even though a con­cep­tual inter­pre­ta­tion of the var­ied sex differ­ences in SAT-M is key to the entire tar­get arti­cle, there is no acknowl­edg­ment of this work in the arti­cle, com­men­tary, or response. The puta­tive the­o­ret­i­cal mech­a­nism is an X-linked gene, in two alle­les; only the reces­sive in fre­quency q is assumed to be facil­i­ta­tive of supe­rior per­for­mance. Under a sim­ple genet­i­cal model it fol­lows eas­ily that the pro­por­tion of facil­i­tated males and females is, respec­tive­ly, q and q2. The ele­men­tary but impor­tant fact that dri­ves the the­o­ret­i­cal machin­ery is that q > q2 for all 0 < q < 1.

The idea that a genet­i­cal X-linked model might pro­vide an expla­na­tion for cer­tain sex differ­ences is an old one, and has some­times been rel­e­gated to the sci­en­tific scrap heap (e.g., Boles 1980). Van­den­berg’s (1988) com­ments sug­gest that that is where he puts the hypoth­e­sis. But this judg­ment is pre­cip­i­tous and a poorly rea­soned one, because there had not been a prop­erly devel­oped the­o­ry. …

Stanley 1988

“Some Char­ac­ter­is­tics of SMPY’s ‘700–800 on SAT-M Before Age 13 Group’: Youths Who Rea­son Extremely Well Math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley 1988:

Sta­tis­tics con­cern­ing back­ground char­ac­ter­is­tics of a remark­able group of 292 youths who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cally are pre­sent­ed. Iden­ti­fied ini­tially at age 12 or less, they reside all over the United States and in two for­eign coun­tries. The sex ratio is 12 boys per 1 girl. The group tends to be quite able ver­bal­ly, but much more so math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Most of their par­ents are well edu­cat­ed. Some of these young stu­dents are vastly more accel­er­ated in school grade place­ment than are the major­ity of the group. Other rel­e­vant char­ac­ter­is­tics are also dis­cussed.

Anonymous 1989

SMPY Branch Estab­lished in China”, Anony­mous 1989:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), estab­lished at Johns Hop­kins in 1971, has set up “SMPY at Tian­jin, Peo­ple’s Repub­lic of China”. A port, Tian­jin is the third most pop­u­lous city in Chi­na. SMPY at Tian­jin is the sec­ond non-Hop­kins base for SMPY.

…Head­ing the Tian­jin SMPY is Pro­fes­sor Feng Cheng De of the Teach­ers Advanced Study Col­lege, Hong Qiao Dis­trict, Tian­jin 300123. Pro­fes­sor Feng and his wife, Yung Hua, are two of the lead­ing math­e­mat­ics edu­ca­tors in Chi­na. A major part of the work of the Tian­jin SMPY will be prepar­ing male and female stu­dents from about age 12 to com­pete for the 6 places on Chi­na’s team in each year’s Inter­na­tional Math­e­mat­i­cal Olympiad (IMO). In only its 3rd year of com­pe­ti­tion China tied for 2nd place among the 49 nations in the 1988 IMO, far ahead of the United States. One of the only 4 women who won a medal (sil­ver) that year in the IMO was Pro­fes­sor Feng’s stu­dent. In China there are already almost 200 mem­bers of SMPY’s “700–800 on SAT-M Before Age 13 Group”…That is why they thrive on part-time edu­ca­tional facil­i­ta­tion out­side their reg­u­lar class-room rou­tine. In China this facil­i­ta­tion is pro­vided by Spare Time Schools.

…Be­cause of SMPY at Tian­jin and other fac­tors, the United States can expect from China a steady stream of grad­u­ate stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and related sub­jects, such as com­puter sci­ence, elec­tri­cal engi­neer­ing, and physics. They will be some of the intel­lec­tu­ally ablest per­sons in the world, enrich­ing our doc­toral pro­grams dur­ing a time when many of the bright­est Amer­i­cans pre­fer med­i­cine, law, busi­ness, or pol­i­tics to the long, aus­tere trek for the­gree and the usu­ally lower incomes there­after. …

[No SMPY pub­li­ca­tions dis­cuss what hap­pened to the Tian­jin SMPY; I asked Camilla Ben­bow about it at ISIR 2019, and she said there was noth­ing much to the sto­ry, it was sim­ply a 1 year visit by Stan­ley and was­n’t seri­ous, with no real fol­lowup. The Duke TIP was tem­porar­ily can­celed in 1989 due to the Tianan­men Square inci­dent, accord­ing to Putal­laz et al 2005.]

Stanley 1989a

“A Look Back at … ‘Edu­ca­tional Non-Ac­cel­er­a­tion: an Inter­na­tional Tragedy’”, Stan­ley 1989a:

In 1977 Dr. Stan­ley addressed the Sec­ond World Con­fer­ence on Gifted and Tal­ented Chil­dren at the Uni­ver­sity of San Fran­cis­co. His top­ic, edu­ca­tional non-ac­cel­er­a­tion, was of inter­est to our read­ers and was devel­oped into an arti­cle for C/C/T (the for­mer title of The Gifted Child Today) in 1978. [“Edu­ca­tional Non-ac­cel­er­a­tion: An Inter­na­tional Tragedy”, Stan­ley 1978] This arti­cle reviews events sub­se­quent to Dr. Stan­ley’s speech.

[cre­ation of CTY; expan­sion to Virginia/Maine/Alaska/Arizona/California/Hawaii/Oregon/Washington/China; Ari­zona found­ing of Project for the Study of Aca­d­e­mic Pre­coc­ity (PSAP); SMPY newslet­ters; cost pri­mary bar­rier to expan­sion of sum­mer pro­grams]

Stanley 1989b

“How Greatly Do Chi­nese Stu­dents Eclipse Ours?”, Stan­ley 1989b:

[2 anec­dotes of Chi­nese grad stu­dents; IMO results; 188 SMPY high­-s­cor­ers in Chi­na; recent Tian­jin SMPY found­ing]

Stanley 1989c

“Most Fare Bet­ter”, Stan­ley 1989c, brief commentary/response to “On Being a Mis­fit”, Jeanette D. Lind­blad 1989: case study dis­cussing the bat­tles with the school dis­trict for her son “Eric”; Stan­ley says hor­ror sto­ries like hers are excep­tional and more rep­re­sen­ta­tive of SMPY par­tic­i­pants is the expe­ri­ence of Ter­ence Tao.


Benbow & Arjmand 1990

“Pre­dic­tors of High Aca­d­e­mic Achieve­ment in Math­e­mat­ics and Sci­ence by Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Stu­dents: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Ben­bow & Arj­mand 1990:

Edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences of a cohort of 1,247 math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths (ini­tially iden­ti­fied in 7th/8th grade by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) were ana­lyzed after high school and after col­lege to iden­tify fac­tors cor­re­lated with high and low aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in math and sci­ence in col­lege by stu­dents with extremely high abil­i­ty. Almost all stu­dents had achieved highly by con­ven­tional stan­dards (e.g., 85% had received bach­e­lor’s degrees). Using a quan­ti­ta­tive defi­n­i­tion of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in col­lege, we found that 22% were high aca­d­e­mic achiev­ers and 8% were low aca­d­e­mic achiev­ers in math and sci­ence. Vari­ables pre­dic­tive of high aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment (in order of strength) were pre-col­lege cur­ric­ula or expe­ri­ences in math and sci­ences, fam­ily char­ac­ter­is­tics and edu­ca­tional sup­port vari­ables, atti­tudes toward math and sci­ence, and differ­ences in apti­tude.

Benbow & Minor 1990

“Cog­ni­tive pro­files of ver­bally and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents: Impli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of the gifted”, Ben­bow & Minor 1990:

Per­for­mance on tests of spe­cific abil­i­ties com­monly asso­ci­ated with intel­li­gence was con­trasted between 13-year-olds iden­ti­fied as extremely pre­co­cious (top 1 in 10,000) in either ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. Such stu­dents differ cog­ni­tive­ly. Ver­bally pre­co­cious stu­dents scored higher on ver­bal and gen­eral knowl­edge types of tests, and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents scored higher on tests of non­ver­bal rea­son­ing, spa­tial abil­i­ty, and mem­o­ry. Results from the fac­tor analy­sis of test scores (ex­clud­ing mem­ory test scores) yielded three fac­tors: spatial/speed, ver­bal, and non­ver­bal. Math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents had higher scores on the non­ver­bal and speed fac­tors; ver­bally tal­ented stu­dents had higher scores on the ver­bal fac­tor. Thus, at least two dis­tinct forms of gift­ed­ness seem to exist (i.e., ver­bal and non­ver­bal). Their evo­lu­tion, more­over, appeared to fol­low differ­ent devel­op­men­tal paths, con­sis­tent with Gagné (1985).

Dark & Benbow 1990

“Enhanced prob­lem trans­la­tion and short­-term mem­o­ry: Com­po­nents of math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent”, Dark & Ben­bow 1990:

The per­for­mance of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented 12- and 13-year-olds on var­i­ous cog­ni­tive tasks was com­pared with that of aver­age-a­bil­ity youth, ver­bally tal­ented youth, and col­lege stu­dents. In Exper­i­ment 1, the hypoth­e­sis that math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent includes enhanced prob­lem-trans­la­tion skills was sup­port­ed: The math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were bet­ter than other groups at writ­ing equa­tions express­ing com­plex rela­tion­ships. Although the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented group out­per­formed their aver­age-a­bil­ity peers, they were no bet­ter than the ver­bally tal­ented group or the col­lege stu­dents in rewrit­ing and recall­ing the propo­si­tions in an alge­bra story prob­lem. In Exper­i­ment 2, the hypoth­e­sis that math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent includes enhanced abil­ity to rep­re­sent and manip­u­late infor­ma­tion in short­-term mem­ory was strongly sup­port­ed: the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youth out­per­formed the other youth and, in most cas­es, per­formed as well as or bet­ter than the col­lege stu­dents.

Dauber & Benbow 1990

“Aspects of per­son­al­ity and peer rela­tions of extremely tal­ented ado­les­cents”, Dauber & Ben­bow 1990:

Excep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents may be at risk for prob­lems in social and emo­tional devel­op­ment. To dis­cover if peer rela­tions are affected by type and/or amount of gift­ed­ness, extremely math­e­mat­i­cally or ver­bally tal­ented 13 year-olds (top 1 in 10,000) were com­pared to mod­estly gifted stu­dents (top 1 in 20) of sim­i­lar age on mea­sures of pop­u­lar­ity and peer accep­tance, par­tic­i­pa­tion in group activ­i­ties, and per­son­al­ity traits. The ver­bally or math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were also con­trasted on the same mea­sures. Vir­tu­ally no differ­ences in group activ­i­ties or per­son­al­ity traits were found. In their rat­ings of peer per­cep­tions, the mod­estly gifted group exceeded the extremely gift­ed, espe­cially the ver­bally gift­ed, in being con­sid­ered ath­letic and pop­u­lar, and in social stand­ing. The mod­estly gifted also rated them­selves as more extro­vert­ed, socially adept, and unin­hib­it­ed. Per­cep­tions of peer rat­ings of impor­tance and accep­tance were higher for the math­e­mat­i­cally than the ver­bally gift­ed. Thus, extremely pre­co­cious ado­les­cents, espe­cially the ver­bally pre­co­cious, may be at greater risk for devel­op­ing prob­lems in peer rela­tions than mod­estly gifted youth.

Lubinski & Humphreys 1990

“A Broadly Based Analy­sis of Math­e­mat­i­cal Gift­ed­ness”, Lubin­ski & Humphreys 1990:

This arti­cle addresses sev­eral ques­tions raised by con­tem­po­rary research on math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness. Most issues are con­fronted empir­i­cal­ly, based on a strat­i­fied ran­dom sam­ple of 95,650 ten­th-grade stu­dents and a highly select sub­sam­ple of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted indi­vid­u­als (boys n = 497, girls n = 508) drawn from this larger pool. Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally gifted were com­pared (by gen­der) to those of their nor­ma­tive cohorts. Typ­i­cal gen­der differ­en­ti­at­ing attrib­utes (e.g., inter­est pat­terns) were less stereo­typed in gifted boys and girls; and stu­dents’ homes cov­ered a broad socioe­co­nomic spec­trum. Math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents were found to be intel­lec­tu­ally supe­rior across a wide range of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties; how­ev­er, evi­dence for some­what more math­e­mat­i­cal speci­ficity in the gifted than in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion was also detect­ed. The hypoth­e­sis that spa­tial visu­al­iza­tion inter­acts syn­er­gis­ti­cally with math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity in the pre­dic­tion of sophis­ti­cated lev­els of advanced math­e­mat­ics was tested with neg­a­tive results. “Clas­sic” male/female differ­ences were observed on mea­sures of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity with the for­mer gen­er­at­ing larger means and vari­ances. We sug­gest that gen­der differ­ences reflected by these two sta­tis­tics may have dis­tinct antecedents. The social impli­ca­tions for not attend­ing to group differ­ences in abil­i­ty-dis­per­sion are dis­cussed in the con­text of abil­ity assess­ment in gen­eral and meta-an­a­lytic reviews in par­tic­u­lar. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal data (13 years) revealed that 8% of gifted males and 19% of gifted females in the fol­low-up sam­ples did not obtain col­lege degrees. For the era of the 60s this differ­ence is not sur­pris­ing, but the pro­por­tion of both sexes who did not make full use of their abil­i­ties is shock­ing. Many of our results cor­re­spond to other lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings, such as Ter­man’s clas­sic stud­ies as well as ongo­ing con­tem­po­rary inves­ti­ga­tions on math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness.

Lupkowski et al 1990

“Apply­ing A Men­tor Model For Young Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Stu­dents”, Lup­kowski et al 1990:

…As a first step in devel­op­ing a spe­cial­ized plan for stu­dents with advanced abil­i­ties in math­e­mat­ics, par­ents and teach­ers often request an intel­li­gence test as part of an eval­u­a­tion. Although an I.Q. score can be a use­ful ini­tial indi­ca­tor of gen­eral aca­d­e­mic tal­ent, it does not pro­vide infor­ma­tion spe­cific enough for eval­u­at­ing or plan­ning an edu­ca­tional pro­gram based upon a stu­den­t’s strengths. One option for obtain­ing spe­cific infor­ma­tion and meet­ing the learn­ing needs of a young­ster such as David is the diagnostic/prescriptive approach described in this arti­cle. Julian C. Stan­ley, founder and direc­tor of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, devel­oped a diagnostic/prescriptive model for the teach­ing of math­e­mat­ics to stu­dents with extra­or­di­nary math­e­mat­i­cal apti­tude (Stan­ley, 1978,1979). Since its found­ing in 1971, SMPY has actively assisted math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented junior high and high school stu­dents by iden­ti­fy­ing them as well as devis­ing and pro­vid­ing novel edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties for them in math­e­mat­ics and related sub­jects (Stan­ley & Ben­bow, 1986).

Lynch 1990

“Credit and Place­ment Issues for the Aca­d­e­m­i­cally Tal­ented Fol­low­ing Sum­mer Stud­ies in Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Lynch 1990:

The pur­poses of this study were to ascer­tain the pro­por­tion of aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents aged 12 to 16 who pur­sued appro­pri­ate school place­ment and/or cred­its for course­work com­pleted at spe­cial sum­mer aca­d­e­mic pro­grams, and to deter­mine how their schools responded to their requests. In Novem­ber 1986, 1215 stu­dents who attended sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics classes spon­sored by the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity dur­ing the sum­mer of 1986 were sent ques­tion­naires regard­ing their sub­se­quent sta­tus at their reg­u­lar schools per­tain­ing to credit and place­ment issues. Advanced place­ment was given more often than cred­it, although in most cases both were award­ed, par­tic­u­larly for high school level course­work.

Richardson & Benbow 1990

“Long-term effects of accel­er­a­tion on the social-e­mo­tional adjust­ment of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youths”, Richard­son & Ben­bow 1990:

The study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) iden­ti­fied over 2,000 12–14 year-olds who scored as well as a ran­dom sam­ple of high school females on the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test. SMPY encour­aged these stu­dents to accel­er­ate their edu­ca­tion; over 50% did. Their social devel­op­ment at age 18 and at age 23 was then assessed. We inves­ti­gated the effects of amount and type of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion (grade skip­ping and sub­ject mat­ter) on psy­choso­cial indices (self-es­teem, locus of con­trol, self-acceptance/identity, and social inter­ac­tion). No gen­der differ­ences were sig­nifi­cant. Accel­er­ants as well as nonac­cel­er­ants reported high self­-es­teem and inter­nal locus of con­trol. Accel­er­a­tion did not affect social inter­ac­tions or self-acceptance/identity and it also did not relate to social and emo­tional diffi­cul­ties.

Stanley 1990

“Leta Holling­worth’s con­tri­bu­tions to above-level test­ing of the gifted”, Stan­ley 1990:

Leta S. Holling­worth (1886–1939) pio­neered in above age-and grade-level test­ing of boys and girls in the New York City area whose IQs were extremely high. Her deep insights about mea­sur­ing gen­eral and spe­cial abil­i­ties led to numer­ous cur­rent aca­d­e­mic activ­i­ties on behalf of intel­lec­tu­ally highly tal­ented young per­sons, espe­cially includ­ing above-level cur­ric­ula for them.

[For more on Leta Holling­worth, see Ben­bow 1990.]

Stanley et al 1990

“Eight Con­sid­er­a­tions for Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Youth”, Stan­ley et al 1990:

…This arti­cle focuses on how accel­er­a­tive and enrich­ment options com­ple­ment each other to pro­vide appro­pri­ate chal­lenges for tal­ented stu­dents. The fol­low­ing eight impor­tant points are pre­sented for par­ents, teach­ers, and math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents to con­sider in plan­ning an edu­ca­tional pro­gram:

  1. Allow extremely tal­ented ele­men­tary stu­dents time to develop the math­e­mat­i­cal matu­rity needed to study alge­bra. …
  2. Extremely few ele­men­tary stu­dents will have the nec­es­sary cog­ni­tive struc­tures already well enough devel­oped to do more abstract math­e­mat­ics …
  3. For the math­e­mat­i­cally bril­liant youth, accel­er­a­tion may pro­vide the best edu­ca­tional option. …
  4. The math­e­mat­i­cally bril­liant youth should be kept on a steady diet of highly sat­is­fy­ing math­e­mat­ics at his or her appro­pri­ate level of men­tal func­tion­ing. This does not nec­es­sar­ily mean rac­ing through the stan­dard sequence in trun­cated peri­ods of time. …
  5. The tal­ented ele­men­tary stu­dent who moves ahead extremely fast in the math­e­mat­i­cal sequence is likely to be cat­a­pulted beyond the offer­ings of the school sys­tem long before he or she grad­u­ates from high school. …
  6. Teach­ers, men­tors, clubs, and com­pe­ti­tions can enrich an accel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum for tal­ented youths. …
  7. Sum­mer pro­grams offer var­ied oppor­tu­ni­ties for able stu­dents to forge ahead in math­e­mat­ics. …
  8. There are more-ad­vanced “pure” math­e­mat­ics insti­tutes for stu­dents aged about 14–18. …

Benbow et al 1991

“Edu­ca­tional pro­duc­tiv­ity pre­dic­tors among math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents”, Ben­bow et al 1991:

Wal­berg (1984) iden­ti­fied nine cor­re­lates of the edu­ca­tional achieve­ment dis­played by stu­dents in the United States and in a dozen other coun­tries and called them “pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors”. Using data from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth’s lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of its stu­dents 10 years after iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, we tested five of the pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors for their abil­ity to pre­dict edu­ca­tional achieve­ment and edu­ca­tional and career aspi­ra­tions of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents. We also exam­ined the valid­ity of the pre­vail­ing belief that gifted chil­dren achieve highly regard­less of the edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences pro­vid­ed. Thir­teen-year-old stu­dents (1,247) in the top 1% to 2% nation­wide in abil­ity were fol­lowed until age 23. Stu­dents’ achieve­ments and aspi­ra­tions were uni­formly high at that time. Nonethe­less, the five pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors could sig­nifi­cantly pre­dict their edu­ca­tional achieve­ments and aspi­ra­tions. The pre­dic­tors were, in order of use­ful­ness, qual­ity of instruc­tion, home envi­ron­ment, moti­va­tion, abil­i­ty, atti­tudes, and quan­tity of instruc­tion. Gen­er­al­ly, the pro­duc­tiv­ity fac­tors appeared to oper­ate sim­i­larly for males and females, but had stronger impacts on female aspi­ra­tions. The results indi­cate that, even among gifted stu­dents, envi­ron­men­tal inter­ven­tions may enhance edu­ca­tional achieve­ment, espe­cially that of females.

Stanley 1991a

“An Aca­d­e­mic Model for Edu­cat­ing the Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented”, Stan­ley 1991a:

A usu­ally unrec­og­nized aspect of the “school reform” move­ment dur­ing the past two decades has been the huge increase in extracur­ric­u­lar aca­d­e­mic efforts on behalf of intel­lec­tu­ally excep­tion­ally able boys and girls. Whereas in 1971 few stu­dents less than 14 years old took the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT), by 1990 more than 100,000 did. Those who score well are offered spe­cial, sup­ple­men­tal edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties. The move­ment began at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in 1971 with the cre­ation of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and spread within a dozen years to other pri­vate uni­ver­si­ties, i.e., Duke, North­west­ern, and the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver. Also, many pub­lic uni­ver­si­ties have begun such tal­ent search­ing and edu­ca­tional facil­i­tat­ing. This arti­cle traces the ori­gin and devel­op­ment of the net­work of inde­pen­dent cen­ters and projects based on the SMPY mod­el.

Stanley 1991b

“Cri­tique of ‘Socioe­mo­tional Adjust­ment of Ado­les­cent Girls Enrolled in a Res­i­den­tial Accel­er­a­tion Pro­gram’”, Stan­ley 1991b:

The pro­fes­sional lit­er­a­ture on enter­ing col­lege under­age is reviewed briefly. Sev­eral spec­tac­u­larly young col­lege grad­u­ates are men­tioned. Two high­-school­s-with­in-col­lege insti­tu­tions are dis­cussed. Then sev­eral crit­i­cal points about the arti­cle are made. A few sug­ges­tions for con­duct­ing a longer-term, more defin­i­tive fol­low-up of edu­ca­tion­ally accel­er­ated girls are giv­en. Final­ly, the value of social adjust­ment, as usu­ally defined, for the great occu­pa­tional suc­cess of intel­lec­tu­ally extremely able per­sons is ques­tioned.

Stanley 1991c

“Trib­ute to Hal­bert B. Robin­son (1925–1981)”, Stan­ley 1991c: obit­u­ary

At the Fifteenth Anniver­sary Com­mem­o­ra­tion and Renam­ing of the Cen­ter for the Study of Capa­ble Youth to be the Hal­bert Robin­son Cen­ter for the Study of Capa­ble Youth, Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton, Seat­tle, Octo­ber 3, 1990

[dis­cusses Stan­ley’s per­sonal his­tory with Robin­son, SMPY’s orig­in, and Robin­son’s Child Devel­op­ment Research Group & Rad­i­cal Accel­er­a­tion Group of the Early Entrance Pro­gram at the Uni­ver­sity of Wash­ing­ton]

Swiatek & Benbow 1991a

“Ten-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal fol­low-up of abil­i­ty-matched accel­er­ated and unac­cel­er­ated gifted stu­dents”, Swiatek & Ben­bow 1991a:

Gifted stu­dents iden­ti­fied by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth who under­went aca­d­e­mic accel­er­a­tion in their edu­ca­tion were lon­gi­tu­di­nally com­pared across sev­eral domains with a group of equally gifted stu­dents who were never accel­er­at­ed. Groups were matched for gen­der and abil­ity and were stud­ied for 10 yrs. At age 23 yrs, few sig­nifi­cant differ­ences were found between the groups for the indi­vid­ual aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial vari­ables stud­ied. Both the accel­er­ates and the nonac­cel­er­ates reported impres­sive aca­d­e­mic achieve­ments, as well as high per­sonal sat­is­fac­tion with school and self. When aca­d­e­mic vari­ables are con­sid­ered as a group, the per­for­mance of accel­er­ates is slightly higher than that of nonac­cel­er­ates. In both accel­er­ated and unac­cel­er­ated groups, male stu­dents pur­sued mathematics/science more vig­or­ously than did female stu­dents, but there was no differ­en­tial response to accel­er­a­tion on the basis of gen­der. Find­ings do not sup­port the com­mon con­cern that gifted stu­dents may be harmed by accel­er­a­tive expe­ri­ences.

Swiatek & Benbow 1991b

“A 10-Year Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Fol­low-up of Par­tic­i­pants in a Fast-Paced Math­e­mat­ics Course”, Swiatek & Ben­bow 1991b:

Stu­dents who par­tic­i­pated in a fast-paced math­e­mat­ics course for highly math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents were sur­veyed 10 years lat­er, at approx­i­mately age 23. Areas con­sid­ered were (a) under­grad­u­ate expe­ri­ence, (b) grad­u­ate expe­ri­ence, (c) atti­tudes toward math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, and (d) self­-es­teem. Par­tic­i­pants attended more pres­ti­gious under­grad­u­ate col­leges than did non­par­tic­i­pants. Par­tic­i­pants were more likely to attend grad­u­ate school than were non­par­tic­i­pants; this find­ing stemmed from differ­ences among females. Self­-es­teem rat­ings, although high for both groups, were found to be higher for stu­dents who qual­i­fied for the class but did not par­tic­i­pate. Atti­tudes toward math and sci­ence were equiv­a­lent between the two groups. Over­all, par­tic­i­pa­tion in the fast-paced math­e­mat­ics classes of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was asso­ci­ated with stronger under­grad­u­ate edu­ca­tion for all stu­dents and with more advanced edu­ca­tion among females. The fast-paced classes caused gifted stu­dents no harm.

Brody et al 1991

“Gen­der differ­ences among tal­ented ado­les­cents: Research stud­ies by SMPY and CTY at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity”, Brody et al 1992, in Com­pe­tence and respon­si­bil­i­ty: The Third Euro­pean Con­fer­ence of the Euro­pean Coun­cil for High Abil­ity, ed Heller & Hany 1992/4:

In the third paper, Linda Brody, Linda Bar­nett, and Carol Mills take a closer look at abil­ity differ­ences of tal­ented male and female stu­dents. After review­ing data from sev­eral years taken from Tal­ent Search par­tic­i­pants at the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, amongst oth­ers, and gath­ered from differ­ent sources, they con­clude that there are sex differ­ences of quan­ti­ta­tive abil­ity and math­e­mat­i­cal achieve­ment which have remained rather sta­ble through the last years. These differ­ences are more pro­nounced at the upper lev­els of abil­ity and can there­fore affect admis­sion to selec­tive insti­tutes of higher edu­ca­tion. Brody et al. describe in detail sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics of the par­tic­i­pants of the CTY sum­mer pro­grams. First, more male than female appli­cants pass the cri­te­ria of being admit­ted to math­e­mat­ics cours­es. Sec­ond, of the par­tic­i­pants admit­ted, more male than female stu­dents actu­ally choose math­e­mat­ics or sci­ence cours­es. Third, male stu­dents demon­strate higher achieve­ment than females in math­e­mat­ics and physics class­es. The authors, as well as the other authors of this part of book, point to sig­nifi­cant sex differ­ences of moti­va­tion and self­-con­cept which may be more or less respon­si­ble even for the devel­op­ment of sex differ­ences of abil­i­ty.

Benbow 1992a

“Aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence between ages 13 and 23: Are there differ­ences among stu­dents in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty?”, Ben­bow 1992a:

The pre­dic­tive valid­ity of the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­ics sub­test (SAT-M) was inves­ti­gated for 1,996 math­e­mat­i­cally gifted (top 1%) 7th and 8th graders. Var­i­ous aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment cri­te­ria were assessed over a 10-year span. Indi­vid­ual differ­ences in SAT-M scores obtained in junior high school pre­dicted accom­plish­ments in high school and col­lege. Among stu­dents in the top 1% of abil­i­ty, those with SAT-M scores in the top quar­ter, in com­par­i­son with those in the bot­tom quar­ter, achieved at much higher lev­els through high school, col­lege, and grad­u­ate school. Of the 37 vari­ables stud­ied, 34 showed sig­nifi­cant differ­ences favor­ing the high SAT-M group, which were sub­stan­tial. Some gen­der differ­ences emerged; these tended to be smaller than the abil­ity group differ­ences; they were not observed in the rela­tion­ship between math­e­mat­i­cal abil­ity and aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. The pre­dic­tive valid­ity of the SAT-M for high­-a­bil­ity 7th and 8th graders was sup­port­ed.

Benbow 1992b

“Progress in Gifted Edu­ca­tion—Ev­ery­where but Here!”, Ben­bow 1992b:

[op-ed: despite progress in G&T edu­ca­tion like more states man­dat­ing gifted pro­grams, a new fed­eral office & research cen­ter, and insti­tu­tions like “gov­er­nor’s schools”, many gifted pro­grams are still being elim­i­nat­ed, Amer­i­can soci­ety remains anti-in­tel­lec­tu­al, and gifted pro­grams remain heav­ily crit­i­cized; Ben­bow advo­cates edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion as a response to the absence of gifted pro­gram­s.]

Kirschenbaum 1992

“An Inter­view with Julian C. Stan­ley”, Kirschen­baum 1992:

Dr. Stan­ley was inter­viewed in Boston dur­ing the Annual Con­fer­ence of the Amer­i­can Edu­ca­tional Research Asso­ci­a­tion in April, 1990. Since then, he has updated the orig­i­nal tran­script a lit­tle.

[Found­ing of SMPY; choice of math test­ing and rar­ity of per­fect SAT-M scores <12yo, per Piaget; nature of math teach­ing and tal­ent; how to run an accel­er­a­tion class]

Lubinski & Benbow 1992

“Gen­der Differ­ences in Abil­i­ties and Pref­er­ences Among the Gift­ed: Impli­ca­tions for the Math­-Science Pipeline”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 1992:

…The pur­pose of this review is to doc­u­ment some gen­der differ­ences among the gift­ed, which have remained pro­nounced for at least the past 20 years.2 Gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing are noted in par­tic­u­lar, but other attrib­ut­es, cog­ni­tive and noncog­ni­tive (eg inter­ests and val­ues), also are reviewed in the con­text of the­o­ret­i­cal dis­cus­sions attempt­ing to explain them…­Males tend to be more vari­able on mea­sures of cog­ni­tive func­tion­ing, even on tests for which females have higher means.6…In math­e­mat­i­cally gifted sam­ples, dis­parate male/female pro­por­tions are well-known…The fol­low­ing pro­por­tions of males to females at var­i­ous cut­ting score was approx­i­mately as fol­lows: SAT-Math ≥ 500: 2⁄1; SAT-M ≥ 600, 4⁄1; SAT-M ≥ 700, 13⁄1…Table 1 con­tains data on abil­i­ties and val­ues of gifted stu­dents tested through SMPY at Iowa State Uni­ver­sity from 1998 through 1991…There are sub­stan­tial gen­der differ­ences in spa­tial and mechan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties…Two espe­cially impor­tant val­ues in Table 1 deserve par­tic­u­lar atten­tion. Intense the­o­ret­i­cal val­ues are char­ac­ter­is­tic of phys­i­cal sci­en­tists and are also more char­ac­ter­is­tic of males than females. Social val­ues are neg­a­tively cor­re­lated with inter­ests in phys­i­cal sci­ence and are more char­ac­ter­is­tic of females than males…Thus, males, com­pared with females, tend to have abil­i­ties more con­gru­ent with opti­mal adjust­ment in math and sci­ence career­s…The data in Table 2 show the gen­der dis­crep­ancy in math and sci­ence edu­ca­tional cre­den­tials for a sam­ple of males and females in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. Clear­ly, even females who have greater gen­eral intel­lec­tual abil­ity and quan­ti­ta­tive abil­ity than the typ­i­cal phys­i­cal sci­en­tist are not enter­ing the math­-science pipeline…­For the most able stu­dents, how­ev­er, rel­e­vant abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files are in place before high school…In our cul­ture at this junc­ture, the per­sonal attrib­utes of males and females are such that, for edu­ca­tional and career rea­sons, stress­ing either abil­i­ties or pref­er­ences will undoubt­edly result in dis­parate male/female pro­por­tions in many dis­ci­plines; stress­ing both abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences will inten­sity these dis­par­i­ties.

Lubinski & Humphreys 1992

“Some bod­ily and med­ical cor­re­lates of math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness and com­men­su­rate lev­els of socioe­co­nomic sta­tus”, Lubin­ski & Humphreys 1992

Four groups of 10th-grade stu­dents were selected from the upper tails of four dis­tri­b­u­tions based on a of the nation’s high schools (n = 95,650): Two groups con­sisted of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted sub­jects (boys n = 497, girls n = 508); the remain­ing two groups com­prised envi­ron­men­tally priv­i­leged stu­dents (boys n = 647, girls n = 485). The for­mer rep­re­sented approx­i­mately the top 1% on a stan­dard mea­sure of quan­ti­ta­tive abil­i­ty, whereas the lat­ter rep­re­sented approx­i­mately the upper 1% of a con­ven­tional SES index. These four gifted/privileged groups were then com­pared to one anoth­er, by gen­der, and to their gen­der equiv­a­lent nor­ma­tive cohorts on 43 indices of med­ical and phys­i­cal well-be­ing. Although higher lev­els of phys­i­cal health are found in both gifted and priv­i­leged groups (rel­a­tive to the nor­m), med­ical and phys­i­cal well-be­ing appears to be more highly asso­ci­ated with math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness than extreme lev­els of socioe­co­nomic priv­i­lege. To the extent that these find­ings may be linked to the con­struct gen­eral intel­li­gence, they con­firm and extend the view that the nomo­thetic span (net­work of cor­re­lates) of gen­eral intel­li­gence per­me­ates a vari­ety of impor­tant and val­ued non­in­tel­lec­tual domains (cf. Brand, 1987).

Pyryt & Moroz 1992

“Eval­u­at­ing an accel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­gram: A cen­tre of inquiry approach”, Pyryt & Moroz 1992, in Com­pe­tence and Respon­si­bil­i­ty: The Third Euro­pean Con­fer­ence of the Euro­pean Coun­cil for High Abil­ity, ed Heller & Hany 1992/4:

Michael Pyryt from the Uni­ver­sity of Cal­gary (Canada) made the first pre­sen­ta­tion “Eval­u­at­ing an accel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­gram: A cen­tre of inquiry approach” (au­thors: M. C. Pyryt & R. Moroz). This con­tri­bu­tion has been printed in full length in this vol­ume. The eval­u­a­tion was related to a junior high school, where a selected group of sev­enth graders com­pleted the mate­ri­als for the math­e­mat­ics of the sev­enth and eighth grades. Dur­ing their eighth grade, these stu­dents then com­pleted the math­e­mat­ics cur­ric­ula for ninth graders, and in their ninth grade, they were pre­sented with math­e­mat­ic­s—in antic­i­pa­tion of the first year of high school—­ma­te­ri­als from the tenth grade. The study showed that, depend­ing on the cohort and year 80–100% of the selected stu­dents had no diffi­culty what­so­ever in com­plet­ing the accel­er­ated cur­ric­u­la. The cri­te­ria for this was the achieve­ment of at least 70% cor­rect in final test for the school year. In addi­tion, there were no differ­ences in achieve­ment scores between the accel­er­ated stu­dents and the older stu­dents viewed in com­par­ison, who com­pleted the same mate­ri­als over a longer period of time (Pyryt & Moroz, 1992).

Stanley 1992

“A Slice of Advice”, Stan­ley 1992:

[Re­searchers are advised to work hard toward pub­lish­ing arti­cles where they will get full atten­tion from the ablest pro­fes­sion­als in the field. A sec­ond piece of advice is to inter­act with per­sons in the field of spe­cial research inter­est, and seek them out through pub­li­ca­tions and pro­fes­sional con­fer­ences.]

This col­umn is the fourth in a series pre­sent­ing the advice of vet­eran edu­ca­tional researchers aimed at their junior col­leagues. Each invited con­trib­u­tor will be asked to offer one or more career-rel­e­vant guide­lines for begin­ning edu­ca­tional researchers, devel­op­ers, and/or eval­u­a­tors. The colum­n’s func­tion is to serve as a repos­i­tory for the expe­ri­ence-based insights of our field’s senior mem­ber­s—in­sights that, if not shared, must be redis­cov­ered.

Stanley 1992b

“My Life and How It Grew”, Stan­ley 1992b: short auto­bi­og­ra­phy.

Benbow & Lubinski 1993a

“Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed: some sex differ­ences and evi­dence sup­port­ing their bio­log­i­cal basis”, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1993a:

For over 20 years, above-level test­ing with the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT) has been used to assess the abil­i­ties of well over 1,000,000 highly able 12–13-year-olds (stu­dents in the top 3% in intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty). In this pop­u­la­tion, the pre­dic­tive valid­ity of the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the SAT, SAT-M, for aca­d­e­mic and voca­tional cri­te­ria has been demon­strated over 10-year gaps. Here, we doc­u­ment aspects of the psy­cho­log­i­cal and achieve­ment pro­files of these highly able stu­dents, pay­ing par­tic­u­lar atten­tion to sex differ­ences. Males score higher on SAT-M (i.e., math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty) than females; this differ­ence is accom­pa­nied by differ­ences between the sexes in spa­tial-me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and in a num­ber of lifestyle and voca­tional pref­er­ences. Col­lec­tive­ly, these attrib­utes appear to play a key role in struc­tur­ing male-fe­male dis­par­i­ties in pur­su­ing advanced edu­ca­tional cre­den­tials and careers in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. After pro­fil­ing a num­ber of the behav­ioural char­ac­ter­is­tics of the highly able, we exam­ine some under­ly­ing bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of these phe­no­typic man­i­fes­ta­tions. These include hor­monal influ­ences, med­ical and bod­ily con­di­tions and enhanced right hemi­spheric acti­va­tion.

Benbow & Lubinski 1993b

“Con­se­quences of Gen­der Differ­ences in Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity and Some Bio­log­i­cal Link­ages”, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1993b:

[See Ben­bow & Ben­bow 1987b on cor­re­lates, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1993a on inter­ests; adds some addi­tional graphs/tables.]

Bock & Ackrill 1993

The Ori­gins and Devel­op­ment of High Abil­ity, ed Bock & Ack­rill 1993 (ISBN 0-471-93945-5). Anthol­o­gy:

  • “Psy­cho­log­i­cal pro­files of the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ent­ed: some sex differ­ences and evi­dence sup­port­ing their bio­log­i­cal basis”, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1993:

    For over 20 years, above-level test­ing with the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT) has been used to assess the abil­i­ties of well over 1000000 highly able 12–13-year-olds (stu­dents in the top 3% in intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty). In this pop­u­la­tion, the pre­dic­tive valid­ity of the math­e­mat­i­cal part of the SAT, SAT-M, for aca­d­e­mic and voca­tional cri­te­ria has been demon­strated over 10-year gaps. Here, we doc­u­ment aspects of the psy­cho­log­i­cal and achieve­ment pro­files of these highly able stu­dents, pay­ing par­tic­u­lar atten­tion to sex differ­ences. Males score higher on SAT-M (i.e., math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty) than females; this differ­ence is accom­pa­nied by differ­ences between the sexes in spa­tial-me­chan­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and in a num­ber of lifestyle and voca­tional pref­er­ences. Col­lec­tive­ly, these attrib­utes appear to play a key role in struc­tur­ing male-fe­male dis­par­i­ties in pur­su­ing advanced edu­ca­tional cre­den­tials and careers in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. After pro­fil­ing a num­ber of the behav­ioural char­ac­ter­is­tics of the highly able, we exam­ine some under­ly­ing bio­log­i­cal cor­re­lates of these phe­no­typic man­i­fes­ta­tions. These include hor­monal influ­ences, med­ical and bod­ily con­di­tions and enhanced right hemi­spheric acti­va­tion.

    • Dis­cus­sion: Ben­bow, Lubin­ski, Stern­berg, Sitruk-Ware, Gard­ner, Fowler, Hatano, Dudai, Gru­ber, Stan­ley, Free­man, Bouchard
  • “Boys and girls who rea­son well math­e­mat­i­cally”, Stan­ley 1993:

    Since 1971 the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity has pio­neered in dis­cov­ery of and pro­vi­sion of edu­ca­tional help for 12-year-old boys and girls who rea­son bet­ter math­e­mat­i­cally than 99% of other 12-year-olds. SMPY orig­i­nated wide­spread searches for such youths and spe­cial aca­d­e­mic classes for them out­side the reg­u­lar school sys­tem. A regional tal­ent search, ver­bal as well as math­e­mat­i­cal, now cov­ers all 50 states of the USA, and many var­ied res­i­den­tial sum­mer pro­grammes are offered across the coun­try. These have pro­vided edu­ca­tional facil­i­ta­tion for many thou­sands, and have encour­aged greater cur­ric­u­lar flex­i­bil­ity in schools and bet­ter artic­u­la­tion of in-school with out­-of-school learn­ing expe­ri­ences. From the first tal­ent search con­ducted by SMPY in 1972, it became obvi­ous that boys tend to score con­sid­er­ably higher than girls on the Col­lege Board Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test-Math­e­mat­i­cal (SAT-M), a test intended mainly for col­lege-bound 17- and 18-year-olds. This differ­ence was reported in 1974 but attracted lit­tle atten­tion until a con­tro­ver­sial report in 1980 stim­u­lated research on sex differ­ences in var­i­ous aspects of math­e­mat­ics.

    Here I describe a study of sex differ­ences over 10 years on 14 Col­lege Board high school achieve­ment tests, which are taken (three usu­al­ly) by bright 17- and 18-year-olds seek­ing admis­sion to the USA’s selec­tive col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties. Among the high scor­ers on the Euro­pean his­tory test the ratio of males to females was great­est, 6:1. The next most sex-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing test was physics, 2.9:1, fol­lowed by ele­men­tary-level math­e­mat­ics (mainly alge­bra and geom­e­try), 2.5:1. Other ratios favour­ing males were, in 1991, chem­istry (2.4:1), Amer­i­can his­tory (2.1:1), biol­ogy (1.8:1), pre­cal­cu­lus math­e­mat­ics (1.6:1), Latin (1.6: 1), French (1.4:1), mod­ern Hebrew (1.1:1) and Ger­man (1.02:1). Tests in which more females were high scor­ers were lit­er­a­ture (1.26: 1), Eng­lish com­po­si­tion (1.05: 1) and Span­ish (1.01:1). The largest sex differ­ences on other stan­dard­ized tests, for mechan­i­cal rea­son­ing and spa­tial rota­tion, favour males. There are even larger differ­ences for self­-re­ported eval­u­a­tive atti­tudes, with the the­o­ret­i­cal value high for boys and the aes­thetic high for girls. Such value scores cor­re­late strangely with scores on achieve­ment and apti­tude tests. By 12 or younger, bright boys and girls already show many of the cog­ni­tive sex differ­ences found in 18-year-olds.

Lubinski et al 1993

“Recon­cep­tu­al­iz­ing Gen­der Differ­ences in Achieve­ment Among the Gifted”, Lubin­ski et al 1993,, in Inter­na­tional hand­book of research and devel­op­ment of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent, ed Heller et al 1993:

…fo­cus specifi­cally on fac­tors relat­ing to educational/vocational choice, excep­tional educational/vocational achieve­ments and gen­der differ­ences within the gifted pop­u­la­tion / our… research . . . is also aimed at pro­gram exper­i­men­ta­tion and refine­ment of well-known edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions. Draws on the lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings from SMPY [Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth] to illus­trate key antecedents to gen­der differ­ences in the phys­i­cal sci­ences / describe the design of our study and its the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work / [dis­cuss] gen­der differ­ences in actual achieve­ment among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and some empir­i­cal find­ings involv­ing gen­der differ­ences on famil­iar as well as under­ap­pre­ci­ated vari­ables crit­i­cal for choos­ing to excel in math/science domains.

Over the past 30 years, many of the unen­light­ened bar­ri­ers pre­vent­ing gifted women from achiev­ing edu­ca­tional cre­den­tials and occu­pa­tional sta­tus com­men­su­rate with their abil­i­ties have been removed. In many edu­ca­tional pro­grams, com­pa­ra­ble gen­der rep­re­sen­ta­tion quickly ensued, espe­cially in areas like law where many kinds of 4-year degrees are accept­able for admis­sions. Excep­tional per­for­mances by women on bar exams, law school grades anti hon­ors fol­lowed, just as the pro­tag­o­nists who worked so hard to remove the afore­men­tioned bar­ri­ers had pre­dicted all along. Gen­der-com­pa­ra­bil­i­ties in med­ical schools, both in rep­re­sen­ta­tion and in per­for­mance, fol­lowed shortly there­after. This trend served to rein­force fur­ther the well-grounded argu­ments for remov­ing gen­der-dis­crim­i­nat­ing edu­ca­tional bar­ri­ers to begin with. That is, argu­ments ini­tially stem­ming pri­mar­ily from polit­i­cal-ide­o­log­i­cal con­cerns now became but­tressed by eco­nomic and psy­cho­log­i­cal jus­ti­fi­ca­tion: not only were women per­form­ing admirably in these areas, the dis­ci­plines them­selves were ben­e­fit­ing from a more able stu­dent pop­u­la­tion. As a con­se­quence of the greater num­ber of women with excep­tional aca­d­e­mic cre­den­tial: enter­ing law and med­i­cine, both dis­ci­plines have insured that their future lead­ers and prac­ti­tion­ers will have greater com­pe­ten­cies and sophis­ti­ca­tion.

…Our research, how­ev­er, is also aimed at pro­gram exper­i­men­ta­tion and refine­ment of well-known edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions. That is, in work­ing with intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents, indi­vid­u­ally and in groups, we attempt to find and pro­vide envi­ron­ments wherein their tal­ents can best blos­som and come to their full fruition. Under­stand­ing what those envi­ron­ments con­sist of and learn­ing how to pro­vide them are two of the more cen­tral goals of our applied research. We shall draw upon that work as well.

…It is the the­sis of this chap­ter that the the­o­ret­i­cal model guid­ing our research with the gift­ed, which is to be expli­cat­ed, has impli­ca­tions for ana­lyz­ing and bet­ter under­stand­ing the under­-rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women all along the math/science pipeline. Indeed, our empir­i­cal stud­ies have revealed unique fac­tors oper­at­ing to pre­serve gen­der-dis­par­i­ties in math/science careers and these fac­tors relate to choice. We pro­pose here that gen­der differ­ences in achieve­ment are a reflec­tion of choices and that these choices nat­u­rally emerge from a num­ber of gen­der-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing attrib­utes crit­i­cal for a com­mit­ment to, and excel­lence in, math/science careers. Fur­ther, we sug­gest that it might be profitable to recon­cep­tu­al­ize the pro­fes­sional and the pub­lic view of gen­der differ­ences in math/science achieve­ment, name­ly, as con­se­quences of the differ­ent per­spec­tives and per­sonal qual­i­ties that males and females bring to sit­u­a­tions.

In what fol­lows, we shall draw on the lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings from SMPY to illus­trate key antecedents to gen­der differ­ences in the phys­i­cal sci­ences. We shall first describe the design of our study and its the­o­ret­i­cal frame­work. This is fol­lowed by a dis­cus­sion of gen­der differ­ences in actual achieve­ment among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and some empir­i­cal find­ings involv­ing gen­der differ­ences on famil­iar as well as under­ap­pre­ci­ated vari­ables crit­i­cal for choos­ing to excel in math/science domains. Final­ly, we close with a brief dis­cus­sion of the impli­ca­tions of our cur­rent state of knowl­edge and how these impli­ca­tions might be used to both guide and orga­nize the direc­tion of future research on gifted females (as well as males).

Mills 1993

“Per­son­al­i­ty, learn­ing style and cog­ni­tive style pro­files of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents”, Mills 1993:

Clear per­son­al­ity differ­ences were found for a sam­ple of aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents when com­pared to a gen­eral pop­u­la­tion of same age stu­dents. On the Myer­s-Briggs dimen­sions, the aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents differed sig­nifi­cantly from the com­par­i­son group on all four dimen­sions. Specifi­cal­ly, the aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented group expressed greater pref­er­ences for intro­ver­sion, intu­ition, and think­ing. Although there were more judg­ing types in this group than in the com­par­i­son group, over­all more aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents expressed a pref­er­ence for a per­cep­tive style. They also tended to be higher on achieve­ment moti­va­tion and lower on inter­per­sonal and social con­cerns. In par­tic­u­lar, a cog­ni­tive style that empha­sizes a think­ing over a feel­ing mode appears to medi­ate gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics abil­ity and achieve­ment.

Southern et al 1993

“Accel­er­a­tion and Enrich­ment: The Con­text and Devel­op­ment of Pro­gram Options”, South­ern et al 1993:

Accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment may be regarded as legs that sup­port the same chair. Casual con­sid­er­a­tion of the defi­n­i­tions of the two approaches will reveal appar­ent sim­i­lar­i­ties. What­ever the appear­ances, the ratio­nales. for accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment are based on differ­ent assump­tions about four basic issues: the nature of intel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness, affec­tive char­ac­ter­is­tics of gift­ed­ness, the goals of reg­u­lar and gifted edu­ca­tion, and the ade­quacy of reg­u­lar edu­ca­tion cur­ric­u­la.

Cul­tural and soci­etal fac­tors and his­tor­i­cal events have also influ­enced the assump­tions of edu­ca­tors and the pub­lic: about all fac­tors asso­ci­ated with accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment. Differ­ences in basic assump­tions and shifts in val­ues and goals have had a pro­found influ­ence On ini­tia­tives to pro­vide pro­grams to gifted stu­dents. This chap­ter is divided into four prin­ci­pal sec­tions. First, it begins with a dis­cus­sion of defi­n­i­tions of accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment. Impli­ca­tions of the defi­n­i­tions fer pro­gram devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion will accom­pany those dis­cus­sions. The sec­ond sec­tion of the chap­ter describes the his­tor­i­cal con­text of the debate over the rel­a­tive mer­its of accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment. In the third sec­tion, fac­tors that fuel the debate are delin­eat­ed. The final sec­tion of the chap­ter describe attrib­utes of national edu­ca­tional sys­tems that affect the devel­op­ment of accel­er­a­tion and enrich­ment options and presents descrip­tions of the options that are employed.

Sowell 1993

“Pro­grams for Math­e­mat­i­cally Gifted Stu­dents: A Review of Empir­i­cal Research”, Sow­ell 1993:

This paper sum­ma­rizes and cri­tiques the empir­i­cal research of the 1970s and 1980s on pro­grams for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents. Much research has shown that accel­er­at­ing the math­e­mat­ics cur­ricu­lum pro­vides a very good pro­gram for pre­co­cious stu­dents. Orga­ni­za­tional plans that place math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents together for math­e­mat­ics instruc­tion also offer oppor­tu­ni­ties for these stu­dents to per­form well. Although tech­nol­o­gy-based instruc­tion also appears to pro­vide an effi­ca­cious way of pro­vid­ing instruc­tion for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted ele­men­tary stu­dents, this method should be exam­ined fur­ther with older stu­dents and in long-term stud­ies. Research with enriched cur­ric­ula and non-com­put­er-based instruc­tion pro­vided incon­clu­sive evi­dence of effi­cacy for math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents.

Putting the Research to Use: This review shows clearly that math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents profit by par­tic­i­pat­ing in accel­er­ated math­e­mat­ics pro­grams. Also, math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents per­form bet­ter when they work along­side other math­e­mat­i­cally able stu­dents. There­fore, teach­ers and par­ents are encour­aged to iden­tify and develop pro­grams or orga­ni­za­tional plans that pro­vide these oppor­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents. Ele­men­tary school teach­ers should make tech­nol­o­gy-based pro­grams in math­e­mat­ics avail­able to their stu­dents, espe­cially those who are math­e­mat­i­cally able, because these pro­grams appear to work well.

Swiatek 1993

“A decade of lon­gi­tu­di­nal research on aca­d­e­mic accel­er­a­tion through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Swiatek 1993 (this has been repub­lished as Swiatek 2002, as part of a spe­cial issue reprint­ing arti­cles from the pre­vi­ous 25 years):

Over the past decade, sev­eral lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies per­tain­ing to the edu­ca­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents were pro­duced through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). One area that was empha­sized, in keep­ing with SMPY’s his­to­ry, is aca­d­e­mic accel­er­a­tion. SMPY’s stud­ies, which con­sider var­i­ous groups of stu­dents, meth­ods of accel­er­a­tion, and types of out­comes, sup­port accel­er­a­tion as an edu­ca­tional method. Their results are in keep­ing with the work of other authors in this area. In this arti­cle, the sub­jects, meth­ods, and out­comes of SMPY’s stud­ies are described and plans for future research are out­lined.

Albert 1994

“The Achieve­ment of Emi­nence: A Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Excep­tion­ally Gifted Boys and Their Fam­i­lies”, Robert S. Albert (pre­vi­ous­ly: Albert 1980) in , ed Sub­ot­nik & Arnold 1994 (ISBN 1567500110)

Charlton et al 1994

“Fol­low-up insights on rapid edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion”, Charl­ton et al 1994 (re­pub­lished in 2002 in the 25-year spe­cial issue):

Too lit­tle is known about what hap­pens, when they grow up, to youths who rea­son extremely well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Few tell their story to spe­cial­ists in edu­ca­tion of the gift­ed, either in writ­ing or oral­ly. Julian Stan­ley brought two suc­cess­ful for­mer “rad­i­cal accel­er­ants” to the Novem­ber 1993 annual meet­ing of the National Asso­ci­a­tion for Gifted Chil­dren in Atlanta and also pro­vided some infor­ma­tion about 12 other math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youths. Jane C. Charl­ton and Don­ald M. Marolf, the two young adults fea­tured, told the sym­po­sium audi­ence about them­selves and answered ques­tions. They were amaz­ingly frank, insight­ful, and humor­ous about their lives thus far. Both are con­vinced, and are con­vinc­ing, that rapid progress through school grades all the way to the Ph.D. degree is the nearly opti­mal way for per­sons like them­selves to enrich their edu­ca­tion and pre­pare for adult­hood. All three speak­ers agreed, how­ev­er, that extremely fast edu­ca­tional advance­ment might not be the ideal cur­ricu­lum path for some other equally capa­ble boys and girls.

Ng 1994

“An adden­dum: Lenny Ng’s story”, 1994 (see also Mura­tori et al 2006):

…In all seri­ous­ness, peo­ple often ask me what it is like, as a friend put it recent­ly, “to be so smart”, to have appeared on the cover of Parade mag­a­zine and been fea­tured in Newsweek, Life mag­a­zine, and even Sports Illus­trated for Kids. I can tell you that it’s been a lot of fun, and extremely reward­ing. Through my activ­i­ties and com­pe­ti­tions, I have made life­long friends, seen fas­ci­nat­ing places, and met peo­ple even more famous than my broth­er. Per­haps my great­est bless­ing is a mind enchanted by every­thing from math to music, from lit­er­a­ture to ten­nis. I have been for­tu­nate to have a wealth of oppor­tu­ni­ties as eclec­tic as they have been numer­ous. And much of my suc­cess should belong to my hard­work­ing, devot­ed, and vision­ary par­ents…

Lubinski & Benbow 1994

“The Study Of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth: The First Three Decades Of A Planned 50-Year Study Of Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 1994, in , ed Sub­ot­nik & Arnold 1994 (ISBN 1567500110):

describes the planned 50-yr lon­gi­tu­di­nal study that is being con­ducted by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) / present data from SMPY and the psy­cho­log­i­cal lit­er­a­ture that have rel­e­vance for iden­ti­fy­ing the early psy­cho­log­i­cal antecedents of com­pe­tence and sat­is­fac­tion at all points along the math/science pipeline, from select­ing a col­lege major to earn­ing a doc­tor­ate in a tech­ni­cal dis­ci­pline / fac­tors espe­cially con­ducive to excep­tional achieve­ments will be given par­tic­u­lar atten­tion, as will spe­cial influ­ences that con­tribute to the opti­mal edu­ca­tional and voca­tional devel­op­ment of the nascent phys­i­cal sci­en­tist; pos­si­ble influ­ences related to gen­der differ­ences in achieve­ment will be stressed.

Lubinski et al 1995

“Sta­bil­ity of voca­tional inter­ests among the intel­lec­tu­ally gifted from ado­les­cence to adult­hood: A 15-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Lubin­ski et al 1995:

A sam­ple of 162 intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) were admin­is­tered the Strong-Camp­bell Inter­est Inven­tory at age 13. Fifteen years lat­er, they were admin­is­tered the Strong again. This study eval­u­ated the intra- and interindi­vid­ual tem­po­ral sta­bil­ity of the 6 RIASEC (Re­al­is­tic, Inves­tiga­tive, Artis­tic, Social, Enter­pris­ing, Con­ven­tion­al) themes and the Strong’s 23 Basic Inter­est Scales. Over the 15-year test-retest inter­val, RIASEC’s median interindi­vid­ual cor­re­la­tion for the 6 themes was .46; the median of all 162 intrain­di­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions was 0.57. Con­fig­ural analy­ses of the most dom­i­nant theme at age 13 revealed that this theme was sig­nifi­cantly more likely than chance to be either dom­i­nant or adja­cent to the dom­i­nant theme at age 28-fol­low­ing RIASEC’s hexag­o­nal struc­ture. For intel­lec­tu­ally gifted indi­vid­u­als, it appears to be pos­si­ble to fore­cast salient fea­tures of their adult RIASEC pro­file by assess­ing their voca­tional inter­ests dur­ing early ado­les­cence, but some RIASEC themes seem more sta­ble than oth­ers.

Lubinski & Benbow 1995

“Opti­mal devel­op­ment of tal­ent: Respond edu­ca­tion­ally to indi­vid­ual differ­ences in per­son­al­ity”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 1995:

…How do we develop the tal­ents of gifted chil­dren while main­tain­ing equi­ty? Based upon the long and cel­e­brated his­tory of indi­vid­ual differ­ences research (Dawis 1992) from edu­ca­tional and voca­tional coun­sel­ing (Bray­field 1950; Dawis and Lofquist 1984; Pat­ter­son 1938; Williamson 1939; 1965), we believe that opti­mal uti­liza­tion of tal­ent depends upon respond­ing to indi­vid­ual differ­ences in per­son­al­i­ties. Specifi­cal­ly, chil­dren must be placed in edu­ca­tional envi­ron­ments that are con­gru­ent with, and build upon, their most salient abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences (Ben­bow and Lubin­ski 1994; in press; Lubin­ski and Ben­bow 1994; Lubin­ski, Ben­bow, and Sanders 1993; Stan­ley 1977). This approach, which is advo­cated by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) (Ben­bow and Lubin­ski 1994; in press; Stan­ley 1977), serves as the focus of this arti­cle.

We argue and present evi­dence that indi­vid­u­als pos­sess cer­tain attrib­utes that make them differ­en­tially suited for excelling, with ful­fill­ment, in con­trast­ing edu­ca­tional and voca­tional tracks. That is, only a lim­ited set of learn­ing envi­ron­ments is edu­ca­tion­ally opti­mal for any­one indi­vid­u­al, even a gifted indi­vid­ual. Stu­dents, for exam­ple, put forth their best effort when they intrin­si­cally enjoy what they are doing, and world-class achieve­ment is most likely to develop when gifted indi­vid­u­als are allowed to pur­sue what they love at their desired pace. Indeed, learn­ing can be opti­mized and achieve­ment moti­va­tion enhanced if stu­dents are pre­sented with tasks that are not only chal­leng­ing (i.e., slightly above the level already mas­tered) but also per­son­ally mean­ing­ful to them (Lofquist and Dawis 1991)…

Sanders et al 1995

“Does the Defin­ing Issues Test Mea­sure Psy­cho­log­i­cal Phe­nom­ena Dis­tinct From Ver­bal Abil­i­ty?: An Exam­i­na­tion of Lykken’s Query”, Sanders et al 1995:

This study exam­ined the incre­men­tal valid­ity of the Defin­ing Issues Test (DIT), a test pur­port­ing to mea­sure moral rea­son­ing abil­ity rel­a­tive to ver­bal abil­ity and other major mark­ers of the con­struct of gen­eral intel­li­gence (g). Across 2 inde­pen­dent stud­ies of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents (top 0.5%), results obtained with the DIT revealed that gifted indi­vid­u­als earned sig­nifi­cantly higher moral rea­son­ing scores than did their aver­age-a­bil­ity peers; they also scored higher than col­lege fresh­men, who were 4 to 5 years old­er. The rel­a­tive stand­ing of the intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents on moral rea­son­ing, how­ev­er, appears to be due to their supe­rior level of ver­bal abil­ity as opposed to any of a num­ber of the other psy­cho­log­i­cal vari­ables exam­ined here. The hypoth­e­sis that the DIT is con­cep­tu­ally dis­tinct from con­ven­tional mea­sures of ver­bal abil­ity was not con­firmed. Inves­ti­ga­tors con­duct­ing sub­se­quent stud­ies involv­ing the assess­ment of moral rea­son­ing are advised to incor­po­rate mea­sures of ver­bal abil­ity into their designs, thereby enabling them to ascer­tain whether moral rea­son­ing mea­sures are indeed cap­tur­ing sys­tem­atic sources of indi­vid­ual differ­ences dis­tinct from ver­bal abil­i­ty.

Achter et al 1996

“Mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity Among the Intel­lec­tu­ally Gift­ed: ‘It Was Never There and Already It’s Van­ish­ing’”, Achter et al 1996:

The the­ory of work adjust­ment was used as a con­cep­tual frame­work in eval­u­at­ing the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­i­ty, taken from the psy­cho­log­i­cal lit­er­a­ture on coun­sel­ing intel­lec­tu­ally gifted indi­vid­u­als (viz., those with high­-flat abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files that may lead to career inde­ci­sion and dis­tress). An exam­i­na­tion of over 1,000 intel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents (top 1%) in 4 sep­a­rate cohorts, assessed with the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test, the Study of Val­ues, and J. L. Hol­land’s (1985) six inter­est themes, revealed lit­tle empir­i­cal sup­port for the preva­lence of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity within intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (<5%). Rather, it appears that the idea of an over­abun­dance of high­-flat abil­ity and pref­er­ence pro­files among gifted stu­dents stems from the use of age-cal­i­brated and, hence, devel­op­men­tally inap­pro­pri­ate assess­ment tools hav­ing insuffi­cient ceil­ings. The results have impor­tant impli­ca­tions for the use of tra­di­tional voca­tional assess­ment mea­sures in coun­sel­ing gifted stu­dents.

Achter et al 1997

“Rethink­ing Mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity Among the Intel­lec­tu­ally Gift­ed: A Crit­i­cal Review and Rec­om­men­da­tions”, Achter et al 1997:

This paper crit­i­cally reviews the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity as it has been defined and encoun­tered in the sci­en­tific lit­er­a­ture on gifted chil­dren. Until recent­ly, it has not been ade­quately sub­jected to empir­i­cal eval­u­a­tion. Despite its ubiq­ui­tous pres­ence in the lit­er­a­ture, sev­eral pieces of evi­dence are pre­sented sug­gest­ing that mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity has been erro­neously inter­preted and falsely assumed to apply to a major­ity of intel­lec­tu­ally gifted indi­vid­u­als. Find­ings are sum­ma­rized from a recent report (Achter, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 1996) on the abil­i­ty, inter­est, and value pro­files of over 1000 stu­dents from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), as well as evi­dence com­piled from other empir­i­cal stud­ies, indi­cat­ing that above-level assess­ment of abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences among gifted ado­les­cents reveal markedly differ­en­ti­ated pro­files for the vast major­ity (over 95% when all fac­tors were con­sult­ed). Thus, the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity requires rethink­ing. Tra­di­tional assess­ment tools found in voca­tional psy­chol­ogy (i.e., ques­tion­naires and tests mea­sur­ing abil­i­ties, inter­ests, and val­ues), when offered in an above-level for­mat, are use­ful in serv­ing the edu­ca­tional and career coun­sel­ing needs of intel­lec­tu­ally gifted young ado­les­cents. Fur­ther, such tools are help­ful for gain­ing an appre­ci­a­tion of the diver­sity of indi­vid­ual differ­ences among the intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ent­ed.

Benbow & Lubinski 1996

Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent: Psy­cho­me­t­ric and Social Issues, ed Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1996 (ISBN 0801853028). Anthol­o­gy, sec­tion IV, “The Use of Knowl­edge: the SMPY Project”:

On April 19, 1992, almost a hun­dred indi­vid­u­als made a pil­grim­age to San Fran­cisco to attend a sym­po­sium con­ducted in honor of Julian C. Stan­ley and his career achieve­ments. The sym­po­sium was enti­tled “From Psy­cho­met­rics to Gift­ed­ness”, a fit­ting descrip­tion of Julian’s career path. It was attended by many of his for­mer as well as cur­rent col­leagues and stu­dents, includ­ing a research par­tic­i­pant in his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth.

This book grew out of that sym­po­sium. All but four of the pre­sen­ta­tions were expanded upon and devel­oped into chap­ters for this vol­ume. Eight chap­ters were added to round out the book’s cov­er­age of the sub­ject mat­ter. The book is meant to tell an impor­tant sto­ry, and we believe it does. It begins with a dis­cus­sion of IQ and the edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion of gifted chil­dren, and how work in this area is affected by the Zeit­geist. A major theme is how polit­i­cal cli­mates and emo­tions influ­ence sci­en­tific inquiry by lim­it­ing both the ques­tions posed and what knowl­edge obtained from social sci­ence research is actu­ally put into prac­tice. What we have learned is that lit­tle of what is applied is con­sis­tent with what research informs us are good prac­tices. Rather, we are attracted to fads with insuffi­cient empir­i­cal sup­port.

This leads to two ques­tions: what do we actu­ally know, and what would hap­pen if our knowl­edge were applied? We decided to approach these issues by hav­ing sev­eral con­trib­u­tors exam­ine one prob­lem: how prop­erly to edu­cate chil­dren with excep­tional aca­d­e­mic tal­ents. There is much that we know about this topic and have known for quite some time, as the chap­ters reveal. When this knowl­edge is applied, as it was by Julian Stan­ley through his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, the results are sim­ply strik­ing. This leads one to won­der more gen­er­ally what could the state of edu­ca­tion in the United States be if we actu­ally applied what works and resisted the temp­ta­tion to jump on the next band­wag­on. The cur­rent state of affairs in edu­ca­tion and the social sci­ences could be con­sid­ered mal­prac­tice. The book comes to a close with sev­eral chap­ters deal­ing with psy­cho­me­t­ric issues and the cru­cial differ­ences between genius and gift­ed­ness.

  • “In the Begin­ning: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Stan­ley 1996:

    This paper con­tains a brief descrip­tion of the found­ing and early years of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) from 1968 to the pre­sent. Sev­eral of the guid­ing prin­ci­ples behind SMPY are dis­cussed. SMPY led to the for­ma­tion of strong region­al, state, and local cen­ters that now blan­ket the United States with annual tal­ent searches and aca­d­e­mic sum­mer pro­grams. Among their main tools are the assess­ment tests of the Col­lege Board includ­ing the SAT, high school achieve­ment tests, and Advanced Place­ment Pro­gram (AP) exam­i­na­tions. Iden­ti­fy­ing, via objec­tive tests, youths who rea­son excep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally is the ini­tial aim of SMPY and its sequels. The 12- or 13-year-old boys and girls who score high are then pro­vided the spe­cial, sup­ple­men­tal, accel­er­a­tive edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties they sorely need.

  • “Con­tri­bu­tions of the Tal­en­t-Search Con­cept to Gifted Edu­ca­tion”, van Tas­sel-Baska 1996

  • “Nur­tur­ing Excep­tional Tal­ent: SET as a Legacy of SMPY”, Brody & Black­burn 1996

  • “The impact of SMPY’s edu­ca­tional pro­grams from the per­spec­tive of the par­tic­i­pant”, Ben­bow et al 1996:

    Dis­cusses the impact SMPY (Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth) has had on the field of edu­ca­tion, par­tic­u­larly on gifted edu­ca­tion / doc­u­ments the impact that SMPY has had on the stu­dents it has served, in terms of their sub­jec­tive impres­sions of their par­tic­i­pa­tion and its influ­ence on their devel­op­ment / the authors’ eval­u­a­tion will focus on stu­dents iden­ti­fied by SMPY, regard­less of whether or not they received any assis­tance beyond the basics pro­vided through the tal­ent search. this eval­u­a­tion draws on the vast amount of data col­lected by SMPY at Iowa State Uni­ver­sity through its lon­gi­tu­di­nal study / the study cur­rently includes about 5,000 math­e­mat­i­cally and ver­bally tal­ented indi­vid­u­als iden­ti­fied over a 25-yr period and grouped into 5 cohorts, each sep­a­rated by a few years.

Benbow & Stanley 1996

“Inequity In Equi­ty: How ‘Equity’ Can Lead to Inequity for High­-Po­ten­tial Stu­dents”, Ben­bow & Stan­ley 1996:

Over the past three decades, the achieve­ment of waves of Amer­i­can stu­dents with high intel­lec­tual poten­tial has declined as a result of inequity in edu­ca­tional treat­ment. This inequity is the result of an extreme form of egal­i­tar­i­an­ism within Amer­i­can soci­ety and schools, which involves the pit­ting of equity against excel­lence rather than pro­mot­ing both equity and excel­lence, anti-in­tel­lec­tu­al­ism, the “dumb­ing-down” of the cur­ricu­lum, equat­ing apti­tude and achieve­ment test­ing with elit­ism, the attrac­tion to fads by schools, and the insis­tence of schools to teach all stu­dents from the same cur­ricu­lum at the same lev­el. In this arti­cle we pro­vide rec­om­men­da­tions for cre­at­ing pos­i­tive change—rec­om­men­da­tions that empha­size excel­lence for all, that call for respon­sive­ness to indi­vid­ual differ­ences, and that sug­gest bas­ing edu­ca­tional poli­cies on well-grounded research find­ings in psy­chol­ogy and edu­ca­tion. Edu­ca­tional poli­cies that fail to take into account the vast range of indi­vid­ual differ­ences among stu­dents—as do many that are cur­rently in use—are doomed to be ineffec­tive.

Lubinski et al 1996

“A 20-Year Sta­bil­ity Analy­sis of the Study of Val­ues for Intel­lec­tu­ally Gifted Indi­vid­u­als From Ado­les­cence to Adult­hood”, Lubin­ski et al 1996:

A sam­ple of 203 intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) were admin­is­tered the All­port Ver­non-Lindzey (1970) Study of Val­ues (SOV) at age 13; 20 years lat­er, they were ad min­is­tered the SOV again. In this study, researchers eval­u­ated the intra and interindi­vid­ual tem­po­ral sta­bil­ity of the 6 SOV themes, name­ly, The­o­ret­i­cal (T), Eco­nomic (E), Polit­i­cal (P), Aes­thetic (A), Social (S), and Reli­gious (R). Over the 20-year test-retest inter­val, the SOWs mean and median interindi­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions for the 6 themes were 0.37 and 0.34, respec­tive­ly. Cor­re­spond­ing­ly, the mean and median of all 203 intra-in­di­vid­ual cor­re­la­tions were 0.30 and 0.39. Con­fig­ural analy­ses of the most dom­i­nant theme at age 13 revealed that this theme was sig­nifi­cantly more likely than chance to be dom­i­nant or adja­cent to the dom­i­nant theme at age 33. Adja­cency was ascer­tained through a num­ber of empir­i­cally based aux­il­iary analy­ses of the SOV, reveal­ing 2 robust gen­der-d­iffer­en­ti­at­ing clus­ters: T-E-P for males and A-S-R for females.

Stanley 1996

“Edu­ca­tional Tra­jec­to­ries: Rad­i­cal Accel­er­ates Pro­vide Insights”, Stan­ley 1996:

[brief dis­cus­sion of SMPY case-s­tud­ies, par­tic­u­larly ref­er­enc­ing Charl­ton et al 1994]

…By study­ing these six remark­able young peo­ple, one can make a num­ber of ten­ta­tive gen­er­al­iza­tions…

  • Intel­lec­tual abil­ity far above the aver­age is a cru­cial pre­req­ui­site for rad­i­cal edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion. …
  • The stu­dent must be eager to accel­er­ate in ways he or she thinks best. …
  • Push par­ents who drive a youth much faster than his or her abil­i­ties and/or inter­ests war­rant often encounter neg­a­tive reac­tions from their child some­time lat­er.
  • Lais­sez-faire, hand­s-off fathers and moth­ers can be just as detri­men­tal. …
  • Each accel­er­ate’s edu­ca­tional tra­jec­tory differs, often con­sid­er­ably, from that of oth­ers. …
  • None of the six accel­er­ates seemed to live in a sin­gle-par­ent home, but the fam­i­lies were var­ied: Protes­tant, Jew­ish, Black, Chi­nese back­ground, Korean back­ground, etc.
  • All six seemed to have appro­pri­ate self­-es­teem and social abil­i­ty. …
  • Rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion in grade place­ment cer­tainly isn’t for every­one, even the bright­est. …
  • One can have one’s cake and eat it, too.

…This is enough pre­am­ble. You’ll now want to read what [Michele J.] Car­gain and [Alexan­der] Plot­inck tell us about their cop­ing mech­a­nisms and achieve­ments…

Plotinck 1996

“My Edu­ca­tion”, Plot­inck 1996:

Speech deliv­ered at the Con­fer­ence on Ado­les­cence, Accel­er­a­tion, and National Excel­lence at Simon’s Rock Col­lege of Bard Col­lege, Great Bar­ring­ton, MA, June 19, 1994.

Cargain 1996

“Enter­ing a Wom­en’s Col­lege Two Years Early”, Car­gain 1996:

Speech deliv­ered at the Con­fer­ence on Ado­les­cence, Accel­er­a­tion, and National Excel­lence at Simon’s Rock Col­lege of Bard Col­lege, Great Bar­ring­ton, MA, June 19, 1994.

Anonymous 1997

“Cita­tion: David Lubin­ski”, Anony­mous 1997 (APA bio­graph­i­cal pro­file):

David Lubin­ski is acknowl­edged for method­olog­i­cally and con­cep­tu­ally rig­or­ous con­tri­bu­tions to differ­en­tial psy­chol­o­gy. His use of the the­ory of work adjust­ment has illu­mi­nated crit­i­cal con­stel­la­tions of per­sonal attrib­utes that pro­mote aca­d­e­mic excel­lence and world-class emi­nence, espe­cially in the sci­ences. His frame­work for iden­ti­fy­ing early signs (and differ­ent kinds) of intel­lec­tual dis­tinc­tion also points to ways to facil­i­tate its devel­op­ment. A cita­tion, biog­ra­phy, and selected bib­li­og­ra­phy of Lubin­ski’s works are pro­vid­ed.

Benbow & Lubinski 1997

“Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Chil­dren: How Can We Best Meet Their Needs?”, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 1997 (in Hand­book of Gifted Edu­ca­tion, ed Colan­gelo & Davis 1997, ISBN 0205260853): review.

Johns Hopkins Magazine 1997

“Yes­ter­day’s Whiz Kids: Where Are They Today? Nearly three decades have passed since Hop­kin­s’s Julian Stan­ley began his”grand exper­i­ment" to iden­tify young math and sci­ence prodi­gies and rad­i­cally accel­er­ate their aca­d­e­mic course. How they’ve fared depends on which one you ask.", June 1997, Melissa Hen­dricks.

[His­tory of SMPY/CTY, profile/interview/quotes from sev­eral both pos­i­tive & neg­a­tive, dis­cus­sion of Ben­bow and Lubin­ski’s sur­vey of SMPYers’ per­cep­tion of ben­e­fit vs harm (over­whelm­ingly pos­i­tive).]

Summary/commentary about Hen­dricks 1997 from Gross & van Vliet 2003:

Objec­tive: To report on the his­tor­i­cal devel­op­ment of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). To report on the course of the lives of gifted stu­dents who were iden­ti­fied by SMPY and who rad­i­cally accel­er­ated their edu­ca­tion with the sup­port of SMPY.

Design: Infor­ma­tive arti­cle for a col­lege mag­a­zine.

Set­ting: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth, Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty.

Par­tic­i­pants: Staff and stu­dents of SMPY.

Assess­ment of Vari­ables: Staff and stu­dents were inter­viewed about their expe­ri­ences at SMPY. The inter­views were sup­ple­mented with infor­ma­tion from research jour­nals con­cern­ing out­comes for stu­dents from SMPY.

Main Results: The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth was founded by psy­chol­o­gist Julian Stan­ley in the early 1970s. Sci­en­tifi­cally and math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth were iden­ti­fied. These were 12 and 13-year-olds who had achieved high test scores on the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test, the Col­lege Board admis­sions test nor­mally taken by senior high school stu­dents. These stu­dents were offered oppor­tu­ni­ties to accel­er­ate their edu­ca­tion. They were able to attend inten­sive sum­mer and week­end pro­grams at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and were sup­ported to rad­i­cally accel­er­ate their edu­ca­tion. Many of these stu­dents opted to enter col­lege ear­ly. This pro­gram con­tin­ues to offer sim­i­lar oppor­tu­ni­ties to gifted youth today.

Research has been con­ducted since SMPY was estab­lished to fol­low the aca­d­e­mic and socio-affec­tive devel­op­ment of stu­dents. This research has acted to assuage the con­cerns and objec­tions of many peo­ple to the work of SMPY. Recent find­ings show that the major­ity of par­tic­i­pants have been suc­cess­ful in both study and career, and have not expe­ri­enced adverse social out­comes. Nonethe­less there are a small num­ber of stu­dents who did not fare well and some who do not endorse the accel­er­a­tion pro­gram. Research find­ings from SMPY show that 9% of men and 5% of women said that accel­er­a­tion had a neg­a­tive or some­what neg­a­tive effect on their edu­ca­tional plan­ning. The author presents exam­ples of stu­dents who rad­i­cally accel­er­ated their edu­ca­tion under the guid­ance of SMPY. Mark Jacob­son was one of the first stu­dents to be iden­ti­fied by SMPY. At the time this arti­cle was writ­ten, he was spend­ing week­ends as the offi­cial score­keeper for the Bal­ti­more Ori­oles and was employed dur­ing the week with the Defence Depart­ment in a high­-se­cu­rity role. He started col­lege at age 15. Joseph Louis Bates also enrolled in uni­ver­sity ear­ly, at the age of 13. By the age of 17 he had earned his bac­calau­re­ate and mas­ter’s degrees and had begun a doc­tor­ate in com­put­ing at Cor­nell. At the time of writ­ing he was a pro­fes­sor of com­puter sci­ence at Carnegie Mel­lon Uni­ver­si­ty.

Jonathan Edwards also entered uni­ver­sity aged 13. Unlike the oth­ers, he did not com­plete his uni­ver­sity stud­ies and did not receive a degree. Instead he left uni­ver­sity at the age of 17, dis­il­lu­sioned with acad­e­mia and suffer­ing prob­lems in his social life. How­ever he does not regret attend­ing uni­ver­sity at a young age and recalls very pos­i­tive mem­o­ries of uni­ver­sity life. Despite a lack of aca­d­e­mic suc­cess, Jonathan has found great career suc­cess. At the time the arti­cle was writ­ten he was the chief tech­nol­ogy offi­cer of a com­pany he founded called Intranet. The com­pany has an annual rev­enue of 17 mil­lion dol­lars, employs 140 peo­ple, and has a part­ner­ship with IBM.

Dis­cus­sion with these men, along with oth­ers, who were among the first stu­dents to be iden­ti­fied by SMPY, revealed an over­all pos­i­tive pic­ture of rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion. Com­ments about aca­d­e­mic and social gains were encour­ag­ing. Some offered sug­ges­tions for mod­i­fi­ca­tions to the course taken to rad­i­cally accel­er­ate, in the hope of mak­ing rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion even more suc­cess­ful for those fol­low­ing in their foot­steps. Dr Julian Stan­ley offered some insights into per­sonal fac­tors iden­ti­fied by research that appear to con­tribute to suc­cess­ful rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion. Among these were a true desire on the part of the stu­dent to accel­er­ate, a hunger for learn­ing, and the moti­va­tion and energy for hard work.

Con­clu­sion: Research con­ducted at SMPY, along with per­sonal insights gained from ex-s­tu­dents and staff asso­ci­ated with SMPY, reveal that rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion has allowed many peo­ple to achieve remark­able aca­d­e­mic and career out­comes. There appear to be no over­all detri­men­tal effects on social health and many ex-s­tu­dents iden­tify pos­i­tive social and emo­tional out­comes. There are a small num­ber of stu­dents for whom rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion has not been suc­cess­ful. SMPY staff make it clear that rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion should be con­sid­ered only for some excep­tion­ally gifted stu­dents. Com­men­tary: This arti­cle presents results from lon­gi­tu­di­nal research on rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion as well as insights from peo­ple who have expe­ri­enced rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion. As such, it allows the reader to make judge­ments based on data from var­i­ous sources. Per­sonal com­ments from those who have been involved add imme­di­acy to the find­ings from empir­i­cal research and allow for an expanded under­stand­ing of the effects of rad­i­cal accel­er­a­tion on the lives of stu­dents. Com­ments by Dr Julian Stan­ley, a respected author­ity in the field of gifted edu­ca­tion, are enlight­en­ing. This arti­cle describes his coura­geous and well-in­formed lead­er­ship of SMPY.

Petrill et al 1997

“Fail­ure to repli­cate a QTL asso­ci­a­tion between a DNA marker iden­ti­fied by EST00083 and IQ”, Petrill et al 1997:

In a paper pub­lished in this jour­nal, a pos­si­ble QTL asso­ci­a­tion was reported between gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity and a mark­er, iden­ti­fied by an expressed sequence tag, EST00083 (Skuder et al., 1995). In two small sam­ples, the fre­quency of the com­mon allele of this DNA mark­er, which was shown to be in the thre­o­nine trans­fer RNA gene in mito­chon­dr­ial DNA, was sig­nifi­cantly greater in a high­-IQ group than in a low-IQ group. As part of the ongo­ing IQ QTL Project (Plomin et al., 1995), we have attempted to repli­cate this QTL asso­ci­a­tion. First, we found that the QTL asso­ci­a­tion remained sig­nifi­cant when we com­pared 51 high- and 51 -av­er­age IQ sub­jects, drawn in part from the sam­ples used in the pre­vi­ous report. How­ev­er, when we exam­ined the asso­ci­a­tion in new sam­ples of 40 extremely high­-IQ sub­jects and 50 aver­age-IQ sub­jects, the asso­ci­a­tion did not repli­cate. This under­lies the need for repli­ca­tion in case-con­trol stud­ies of allelic asso­ci­a­tion.

Stanley 1997

“Vari­eties of Intel­lec­tual Tal­ent”, Stan­ley 1997:

Pre­coc­i­ty, prodi­gious­ness, bright­ness, intel­li­gence, tal­ent, cre­ativ­i­ty, emi­nence, renown, great­ness, and genius may be aspects or con­se­quences of char­ac­ter­is­tics often lumped together under the mul­ti­-di­men­sional term “gift­ed­ness.” Cer­tain of these con­cepts can be traced from Gal­ton through Spear­man, Binet, and Ter­man to out­stand­ing recent con­trib­u­tors. We con­sider iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youth and, to some extent, their edu­ca­tional facil­i­ta­tion. Although the “abil­i­ties” view of tal­ent is empha­sized, more qual­i­ta­tive approaches such as those of Bloom, Eric­sson, Gard­ner, Simon­ton, and Stern­berg receive atten­tion. Life out­comes of math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally pre­co­cious youth iden­ti­fied across the nation by tal­ent searches ema­nat­ing since 1971 from Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity and else­where may help clar­ify rela­tion­ships between intel­lec­tual pre­coc­i­ty, cre­ativ­i­ty, and achieve­ment.

Chorney et al 1998

“A Quan­ti­ta­tive Trait Locus Asso­ci­ated With Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity in Chil­dren”, Chor­ney et al 1998:

(QTLs) asso­ci­ated with gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) were inves­ti­gated for sev­eral groups of chil­dren selected for very high or for aver­age cog­ni­tive func­tion­ing. A DNA marker in the gene for insulin-like growth fac­tor-2 recep­tor (IGF2R) on Chro­mo­some 6 yielded a sig­nifi­cantly greater fre­quency of a par­tic­u­lar form of the gene (al­lele) in a high-g group (0.303; aver­age IQ = 136, n = 51) than in a con­trol group (0.156; aver­age IQ = 103, n = 51). This asso­ci­a­tion was repli­cated in an extreme­ly-high-g group (all esti­mated IQs > 160, n = 52) as com­pared with an inde­pen­dent con­trol group (av­er­age IQ = 101, n = 50), with allelic fre­quen­cies of 0.340 and 0.169, respec­tive­ly. More­over, a high­-math­e­mat­ic­s-a­bil­ity group (n = 62) and a high­-ver­bal-a­bil­ity group (n = 51) yielded results that were in the same direc­tion but only mar­gin­ally sig­nifi­cant (p = 0.06 and 0.08, respec­tive­ly).

[Note that like all QTLs iden­ti­fied for intelligence/personality in nor­mal or enriched sam­ples in the era, includ­ing the false pos­i­tive debunked by Petrill et al 1997 pre­vi­ously using a SMPY sam­ple, this was a false pos­i­tive. GWAS attempts to find rare vari­ants which con­tribute to high intel­li­gence, like BGI or Spain et al 2016 or , have come up dry, and attempts at inves­ti­gat­ing differ­ent group her­i­tabil­i­ties between high/normal intel­li­gence using DeFries-Fulker meth­ods like Shake­shaft et al 2014 sug­gest that high intel­li­gence is merely part of the con­tin­uum of nor­mal intel­li­gence & dri­ven by com­mon genetic vari­ants of small effec­t.]

Hill et al 2002

“A Quan­ti­ta­tive Trait Locus Not Asso­ci­ated With Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity In Chil­dren: A Fail­ure To Repli­cate”, Hill et al 2002:

In 1998 in this jour­nal, we reported results sug­gest­ing that a gene (in­sulin-like growth fac­tor-2 recep­tor, IGF2R) on chro­mo­some 6 was asso­ci­ated with gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) in two inde­pen­dent case-con­trol sam­ples of chil­dren selected for very high g (cas­es) or for aver­age g (con­trols; Chor­ney et al., 1998).

…Be­cause of the like­li­hood of false pos­i­tive results in the quest for quan­ti­ta­tive trait loci (QTLs) of small effect size using many DNA mark­ers, repli­ca­tion is cru­cial (Car­don & Bell, 2001). We had hoped that other lab­o­ra­to­ries would attempt to repli­cate the IGF2R asso­ci­a­tion with g, but 4 years after the orig­i­nal pub­li­ca­tion in this jour­nal, we are not aware of such efforts. For this rea­son, we con­ducted our own repli­ca­tion analy­sis. The pur­pose of the present let­ter is to report results for the IGF2R gene for a new sam­ple that is as large as the two pre­vi­ously reported sam­ples com­bined

…The results we reported for the com­bined orig­i­nal and repli­ca­tion sam­ples yielded an allelic fre­quency for allele 5 of 32% in the high-g group and 16% in the con­trol group, χ2 (1, n = 186) = 12.41, p = 0.0004. In the present sam­ple, the fre­quency of allele 5 was 19% in the high-g group and 24% in the con­trol group, χ2 (1, n = 188) = 1.54, p = 0.22. Tests of other alle­les and geno­typic com­par­isons also failed to repli­cate our pre­vi­ous results.

…The present sam­ple was as large as our orig­i­nal and repli­ca­tion sam­ples com­bined and pro­vided 98% power to detect a QTL asso­ci­a­tion with an effect size as small as 1%. Thus, we con­clude that the TG repeat poly­mor­phism in IGF2R is not asso­ci­ated with high g.

Pyryt 1998

“Accel­er­a­tion: Strate­gies and Ben­e­fits”, Pyryt 1998:

The pur­pose of this arti­cle is to describe ways of chal­leng­ing gifted stu­dents through accel­er­a­tive prac­tice. Despite the over­whelm­ing amount of favor­able evi­dence, Dau­rio, 1979; Gold, 1965; Kulik & Kulik, 1983; pro­gram­ming expe­ri­ences for the gifted encour­age enrich­ment over accel­er­a­tion. Gold (1965) wrote, “No para­dox is more strik­ing than the incon­sis­tency between research find­ings on accel­er­a­tion and the fail­ure of our soci­ety to reduce the time spent by supe­rior stu­dents in for­mal edu­ca­tion” (p.238). …

[SMPY; AP cours­es; the Iowa Accel­er­a­tion Scale]

Schmidt et al 1998

“Valid­ity of Assess­ing Edu­ca­tion­al-Vo­ca­tional Pref­er­ence Dimen­sions Among Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented 13-Year-Olds”, Schmidt et al 1998:

Study 1 exam­ined the con­struct valid­ity of the Strong Inter­est Inven­tory and the Study of Val­ues for 695 intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds. Study 2 con­sisted of a gen­er­al­iza­tion probe to 695 grad­u­ate stu­dents enrolled in select uni­ver­si­ties. This analy­sis man­i­fested an impres­sive degree of ado­les­cence-to-adult cross-val­i­da­tion. Well-known pref­er­ence ques­tion­naires appear to assess mean­ing­ful indi­vid­ual differ­ences among intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young ado­les­cents. How pref­er­ence assess­ments may com­ple­ment rou­tine abil­ity assess­ments of gifted ado­les­cents and how coun­selors may use such infor­ma­tion to encour­age stu­dents to take a more active role in their per­sonal devel­op­ment are dis­cussed. The authors also present a method­olog­i­cal appli­ca­tion, respon­sive to R. V. Daw­is’s (1992) con­cern about the amount of redun­dancy in psy­cho­log­i­cal mea­sur­ing tools.

Achter et al 1999

“Assess­ing voca­tional pref­er­ences among gifted ado­les­cents adds incre­men­tal valid­ity to abil­i­ties: A dis­crim­i­nant analy­sis of edu­ca­tional out­comes over a 10-year inter­val”, Achter et al 1999:

The researchers used the the­ory of work adjust­ment (R. V. Dawis & L. H. Lofquist, 1984; L. H. Lofquist & R. V. Daw­is, 1991) and C. P. Snow’s (1959) con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of two cul­tures as the­o­ret­i­cal frame­works to ana­lyze the incre­men­tal valid­ity of above-level pref­er­ence assess­ment (rel­a­tive to abil­i­ties) in pre­dict­ing human­i­ties, math­-science, and other col­lege majors com­pleted 10 years later by intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents. Scholas­tic Apti­tude Tests and Study of Val­ues assess­ments of 432 intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents (age 13) pro­vided unique and valu­able infor­ma­tion for pre­dict­ing the type of col­lege major com­pleted 10 years after ini­tial assess­ment. These pos­i­tive find­ings add to grow­ing sup­port for the applied util­ity of team­ing pref­er­ence assess­ments among the gifted with above-level assess­ments of abil­i­ty. For intel­lec­tu­ally gifted ado­les­cents, these assess­ments could facil­i­tate edu­ca­tional plan­ning (and coun­sel­ing).

Lange 1999

Lange, Melissa Berna­dine. “The edu­ca­tional and voca­tional pref­er­ences of a cohort spa­tially gifted females and males from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth.” PhD dis­ser­ta­tion, Iowa State Uni­ver­si­ty, 1999. [Ci­ta­tion from Google Schol­ar; unknown source; abstract copied from World­Cat] TODO

This study was designed to gain a bet­ter under­stand­ing of the unique pro­file of inter­ests, abil­i­ties, val­ues, and pref­er­ences of spa­tially gifted ado­les­cents. It has been hypoth­e­sized that spa­tial abil­ity is related to suc­cess in careers in engi­neer­ing and the sci­ences. The ado­les­cents in the study were par­tic­i­pants in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) and at the time were enrolled in sum­mer pro­grams for aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted youth at a large Mid­west­ern uni­ver­si­ty. Sub­jects were iden­ti­fied as spa­tially gifted based on a com­pos­ite score from three mea­sures of spa­tial-vi­su­al­iza­tion and mechan­i­cal rea­son­ing (Van­den­berg Men­tal Rota­tion Test, Cubes test, and Ben­nett Mechan­i­cal Com­pre­hen­sion test). Com­par­isons between gen­ders and lev­els of spa­tial abil­ity were made on mea­sures of math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty, voca­tional inter­est and val­ues, and educational/occupational pref­er­ences.

Chi-squared and analy­sis of vari­ance pro­ce­dures were used. Spa­tially gifted males were found to pos­sess intense Inves­tiga­tive voca­tional inter­ests and The­o­ret­i­cal val­ues, strong math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties, and a pref­er­ence for activ­i­ties involv­ing con­tact with objects. Spa­tially gifted females had a slightly differ­ent pro­file, with strong Artis­tic voca­tional inter­ests, Aes­thetic val­ues, and a pref­er­ence for activ­i­ties involv­ing work­ing with oth­ers. Results were dis­cussed as they apply to the under­-rep­re­sen­ta­tion of females in careers in engi­neer­ing and the sci­ences.

Norman et al 1999

“Rela­tion­ship between lev­els of gift­ed­ness and psy­choso­cial adjust­ment”, Nor­man et al 1999:

This study com­pares two groups of gifted stu­dents, highly (n = 74) and mod­er­ately (n = 163) gifted [Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP)], on a num­ber of scales includ­ing self­-con­cept, emo­tional auton­o­my, and anx­i­ety. Although a mea­sure of aca­d­e­mic abil­ity was used to cre­ate dis­tinc­tive abil­ity groups, the results did not sup­port the hypothe­ses that highly gifted stu­dents would be more likely to dis­play lower self­-con­cepts and more adjust­ment prob­lems than the mod­er­ately gifted group. These find­ings are exam­ined in light of past research on differ­ences in highly and mod­er­ately gifted stu­dents.

Rotigel & Lupkowski-Shoplik 1999

“Using Tal­ent Searches to Iden­tify and Meet the Edu­ca­tional Needs of Math­e­mat­i­cally Tal­ented Young­sters”, Rotigel & Lup­kowski-Shop­lik 1999:

Regional tal­ent searches have been avail­able since Julian Stan­ley devel­oped the Tal­ent Search model in the early 1970s, and over 200,000 stu­dents per year nation­wide take advan­tage of the oppor­tu­ni­ties these uni­ver­si­ty-based pro­grams offer. The above-level test­ing offered by regional tal­ent searches is use­ful in (a) iden­ti­fy­ing math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents, (b) tai­lor­ing edu­ca­tional rec­om­men­da­tions to the abil­i­ties of the stu­dents, and (c) pro­vid­ing chal­leng­ing edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties for the stu­dents. Impor­tant con­sid­er­a­tions and con­cerns, as well as a dis­cus­sion of the ben­e­fits, are explored in this arti­cle.


Benbow et al 2000

“Sex Differ­ences In Math­e­mat­i­cal Rea­son­ing Abil­ity At Age 13: Their Sta­tus 20 Years Later”, Ben­bow et al 2000:

Reported is the 20-year fol­low-up of 1,975 math­e­mat­i­cally gifted ado­les­cents (top 1%) whose assess­ments at age 12 to 14 revealed robust gen­der differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty. Both sexes became excep­tional achiev­ers and per­ceived them­selves as such; they reported uni­formly high lev­els of degree attain­ment and sat­is­fac­tion with both their career direc­tion and their over­all suc­cess. The ear­lier sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity did pre­dict differ­en­tial edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional out­comes. The observed differ­ences also appeared to be a func­tion of sex differ­ences in pref­er­ences for (a) inor­ganic ver­sus organic dis­ci­plines and (b) a career-fo­cused ver­sus more-bal­anced life. Because pro­file differ­ences in abil­i­ties and pref­er­ences are lon­gi­tu­di­nally sta­ble, males prob­a­bly will remain more rep­re­sented in some dis­ci­plines, whereas females are likely to remain more rep­re­sented in oth­ers. These data have pol­icy impli­ca­tions for higher edu­ca­tion and the world of work.

Heller et al 2000

Inter­na­tional Hand­book of Gift­ed­ness and Tal­ent, 2nd Edi­tion, ed Heller et al 2000 (ISBN 9780080544168). Anthol­o­gy:

  • “Tal­ent Devel­op­ment in Math and Sci­ence”, Pyryt 2000
  • “Gen­der Differ­ences in Engi­neer­ing and the Phys­i­cal Sci­ences Among the Gift­ed: An Inor­gan­ic-Or­ganic Dis­tinc­tion”, Lubin­ski et al 2000

Lubinski & Benbow 2000

“States of Excel­lence”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2000:

Research from the indi­vid­u­al-d­iffer­ences tra­di­tion per­ti­nent to the opti­mal devel­op­ment of excep­tional tal­ent is reviewed, using the the­ory of work adjust­ment (TWA) to orga­nize find­ings. The authors show how TWA con­cepts and psy­cho­me­t­ric meth­ods, when used togeth­er, can facil­i­tate pos­i­tive devel­op­ment among tal­ented youth by align­ing learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties with salient aspects of each stu­den­t’s indi­vid­u­al­i­ty. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal research and more gen­eral the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els of (adult) aca­d­e­mic and intel­lec­tual devel­op­ment sup­port this approach. This analy­sis also uncov­ers com­mon threads run­ning through sev­eral pos­i­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal con­cepts (e.g., effectance moti­va­tion, flow, and peak expe­ri­ences). The authors con­clude by under­scor­ing some impor­tant ideals from coun­sel­ing psy­chol­ogy for fos­ter­ing intel­lec­tual devel­op­ment and psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. These include con­duct­ing a mul­ti­fac­eted assess­ment, focus­ing on strength, help­ing peo­ple make choic­es, and pro­vid­ing a devel­op­men­tal con­text for bridg­ing edu­ca­tional and indus­trial psy­chol­ogy to facil­i­tate pos­i­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal growth through­out the life span.

Lubinski & Benbow 2001

“Choos­ing Excel­lence”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2001: rebut­tal to Plucker & Levy 2001 crit­i­ciz­ing Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2000.

Stanley 2000

“Help­ing stu­dents learn only what they don’t already know”, Stan­ley 2000:

Well-known, well-val­i­dated prin­ci­ples of indi­vid­u­al-d­iffer­ence psy­chol­ogy and edu­ca­tion should lead to major changes in class­room instruc­tion. Stu­dents need to be helped to learn what they do not already know, instead of being marched through course mate­ri­als in lock­step, largely regard­less of what they knew at the start of the course. The lock­step method espe­cially hurts the intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ent­ed, who tend to be far ahead of grade lev­el. This find­ing led the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity to devise a Diag­nos­tic Test­ing fol­lowed by Pre­scribed Instruc­tion (DT-PI) pro­ce­dure. It has been tested often and suc­cess­ful­ly, espe­cially for instruc­tion in mid­dle and high school math­e­mat­ics, but the pro­ce­dure is applic­a­ble to other sub­jects. Nev­er­the­less, the DT-PI model is viewed by SMPY as merely a stop­gap on the road to rad­i­cal reor­ga­ni­za­tion of instruc­tion in schools.

Lubinski et al 2001a

“Men And Women At Promise For Sci­en­tific Excel­lence: Sim­i­lar­ity Not Dis­sim­i­lar­ity”, Lubin­ski et al 2001a:

U.S. math­-science grad­u­ate stu­dents pos­sess­ing world-class tal­ent (368 males, 346 females) were assessed on psy­cho­log­i­cal attrib­utes and per­sonal expe­ri­ences in order to exam­ine how their tal­ents emerged and devel­oped. Com­par­isons were made, using sim­i­lar assess­ments, with math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents (528 males, 228 females) iden­ti­fied around age 13 and tracked into adult­hood by the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). Well before col­lege, both sam­ples were aca­d­e­m­i­cally dis­tin­guished; how­ev­er, the grad­u­ate stu­dents could be iden­ti­fied dur­ing ado­les­cence as a sub­set of math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented youths based on their non­in­tel­lec­tual attrib­ut­es. Their pro­files cor­re­sponded to what ear­lier psy­cho­log­i­cal stud­ies found to char­ac­ter­ize dis­tin­guished (and exclu­sively male) sci­en­tists: excep­tional quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, rel­a­tively stronger quan­ti­ta­tive than ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, salient sci­en­tific inter­ests and val­ues, and, final­ly, per­sis­tence in seek­ing out oppor­tu­ni­ties to study sci­en­tific top­ics and develop sci­en­tific skills. On these attrib­ut­es, sex differ­ences were min­i­mal for the grad­u­ate stu­dents (but not for the SMPY com­par­i­son group­s). Devel­op­ing excep­tional sci­en­tific exper­tise appar­ently requires spe­cial edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences, but these nec­es­sary expe­ri­ences are sim­i­lar for the two sex­es.

Lubinski et al 2001b

“Top 1 in 10,000: A 10-Year Fol­low-Up of the Pro­foundly Gifted”, Lubin­ski et al 2001b:

Ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied before the age of 13 (n = 320) as hav­ing excep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked over 10 years. They pur­sued doc­toral degrees at rates over 50 times base-rate expec­ta­tions, with sev­eral par­tic­i­pants hav­ing cre­ated note­wor­thy lit­er­ary, sci­en­tific, or tech­ni­cal prod­ucts by their early 20s. Early observed dis­tinc­tions in intel­lec­tual strength (viz., quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­ity over ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, and vice versa [“tilt”]) pre­dicted sharp differ­ences in their devel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries and occu­pa­tional pur­suits. This spe­cial pop­u­la­tion strongly pre­ferred edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties tai­lored to their pre­co­cious rate of learn­ing (ie. appro­pri­ate devel­op­men­tal place­men­t), with 95% using some form of accel­er­a­tion to indi­vid­u­al­ize their edu­ca­tion.

Plomin et al 2001

“A Genome-Wide Scan of 1842 DNA Mark­ers for Allelic Asso­ci­a­tions with Gen­eral Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ty: A Five-Stage Design Using DNA Pool­ing and Extreme Selected Groups”, Plomin et al 2001:

All mea­sures of cog­ni­tive processes cor­re­late mod­er­ately at the phe­no­typic level and cor­re­late sub­stan­tially at the genetic lev­el. Gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (g) refers to what diverse cog­ni­tive processes have in com­mon. Our goal is to iden­tify quan­ti­ta­tive trait loci (QTLs) asso­ci­ated with high g com­pared with aver­age g. In order to detect QTLs of small effect size, we used extreme selected sam­ples and a five-stage design with nom­i­nal alpha lev­els that per­mit false pos­i­tive results in early stages but remove false pos­i­tives in later stages. As a first step toward a sys­tem­atic genome scan for allelic asso­ci­a­tion, we used DNA pool­ing to screen 1842 sim­ple sequence repeat (SSR) mark­ers approx­i­mately evenly spaced at 2 cM through­out the genome in a five-stage design: (1) case-con­trol DNA pool­ing (101 cases with mean IQ of 136 and 101 con­trols with mean IQ of 100), (2) case-con­trol DNA pool­ing (96 cases with IQ >160 and 100 con­trols with mean IQ of 102), (3) indi­vid­ual geno­typ­ing of Stage 1 sam­ple, (4) indi­vid­ual geno­typ­ing of Stage 2 sam­ple, (5) trans­mis­sion dis­e­qui­lib­rium test (TDT; 196 par­en­t-child trios for off­spring with IQ >160). The over­all Type I error rate is 0.000125, which robustly pro­tects against false pos­i­tive results. The num­bers of mark­ers sur­viv­ing each stage using a con­ser­v­a­tive allele-spe­cific direc­tional test were 108, 6, 4, 2, and 0, respec­tive­ly, for the five stages. A genomic con­trol test using DNA pool­ing sug­gested that the fail­ure to repli­cate the pos­i­tive case-con­trol results in the TDT analy­sis was not due to eth­nic strat­i­fi­ca­tion. Sev­eral mark­ers that were close to sig­nifi­cance at all stages are being inves­ti­gated fur­ther. Rely­ing on indi­rect asso­ci­a­tion based on link­age dis­e­qui­lib­rium between mark­ers and QTLs means that 100,000 mark­ers may be needed to exclude QTL asso­ci­a­tions. Because power drops off pre­cip­i­tously for indi­rect asso­ci­a­tion approaches when a marker is not close to the QTL, we are not plan­ning to geno­type addi­tional SSR mark­ers. Instead we are using the same design to screen mark­ers such as cSNPs and SNPs in reg­u­la­tory regions that are likely to include func­tional poly­mor­phisms in which the marker can be pre­sumed to be the QTL.

Shea et al 2001

“Impor­tance of assess­ing spa­tial abil­ity in intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented young ado­les­cents: A 20-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Shea et al 2001:

At age 13, 393 boys and 170 girls scor­ing at the top 0.5% in gen­eral intel­li­gence com­pleted the Scholas­tic Assess­ment Test Math­e­mat­ics (SAT-M) and Ver­bal (SAT-V) sub­tests and the Differ­en­tial Apti­tude Test (DAT) Space Rela­tions (SR) and Mechan­i­cal Rea­son­ing (MR) sub­tests. Lon­gi­tu­di­nal data were col­lected through fol­low-up ques­tion­naires com­pleted at ages 18, 23, and 33. Mul­ti­vari­ate sta­tis­ti­cal meth­ods were employed using the SAT-M, SAT-V, and a DAT (SR + MR) com­pos­ite to pre­dict a series of devel­op­men­tally sequenced edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes: (a) favorite and least favorite high school class, (b) under­grad­u­ate degree field, (e) grad­u­ate degree field, and (d) occu­pa­tion at age 33. Spa­tial abil­ity added incre­men­tal valid­ity to SAT-M and SAT-V assess­ments in pre­dict­ing edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes over these suc­ces­sive time frames. It appears that spa­tial abil­ity assess­ments can com­ple­ment con­tem­po­rary tal­ent search pro­ce­dures. The amount of lost poten­tial for artis­tic, sci­en­tific, and tech­ni­cal dis­ci­plines that results from neglect­ing this crit­i­cal dimen­sion of non­ver­bal ideation is dis­cussed.

Clark & Zimmerman 2002

“Tend­ing the spe­cial spark: Accel­er­ated and enriched cur­ric­ula for highly tal­ented art stu­dents”, Clark & Zim­mer­man 2002:

Arts cur­ricu­lum for gifted and tal­ented stu­dents has not been given the atten­tion it deserves in the field of gifted edu­ca­tion. In this arti­cle, Gilbert Clark and Enid Zim­mer­man set forth rec­om­men­da­tions for edu­cat­ing highly able artis­ti­cally tal­ented stu­dents based on work they were doing to estab­lish a high school in Israel at the time the arti­cle was writ­ten.

The goal of the pro­posed res­i­den­tial high school was to “tend the spe­cial spark in tal­ented young­sters, equip­ping them to lead Israel’s sci­en­tific, artis­tic and com­mu­nity life…those who have within them­selves, the great­est poten­tial in arts or sci­ences-the top 1% of the nation’s stu­dents.” As mem­bers of the Inter­na­tional Advi­sory Panel to this pro­ject, Clark and Zim­mer­man focused on issues asso­ci­ated with artic­u­lat­ing goals for the arts and sci­ence cur­ric­u­la. The authors argue that a com­pre­hen­sive art pro­gram for tal­ented stu­dents needs to be addressed through a sequen­tial cur­ricu­lum based on accel­er­a­tion across a scope and sequence of con­tent, as is the edu­ca­tion of gifted stu­dents in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence.

Clark and Zim­mer­man used a well-re­spected math­e­mat­ics pro­gram, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), as a pro­to­type for devel­op­ing prin­ci­ples, tech­niques and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures that could be imple­mented in the art cur­ricu­lum. As men­tioned in pre­vi­ous arti­cles, SMPY was a project devoted to help­ing stu­dents who rea­son excep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cal­ly. Edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion was shown to work with these highly able stu­dents, and Clark and Zim­mer­man describe how a sim­i­lar pro­gram might be cre­ated for the visual arts. …

Moore 2002

“The progress and prob­lems of an incred­i­bly tal­ented sis­ter and brother”, Moore 2002 [case study of a pair of Jew­ish sib­lings]

Edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion as a cur­ricu­lum option has been a much debated and divi­sive issue among edu­ca­tors for some time. Oppo­nents of accel­er­a­tion have argued that it dis­rupts the orga­ni­za­tional struc­tures of the schools and that it is not equi­table because it allows an indi­vid­u­al, or a group of learn­ers, to get ahead of oth­ers. Crit­ics have also expressed con­cerns about the pos­si­ble neg­a­tive social and emo­tional effects of accel­er­a­tion. Nancy Delano Moore brings new light to some of these issues and dis­pels the notion of accel­er­a­tion as a neg­a­tive and inequitable edu­ca­tional prac­tice.She presents a case study of a brother and sis­ter with excep­tional intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties in math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing and describes the tri­umphs and dis­ap­point­ments of the par­ents, the chil­dren, and their teach­ers as they attempt to pro­vide edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties that are chal­leng­ing and appro­pri­ate. Moore’s case study sug­gests that stu­dents with excep­tional abil­i­ties can ben­e­fit aca­d­e­m­i­cal­ly, social­ly, and even emo­tion­ally from some form of accel­er­a­tion. The chil­dren in the case study demon­strate excep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties. Accord­ing to Moore, “R” blos­somed in nurs­ery school, was accel­er­ated to grade 1 from kinder­garten, and then found much of the cur­ricu­lum through­out her ele­men­tary school years unchal­leng­ing and dis­cour­ag­ing. “R’s”broth­er, “M”, who was accel­er­ated to the sec­ond grade on the advice and rec­om­men­da­tion of his first grade teacher, also found much of the cur­ricu­lum unchal­leng­ing and dis­cour­ag­ing. The case stud­ies of these chil­dren sug­gest that the most ben­e­fi­cial pro­vi­sions for such intel­lec­tu­ally advanced chil­dren is to pro­vide oppor­tu­ni­ties to work at lev­els appro­pri­ate to their abil­i­ties and achieve­ments. Accord­ing to Moore, the chil­dren thrived intel­lec­tu­al­ly, emo­tion­al­ly, and socially when they found them­selves in sit­u­a­tions match­ing their excep­tional abil­i­ties—when they were accel­er­ated in some form in com­bi­na­tion with high level sum­mer pro­grams and com­pe­ti­tions. This case study reveals the fact that many teach­ers and admin­is­tra­tors fail to appre­ci­ate accel­er­a­tion as part of the com­ple­ment of options to be used with gifted stu­dents and are resis­tant to imple­ment­ing the accel­er­a­tion prac­tices that are avail­able. How­ev­er, the par­ents in this case study were fully aware and well versed with respect to the excep­tional abil­i­ties and needs of their chil­dren and were strong advo­cates for their chil­dren’s edu­ca­tional needs. It is impor­tant to note that it was only with the par­ents’ active involve­ment that these chil­dren were able to receive a vari­ety of accel­er­a­tion prac­tices.

Webb et al 2002

“Math­e­mat­i­cally Facile Ado­les­cents With Math­-Science Aspi­ra­tions: New Per­spec­tives on Their Edu­ca­tional and Voca­tional Devel­op­ment”, Webb et al 2002:

This lon­gi­tu­di­nal study tracked 1,110 ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied as math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious at Age 13 (top 1%) with plans for a math­-science under­grad­u­ate major. Par­tic­i­pants’ high school edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences, abil­i­ties, and inter­ests pre­dicted whether their attained under­grad­u­ate degrees were within math­-science or non­math­-non­science areas. More women than men even­tu­ally com­pleted under­grad­u­ate degrees out­side math­-science, but many indi­vid­u­als who com­pleted non­math­-non­science degrees ulti­mately chose math­-science occu­pa­tions (and vice ver­sa). At Age 33, the 2 degree groups reported com­men­su­rate and uni­formly high lev­els of career sat­is­fac­tion, suc­cess, and life sat­is­fac­tion. Assess­ing indi­vid­ual differ­ences is crit­i­cal for mod­el­ing tal­ent devel­op­ment and life sat­is­fac­tion; it reveals that equal male-fe­male rep­re­sen­ta­tion across dis­ci­plines may not be as sim­ple to accom­plish as many pol­icy dis­cus­sions imply.

Anonymous 2003

“2003 Award Win­ners: Edwin B. New­man Award”, Anony­mous 2003:

[Awarded to Rose Mary Webb] For an out­stand­ing research paper whose find­ings chal­lenge the untested pre­sump­tion in much of the cur­rent lit­er­a­ture that indi­vid­u­als who leave the math­-science pipeline are under­achiev­ing. The paper enti­tled “Math­e­mat­i­cally Facile Ado­les­cents With Math­-Science Aspi­ra­tions: New Per­spec­tives on Their Edu­ca­tional and Voca­tional Devel­op­ment” was pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, was high­lighted in the 2002-11-15 issue of Sci­ence, won the Susan W. Gray Award for Excel­lence in Schol­arly Writ­ing, and was the basis for Web­b’s selec­tion as the 2002–2003 Psi Chi/APA Edwin B. New­man Grad­u­ate Research Award recip­i­ent. Dr. David Lubin­ski served as Research Advi­sor and coau­thor of the paper.

…Un­der the joint men­tor­ship of Lubin­ski and Ben­bow, Webb com­pleted her mas­ter’s work, which tracked the edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional devel­op­ment of 1,110 ado­les­cents who, at the age of 13, were iden­ti­fied as at least the top 1% in abil­i­ty, and who, at the age of 18, reported plans for an under­grad­u­ate major in a math or sci­ence domain (Webb, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2002). Webb and her col­leagues found that women were more likely than men to change their under­grad­u­ate majors to domains out­side of math or sci­ence and that these differ­ences were par­tially explained by the indi­vid­u­al’s pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties and inter­ests. For exam­ple, Webb et al. doc­u­mented that, on aver­age, the highly able women in their study had more sim­i­lar math and ver­bal abil­i­ties than their male coun­ter­parts, whose math abil­i­ties were markedly more pro­nounced than their ver­bal abil­i­ties. This find­ing was sup­ported by dis­cov­er­ies in Web­b’s ear­lier col­lab­o­ra­tive research, which indi­cated that math­e­mat­i­cally able women tended to be more ver­bally tal­ented than equally math­e­mat­i­cally able men (Lu­bin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001). More­over, par­tic­i­pant sex explained only 1% of the vari­ance between those who did and those who did not com­plete a math­-science under­grad­u­ate degree, and after con­trol­ling for abil­ity and inter­est vari­ables, par­tic­i­pant sex con­tributed no incre­men­tal expla­na­tion of degree group mem­ber­ship. Webb et al. found that both women and men who chose to change their under­grad­u­ate majors to domains out­side math­-science reported lev­els of career sat­is­fac­tion, career suc­cess, and life sat­is­fac­tion that were sim­i­lar to those of women and men who remained in math­-science dis­ci­plines. These find­ings chal­lenge the untested pre­sump­tion in much of the cur­rent lit­er­a­ture that indi­vid­u­als who leave the math­-science pipeline are under­achiev­ing. This work was pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, was high­lighted in the Novem­ber 15, 2002, issue of Sci­ence, won a Mensa Award for Excel­lence in Research, won the Susan W. Gray Award for Excel­lence in Schol­arly Writ­ing, and was the basis for Web­b’s selec­tion as the 2002–2003 Psi Chi/APA Edwin B. New­man Grad­u­ate Research Award recip­i­ent.

Com­ple­ment­ing Web­b’s empir­i­cal work are a chap­ter and a com­ment. The chap­ter, coau­thored with her grad­u­ate advi­sor, David Lubin­ski, reviews find­ings from the major domains of differ­en­tial psy­chol­ogy (Lu­bin­ski & Webb, 2003). The com­ment, coau­thored with April Bleske-Rechek, a research asso­ciate for SMPY, is a method­olog­i­cal cri­tique of a report on female psy­chol­o­gists in the acad­emy (Bleske-Rechek & Webb, 2002).

Through­out Web­b’s grad­u­ate expe­ri­ence, she has served as a research assis­tant for SMPY. She has been instru­men­tal in pro­gress­ing data col­lec­tion for the lon­gi­tu­di­nal study from tra­di­tional mail sur­vey meth­ods to more com­plex, indi­vid­u­ally tai­lored Inter­net-based sur­vey meth­ods. Fur­ther­more, she has con­tributed con­cep­tu­ally and tech­ni­cally to the instru­ment devel­op­ment on two cur­rent pro­jects. First, she has made unique con­tri­bu­tions to a 10-year fol­low-up of 714 indi­vid­u­als with math­-science tal­ent iden­ti­fied in top U.S. grad­u­ate pro­grams; her ideas helped broaden the study’s focus beyond edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional devel­op­ment to include other areas of life expe­ri­ences such as fam­ily and rela­tion­ship choic­es. Sec­ond, she has con­tributed to a 20-year fol­low-up of the study’s most able cohort. Because the par­tic­i­pants of this cohort have had numer­ous edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties avail­able to them (many of which they have uti­lized), Webb helped design a series of items to assess both their views regard­ing the impor­tance of pro­vid­ing spe­cific accel­er­a­tive learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties for gifted chil­dren in gen­eral and their like­li­hood of using those oppor­tu­ni­ties for their own chil­dren.

Achter & Lubinski 2003

“Fos­ter­ing Excep­tional Devel­op­ment in Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Pop­u­la­tions”, Achter & Lubin­ski 2003:

This chap­ter focuses on the evo­lu­tion of the­o­ry, empir­i­cal knowl­edge, and prac­tice on the opti­mal devel­op­ment of excep­tional intel­lec­tual abil­i­ties. We are pleased and hon­ored to con­tribute to a vol­ume on pos­i­tive psy­chol­ogy that high­lights the con­tri­bu­tions of coun­sel­ing psy­chol­o­gy. The sci­en­tific study of iden­ti­fy­ing and nur­tur­ing intel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness, although not con­sis­tently given pri­or­ity nor always regarded in a pos­i­tive light by soci­ety over the past 100 years, is one of the ear­li­est exam­ples of pos­i­tive psy­chol­o­gy…­First, we pro­vide a his­tor­i­cal overview of the major peo­ple and ideas mov­ing the sci­en­tific study of intel­lec­tual tal­ent for­ward over the past 100 years. Sec­ond, build­ing on this, we review key empir­i­cal find­ings from recent decades in the con­text of impli­ca­tions for edu­ca­tional and coun­sel­ing prac­tice today. Within this dis­cus­sion, we sum­ma­rize a the­o­ret­i­cal model for orga­niz­ing con­tem­po­rary results. Final­ly, we close with a sum­ma­tion of cur­rent knowl­edge and offer some future research direc­tions. The need for more sci­en­tific knowl­edge on truly excep­tional forms of achieve­ment, cre­ativ­i­ty, and life­long learn­ing is under­scored. This knowl­edge is likely to come from more com­plete under­stand­ings of the per­sonal attrib­utes char­ac­ter­iz­ing intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious pop­u­la­tions and the envi­ron­men­tal pro­vi­sions that cat­alyze their tal­ents to full fruition.

Kerr & Sodano 2003

“Career assess­ment with intel­lec­tu­ally gifted stu­dents”, Kerr & Sodano 2003:

Career coun­sel­ing with the intel­lec­tu­ally gifted poses unique chal­lenges to coun­selors. Devel­op­ment of com­pe­tent prac­tices with this pop­u­la­tion requires the career coun­selor to be aware of sev­eral issues spe­cific to the intel­lec­tu­ally gifted in gen­er­al, along with spe­cific issues that may differ­en­tially affect gifted males, females, and minori­ties. Tra­di­tional career coun­sel­ing is insuffi­cient to meet the needs of this pop­u­la­tion. There­fore, the arti­cle reviews trends and improve­ments to coun­sel­ing the intel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed, con­tro­ver­sies, and mul­ti­cul­tural issues and sug­gests an expanded role for career coun­selors of the intel­lec­tu­ally gift­ed.

Bleske-Rechek et al 2004

“Meet­ing the Edu­ca­tional Needs of Spe­cial Pop­u­la­tions: Advanced Place­men­t’s Role in Devel­op­ing Excep­tional Human Cap­i­tal”, Bleske-Rechek et al 2004:

We eval­u­ated the Advanced Place­ment (AP) pro­gram from the point of view of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth and their sub­se­quent edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes, ana­lyz­ing nor­ma­tive and idio­graphic lon­gi­tu­di­nal data col­lected across 30 years from 3,937 par­tic­i­pants. Most took AP courses in high school, and those who did fre­quently nom­i­nated an AP course as their favorite. Stu­dents who took AP cours­es, com­pared with their intel­lec­tual peers who did not, appeared more sat­is­fied with the intel­lec­tual cal­iber of their high school expe­ri­ence and, ulti­mate­ly, achieved more. Over­all, this spe­cial pop­u­la­tion placed a pre­mium on intel­lec­tual chal­lenge in high school and found the lack of such chal­lenge dis­tress­ing. These find­ings can inform con­tem­po­rary edu­ca­tional pol­icy debates regard­ing the AP pro­gram; they also have gen­eral impli­ca­tions for design­ing and eval­u­at­ing edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions for stu­dents with spe­cial needs.

Lubinski 2004a

“Intro­duc­tion to the Spe­cial Sec­tion on Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ties: 100 Years After Spear­man’s (1904) ‘Gen­eral Intel­li­gence’, Objec­tively Deter­mined and Mea­sured’”, Lubin­ski 2004a:

The study of indi­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties is one of the few branches of psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ence to amass a coher­ent body of empir­i­cal knowl­edge with­stand­ing the test of time. There is wide con­sen­sus that cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties are orga­nized hier­ar­chi­cal­ly, and C. Spear­man’s (1904) gen­eral intel­li­gence occu­pies the ver­tex of this hier­ar­chy. In addi­tion, spe­cific abil­i­ties beyond gen­eral intel­li­gence refine lon­gi­tu­di­nal fore­casts of impor­tant social phe­nom­ena and paint a rich por­trait of this impor­tant domain of psy­cho­log­i­cal diver­si­ty. This open­ing arti­cle iden­ti­fies and then reviews 5 major areas con­cern­ing the per­son­o­log­i­cal sig­nifi­cance of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties and the meth­ods used to study them. In mod­els of human behav­ior and impor­tant life out­comes, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties are crit­i­cal in more ways than social sci­en­tists real­ize

Lubinski 2004b

“Long-Term Effects of Edu­ca­tional Accel­er­a­tion”, Lubin­ski 2004b in A Nation Deceived (see also Wai 2014b in A Nation Empow­ered):

Given the exper­tise of the con­trib­u­tors to this vol­ume and the nec­es­sary space lim­i­ta­tions imposed upon authors, this brief chap­ter will focus on a series of recent find­ings. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has, over the past four years, pub­lished four exten­sive lon­gi­tu­di­nal reports. Col­lec­tive­ly, they con­tain eval­u­a­tions of the sub­jec­tive feel­ings and edu­ca­tion­al-vo­ca­tional out­comes of thou­sands of par­tic­i­pants, from five cohorts assem­bled over three decades (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 1994), who have expe­ri­enced many differ­ent kinds of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion (Ben­bow, Lubin­ski, Shea, & Eftekhar­i-San­jani, 2000; Bleske-Rechek, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2004; Lubin­ski, Ben­bow, Shea, Eftekhar­i-San­jani, & Halvor­son, 2001; Lubin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001). These find­ings are espe­cially impor­tant because, among other things, they con­tain eval­u­a­tions of adults based on 10- and 20-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal achieve­ment and reflec­tion. Hence, in addi­tion to con­ven­tional cri­te­ria, they enable us to ascer­tain whether par­tic­i­pants of accel­er­a­tive learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties har­bor sub­se­quent regrets. Because these find­ings are fresh, they will be reviewed in detail; but the focus will be on out­comes and sub­jec­tive impres­sions exclu­sively tied to edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion. Read­ers are referred to the orig­i­nal reports for more exten­sive find­ings on the life pat­terns of this spe­cial pop­u­la­tion.

In a shorter sec­tion, some writ­ings of pre­vi­ous gen­er­a­tions of lead­ing psy­chol­o­gists will be drawn on. By exam­in­ing the his­tor­i­cal record of those com­mit­ted to edu­ca­tional prac­tice based on sci­ence, it is remark­able how many mod­ern empir­i­cal find­ings were antic­i­pat­ed, and to some extent doc­u­ment­ed, by early pio­neers (All­port, 1960; Hobbs, 1951, 1958; Holling­worth, 1926, 1942; Pater­son, 1957; Pressey, 1946a, 1946b, 1949; Seashore, 1922, 1930, 1942; Ter­man, 1954; Thorndike, 1927; Tyler, 1974).

For decades, it is clear that we have known a num­ber of gen­eral prin­ci­ples about meet­ing the needs of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth, and mod­ern empir­i­cal find­ings have added pre­ci­sion and mul­ti­di­men­sion­al­ity to this knowl­edge. Yet, putting this research into prac­tice has been diffi­cult due to a vari­ety of polit­i­cal and social forces that always oper­ate on edu­ca­tional pol­icy and prac­tice (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Stan­ley, 2000). Due in no small part to tal­ent search­es, and the effi­ciency with which tal­ent searches facil­i­tate large- scale lon­gi­tu­di­nal research, an impres­sive empir­i­cal lit­er­a­ture has devel­oped to sup­port and add refine­ment to the effi­cacy of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion for intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth (Colan­gelo & Davis, 2003; Lubin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000; Van­Tas­sel-Baska, 1998). It is becom­ing increas­ingly diffi­cult to neglect the evi­dence that has emerged (Ce­ci, 2000; Stan­ley, 2000). Today, we have a much bet­ter under­stand­ing of how to iden­tify intel­lec­tual pre­coc­i­ty, the non­in­tel­lec­tual attrib­utes that facil­i­tate its devel­op­ment, and the learn­ing envi­ron­ments needed for actu­al­iz­ing truly excep­tional poten­tial. Hope­ful­ly, this vol­ume will con­tribute toward mov­ing these find­ings into edu­ca­tional pol­icy and prac­tice.

Benbow 2005

“A Great Man Stand­ing With Ter­man and Holling­worth: Julian C. Stan­ley (1918–2005)”, Ben­bow 2005: obit­u­ary

Brody & Stanley 2005

“Youths Who Rea­son Excep­tion­ally Well Math­e­mat­i­cally and/or Ver­bally Using the MVT:D4 Model to Develop Their Tal­ents”, Brody & Stan­ley 2005, in Con­cep­tions of Gift­ed­ness ed Stern­berg & David­son 2005 (ISBN 0-511-16064-x):

…After admin­is­ter­ing above-grade-level tests to iden­tify stu­dents with advanced math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, SMPY pro­vided coun­sel­ing and cre­ated pro­grams to meet their aca­d­e­mic needs. Even­tu­al­ly, uni­ver­si­ty-based tal­ent cen­ters were estab­lished around the coun­try to con­tinue the prac­tices SMPY pio­neered. Because SMPY’s meth­ods for devel­op­ing tal­ent evolved over time in a very prag­matic way, that is, in response to the needs of indi­vid­ual stu­dents, the psy­cho­log­i­cal and con­cep­tual bases for this approach have not been espe­cially empha­sized in the lit­er­a­ture.

In the first edi­tion of this book, for exam­ple, Stan­ley and Ben­bow (1986) sug­gested that SMPY was “not con­cerned much with con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing gift­ed­ness” and had “not spent much time con­tem­plat­ing the psy­cho­log­i­cal under­pin­nings of gift­ed­ness” (p. 361). How­ev­er, Duke Uni­ver­sity psy­chol­o­gist Michael Wal­lach, in a review of one of SMPY’s early books (Stan­ley, George, & Solano, 1977), observed that:

What is par­tic­u­larly strik­ing here is how lit­tle that is dis­tinctly psy­cho­log­i­cal seems involved in SMPY, and yet how very fruit­ful SMPY appears to be. It is as if try­ing to be psy­cho­log­i­cal throws us off the course and into a mire of abstract dis­po­si­tions that help lit­tle in facil­i­tat­ing stu­dents’ demon­stra­ble tal­ents. What seems most suc­cess­ful for help­ing stu­dents is what stays clos­est to the com­pe­ten­cies one directly cares about: in the case of SMPY, for exam­ple, find­ing stu­dents who are very good at math and arrang­ing the envi­ron­ment to help them learn it as well as pos­si­ble. One would expect anal­o­gous pre­scrip­tions to be of ben­e­fit for fos­ter­ing tal­ent at writ­ing, music, art, and any other com­pe­ten­cies that can be spec­i­fied in prod­uct or per­for­mance terms. But all this in fact is not unpsy­cho­log­i­cal; it is sim­ply differ­ent psy­chol­ogy (Wal­lach, 1978, p. 617).

There was always a strong ratio­nale behind the choices and deci­sions that were made by SMPY (Stan­ley, 1977). Three prin­ci­ples from devel­op­men­tal psy­chol­o­gy, in par­tic­u­lar, have con­tributed to the pro­gram­matic rec­om­men­da­tions that were adopt­ed. These prin­ci­ples are that learn­ing is sequen­tial and devel­op­men­tal (Hil­gard & Bow­er, 1974), that chil­dren learn at differ­ent rates (Bay­ley, 1955, 1970; George, Cohn, & Stan­ley, 1979; Keat­ing, 1976; Keat­ing & Stan­ley, 1972; Robin­son & Robin­son, 1982), and that effec­tive teach­ing involves a “match” between the child’s readi­ness to learn and the level of con­tent pre­sented (Hunt, 1961; Robin­son & Robin­son, 1982). The impli­ca­tion of these prin­ci­ples, as delin­eated by Robin­son (1983), Robin­son & Robin­son (1982), (Stan­ley, 1997), and Stan­ley and Ben­bow (1986), is that the level and pace of edu­ca­tional pro­grams must be adapted to the capac­i­ties and knowl­edge of indi­vid­ual chil­dren. The pio­neer­ing work of Holling­worth (1942), who used above-grade-level tests to mea­sure stu­dents’ pre­coc­ity (see Stan­ley, 1990), and of Ter­man (1925), who was among the first to sys­tem­at­i­cally iden­tify and study gifted stu­dents, also pro­foundly influ­enced the direc­tion of SMPY. …

High Ability Studies 2005

Spe­cial issue (vol­ume 16 issue 1):

Touron 2005a

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth mod­el: 25 years of fos­ter­ing tal­ent”, Tourón 2005 (in­tro­duc­tory edi­to­r­ial to spe­cial issue)

Stanley 2005

“A quiet rev­o­lu­tion: Find­ing boys and girls who rea­son excep­tion­ally well and/or ver­bally and help­ing them get the sup­ple­men­tal edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties they need”, Stan­ley 2005:

The antecedents for the 4 regional annual tal­ent searches for boys and girls who rea­son excep­tion­ally well math­e­mat­i­cally and/or ver­bally began in 1971 at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity in Bal­ti­more, Mary­land, with the cre­ation of the “Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth” under the direc­tion of the author of this arti­cle, its orig­i­na­tor. Here he traces the devel­op­ment and expan­sion that led to much exper­i­men­ta­tion dur­ing the 1970s and the for­ma­tion in 1979 of what is now called the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) and sim­i­lar pro­grams based at 3 other pri­vate uni­ver­si­ties in the United States. These cover the entire USA and coop­er­ate with edu­ca­tors in a num­ber of for­eign coun­tries, espe­cially Eng­land, Ire­land and Spain.

Ybarra 2005

“Beyond national bor­ders: the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth reach­ing out to gifted chil­dren from through­out the world”, Ybarra 2005:

The Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) is cel­e­brat­ing 25 years of work­ing with gifted chil­dren both in the USA and from through­out the world. Begin­ning in 1979, its mis­sion has been to iden­tify stu­dents of excep­tional aca­d­e­mic promise and to offer them dis­tinc­tive and chal­leng­ing edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties. More than one mil­lion young peo­ple have now been reached through CTY’s tal­ent search and pro­gram offer­ings. The pro­grams and ser­vices offered to CTY stu­dents include: sum­mer pro­grams, dis­tance edu­ca­tion, civic lead­er­ship insti­tutes, fam­ily aca­d­e­mic con­fer­ences, awards cer­e­monies, diag­nos­tic coun­sel­ing and test­ing, research and pub­li­ca­tions. Through its offer­ings, CTY has reached beyond the USA and has become an inter­na­tional pro­gram, with stu­dents attend­ing its sum­mer pro­gram from almost 80 coun­tries and enrolling in its dis­tance edu­ca­tion courses from 55 coun­tries. In col­lab­o­ra­tion with col­leagues from through­out the world CTY remains com­mit­ted to nur­tur­ing these highly tal­ented young peo­ple and to pro­vid­ing an envi­ron­ment where their tal­ent can ‘soar’.

Barnett et al 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth tal­ent search and aca­d­e­mic pro­grams”, Bar­nett et al 2005:

Through annual tal­ent searches based on the model devel­oped by Julian Stan­ley, the Johns Hop­kins Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) seeks to iden­ti­fy, assess and rec­og­nize stu­dents with advanced aca­d­e­mic abil­i­ties. CTY has also devel­oped exten­sive pro­grams and ser­vices to meet the needs of these stu­dents. Hav­ing grown steadily in response to stu­dents’ needs since its incep­tion, CTY now serves approx­i­mately 80,000 stu­dents each year through its tal­ent search and var­i­ous aca­d­e­mic offer­ings. This arti­cle presents an overview of these pro­grams and ser­vices.

Putallaz et al 2005

“The Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram”, Putal­laz et al 2005:

The Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (Duke TIP) holds the dis­tin­guished posi­tion of being the first ‘trans­plant’ of the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY) regional tal­ent search model devel­oped by Pro­fes­sor Julian Stan­ley at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Duke TIP was estab­lished in 1980, one year after CTY offi­cially began. This arti­cle describes the his­tory of Duke TIP and the evo­lu­tion of its tal­ent searches and var­i­ous for­mats of its edu­ca­tional pro­gram­ming mod­els as well as the com­ple­men­tary role that research has played at Duke TIP. The suc­cess of Duke TIP stands as a truly remark­able trib­ute to Julian Stan­ley and to the robust­ness of the tal­ent search model that he cre­ated at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. Although the spe­cific types of pro­grams and ini­tia­tives may have taken differ­ent forms at Duke TIP, the under­ly­ing phi­los­o­phy and com­mit­ment to iden­tify and fur­ther the devel­op­ment of gifted and tal­ented youth remains stead­fast.

Olszewski-Kubilius 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ent Devel­op­ment at North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty: an exam­ple of repli­ca­tion and ref­or­ma­tion”, Olszewski-Ku­bil­ius 2005:

This arti­cle describes imple­men­ta­tion of the tal­ent search model devel­oped by Julian Stan­ley at the Cen­ter for Tal­ent Devel­op­ment of North­west­ern Uni­ver­si­ty. While remain­ing true to the basic com­po­nents of the tal­ent search, the tal­ent cen­ter at North­west­ern has empha­sized using tal­ent search as a means to influ­ence pro­gram­ming in local schools for gifted stu­dents, research and devel­op­ment of var­i­ous types of edu­ca­tional pro­grams for tal­ented chil­dren, the cre­ation of an artic­u­lated set of pro­grams lead­ing to sys­tem­atic devel­op­ment of abil­i­ties across child­hood and ado­les­cence, exten­sions into other domains of tal­ent, such as lead­er­ship, and cre­at­ing syn­ergy for gifted edu­ca­tion through col­lab­o­ra­tion and part­ner­ships with other lead­ers in the Mid­west.

Rigby 2005

“‘Rocky Moun­tain Tal­ent Search’ at the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver”, Rigby 2005:

The ‘Rocky Moun­tain Tal­ent Search’ (RMTS) at the Uni­ver­sity of Den­ver was devel­oped based on the tal­ent search model devel­oped by Dr Julian Stan­ley of Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty. This arti­cle sum­ma­rizes the estab­lish­ment of RMTS and out­lines its con­tem­po­rary pro­grams. Guided by the phi­los­o­phy that gifted stu­dents have unique needs, require aca­d­e­mic chal­lenge and crave inter­ac­tion with their intel­lec­tual peers, the RMTS pro­gram con­tin­ues to offer assess­ment, recog­ni­tion and sum­mer enrich­ment pro­grams for aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted stu­dents. Now in its 23 year, RMTS is flour­ish­ing and expand­ing its offer­ings annu­al­ly.

Wallace 2005

“Dis­tance edu­ca­tion for gifted stu­dents: lever­ag­ing tech­nol­ogy to expand aca­d­e­mic options”, Wal­lace 2005:

Tech­no­log­i­cal advances and wide­spread access to the Inter­net are facil­i­tat­ing new edu­ca­tional approaches that go beyond the tra­di­tional face-to-face class­room set­ting. Dis­tance edu­ca­tion has emerged as a valu­able option for a num­ber of spe­cial pop­u­la­tions of learn­ers whose needs are more diffi­cult to meet in the class­room, of which gifted stu­dents are one. This paper explores the many vari­eties of dis­tance edu­ca­tion and the tech­nolo­gies that sup­port them and exam­ines research on the effec­tive­ness of the approaches in differ­ent set­tings. Research on the dis­tance edu­ca­tion pro­grams offered by the Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­sity Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth is sum­ma­rized and best prac­tices, based on the find­ings, are pro­posed.

Brody 2005

“The Study of Excep­tional Tal­ent”, Brody 2005:

The Study of Excep­tional Tal­ent (SET) iden­ti­fies stu­dents who exhibit extremely advanced math­e­mat­i­cal and/or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties and helps them find the chal­leng­ing edu­ca­tional pro­grams they need to achieve their full poten­tial. Specifi­cal­ly, stu­dents who score 700–800 on the math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal por­tion of SAT I before the age of 13 are invited to take advan­tage of SET’s coun­sel­ing and men­tor­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties. An ongo­ing lon­gi­tu­di­nal study tracks the progress of these stu­dents, and their achieve­ments to date have been excep­tion­al. SET stu­dents, as a group, par­tic­i­pate in a vari­ety of accel­er­ated pro­grams, attend highly selec­tive col­leges and uni­ver­si­ties and earn advanced degrees in large num­bers. Those who have embarked on their careers appear to be excelling in their cho­sen fields as well.

Brody & Mills 2005

“Tal­ent search research: what have we learned?”, Brody & Mills 2005

This chap­ter sum­ma­rizes the lessons learned from the over 25 years of research con­ducted by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth, as well as the prior 10 years of research con­ducted by Dr Julian Stan­ley and his grad­u­ate stu­dents. This sum­mary also includes work done by the sev­eral other tal­ent searches (Duke, North­west­ern and Rocky Moun­tain), although a com­plete descrip­tion of their work can be found in the indi­vid­ual arti­cles writ­ten by each. The find­ings from the hun­dreds of research stud­ies con­ducted val­i­date the tal­ent search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model and process, as well as the pro­grams devel­oped to meet the needs of iden­ti­fied stu­dents. In addi­tion, the authors have con­densed the find­ings from numer­ous research projects exam­in­ing the cog­ni­tive, social, per­son­al­ity and aca­d­e­mic devel­op­ment of the stu­dents CTY serves.

Gilheany 2005

“The Irish Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth”, Gilheany 2005:

Con­duct­ing potency tests on peni­cillin, dis­cussing rocket tech­nol­ogy with a NASA astro­naut, analysing ani­mal bone frag­ments from medieval times, these are just some of the activ­i­ties which occupy the time of stu­dents at The Irish Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth. The Cen­tre iden­ti­fies young stu­dents with excep­tional aca­d­e­mic abil­ity and then pro­vides ser­vices for them, their par­ents and teach­ers. This paper high­lights the work of the Cen­tre, par­tic­u­larly in rela­tion to nur­tur­ing and devel­op­ing inter­est in the sci­ences at an early age

Touron et al 2005

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Spain: an ini­tia­tive to serve highly able stu­dents”, Tourón et al 2005:

This paper deals with the main aspects of the work car­ried out by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Spain since its found­ing. The edu­ca­tional model applied here is based on the ‘Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth’, devel­oped by Julian Stan­ley in the early sev­en­ties and cur­rently the inspi­ra­tion behind all the cen­ters belong­ing to Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Inter­na­tion­al. We pro­vide data from the SCAT (‘School and col­lege abil­ity test’) test, val­i­dated in Spain by the first author, which is used to iden­tify stu­dents with excep­tional ver­bal or math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ty. The results obtained are ana­lyzed in the light of the­o­ret­i­cal mod­els, high­light­ing the sim­i­lar­i­ties between the results obtained and those in the USA. More­over, we explore data on course devel­op­ment and stu­dent assess­ment of cours­es. Final­ly, we explore the future prospects for the Cen­ter and of highly able stu­dents in Spain.

Frost 2005

“The CTY sum­mer school mod­el: evolve­ment, adap­ta­tion and extrap­o­la­tion at the National Acad­emy for Gifted and Tal­ented Youth (Eng­land)”, Frost 2005:

This arti­cle com­pares the sum­mer schools run by the National Acad­emy for Gifted and Tal­ented Youth (NAGTY) in Eng­land with those in the USA, run by the Cen­tre for Tal­ented Youth (CTY). When the NAGTY sum­mer schools started they were based on the CTY mod­el, but the pro­gramme has evolved over the last 3 years of oper­a­tion. The arti­cle looks at basic design, the cours­es, stu­dents, sum­mer school sites and issues of ped­a­gogy. There is also an exten­sive sec­tion shar­ing eval­u­a­tion data about the NAGTY pro­gramme in 2004. The over­whelm­ing view expressed in the arti­cle is of two highly suc­cess­ful pro­grammes, highly thought of by stu­dents and eval­u­a­tors. As stu­dents who attended both have com­ment­ed, the sum­mer schools have sim­i­lar­i­ties and differ­ences, but are of high qual­i­ty. Their expe­ri­ences at the sum­mer schools are life chang­ing for the stu­dents. They emerge from the expe­ri­ence much more self­-di­rected and with greater aspi­ra­tions and expec­ta­tions. NAGTY and CTY have some inter­est­ing plans to fur­ther develop the sum­mer school mod­el. With grow­ing num­bers of other coun­tries devel­op­ing sim­i­lar pro­grammes, the future is excit­ing. With con­tin­ued col­lab­o­ra­tion all can gain from each other and build on the exist­ing high qual­ity expe­ri­ences.

Touron 2005b

“What has been done, what has yet to be done”, Tourón 2005b [end­ing edi­to­ri­al]

Wai et al 2005

“Cre­ativ­ity and Occu­pa­tional Accom­plish­ments Among Intel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youths: An Age 13 To Age 33 Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study”, Wai et al 2005:

This study tracks intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youths (top 1%) over 20 years. Phase 1 (n = 1,243 boys, 732 girls) exam­ines the sig­nifi­cance of age 13 abil­ity differ­ences within the top 1% for pre­dict­ing doc­tor­ates, income, patents, and tenure at U.S. uni­ver­si­ties ranked within the top 50. Phase 2 (n = 323 men, 188 wom­en) eval­u­ates the robust­ness of dis­crim­i­nant func­tions devel­oped ear­lier, based on age-13 abil­ity and pref­er­ence assess­ments and cal­i­brated with age-23 edu­ca­tional cri­te­ria but extended here to pre­dict occu­pa­tional group mem­ber­ship at age 33. Pos­i­tive find­ings on above-level assess­ment with the Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test and con­ven­tional pref­er­ence inven­to­ries in edu­ca­tional set­tings gen­er­al­ize to occu­pa­tional set­tings. Pre­co­cious man­i­fes­ta­tions of abil­i­ties fore­shadow the emer­gence of excep­tional achieve­ment and cre­ativ­ity in the world of work; when paired with pref­er­ences, they also pre­dict the qual­i­ta­tive nature of these accom­plish­ments.

Benbow & Lubinski 2006

“Obit­u­ary: Julian C. Stan­ley Jr. (1918–2005)”, Ben­bow & Lubin­ski 2006

The Observer 2005

“In Appre­ci­a­tion: Julian Stan­ley”, The Observer: obit­u­ar­ies for Julian C. Stan­ley from David Lubin­ski (“A Kind and Com­pas­sion­ate Intel­lec­tual Giant”), Nicholas Colan­gelo (“Trib­ute to Julian”), Nancy M. Robin­son (“For­ever Improv­ing”), Arthur R. Jensen (“Stan­ley and Ter­man: Co-s­tars in Research on the Gifted”), and Camilla Pers­son Ben­bow (“A Pow­er­ful Amer­i­can Intel­lect”).

Lubinski & Benbow 2006

“Study of math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious youth after 35 years: Uncov­er­ing antecedents for the devel­op­ment of math­-science exper­tise”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2006:

This review pro­vides an account of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) after 35 years of lon­gi­tu­di­nal research. Find­ings from recent 20-year fol­low-ups from three cohorts, plus 5- or 10-year find­ings from all five SMPY cohorts (to­tal­ing more than 5,000 par­tic­i­pants), are pre­sent­ed.

SMPY has devoted par­tic­u­lar atten­tion to uncov­er­ing per­sonal antecedents nec­es­sary for the devel­op­ment of excep­tional math­-science careers and to devel­op­ing edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions to facil­i­tate learn­ing among intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth. Along with math­e­mat­i­cal gifts, high lev­els of spa­tial abil­i­ty, inves­tiga­tive inter­ests, and the­o­ret­i­cal val­ues form a par­tic­u­larly promis­ing apti­tude com­plex indica­tive of poten­tial for devel­op­ing sci­en­tific exper­tise and of sus­tained com­mit­ment to sci­en­tific pur­suits. Spe­cial edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties, how­ev­er, can markedly enhance the devel­op­ment of tal­ent. More­over, extra­or­di­nary sci­en­tific accom­plish­ments require extra­or­di­nary com­mit­ment both in and out­side of school.

The the­ory of work adjust­ment (TWA) is use­ful in con­cep­tu­al­iz­ing tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment and bridg­ing inter­con­nec­tions among edu­ca­tion­al, coun­sel­ing, and indus­trial psy­chol­o­gy. The lens of TWA can clar­ify how some sex differ­ences emerge in edu­ca­tional set­tings and the world of work. For exam­ple, in the SMPY cohorts, although more math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious males than females entered math­-science careers, this does not nec­es­sar­ily imply a loss of tal­ent because the women secured sim­i­lar pro­por­tions of advanced degrees and high­-level careers in areas more cor­re­spon­dent with the mul­ti­di­men­sion­al­ity of their abil­i­ty-pref­er­ence pat­tern (e.g., admin­is­tra­tion, law, med­i­cine, and the social sci­ences). By their mid-30s, the men and women appeared to be happy with their life choices and viewed them­selves as equally suc­cess­ful (and objec­tive mea­sures sup­port these sub­jec­tive impres­sion­s). Given the ever-in­creas­ing impor­tance of quan­ti­ta­tive and sci­en­tific rea­son­ing skills in mod­ern cul­tures, when math­e­mat­i­cally gifted indi­vid­u­als choose to pur­sue careers out­side engi­neer­ing and the phys­i­cal sci­ences, it should be seen as a con­tri­bu­tion to soci­ety, not a loss of tal­ent.

Lubinski et al 2006

“Track­ing Excep­tional Human Cap­i­tal Over Two Decades”, Lubin­ski et al 2006:

Tal­en­t-search par­tic­i­pants (286 males, 94 females) scor­ing in the top 0.01% on cog­ni­tive-a­bil­ity mea­sures were iden­ti­fied before age 13 and tracked over 20 years. Their cre­ative, occu­pa­tion­al, and life accom­plish­ments are com­pared with those of grad­u­ate stu­dents (299 males, 287 females) enrolled in top-ranked U.S. math­e­mat­ics, engi­neer­ing, and phys­i­cal sci­ence pro­grams in 1992 and tracked over 10 years. By their mid-30s, the two groups achieved com­pa­ra­ble and excep­tional suc­cess (e.g., secur­ing top tenure-track posi­tions) and reported high and com­men­su­rate career and life sat­is­fac­tion. Col­lege entrance exams admin­is­tered to intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth uncover extra­or­di­nary poten­tial for careers requir­ing cre­ativ­ity and sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal inno­va­tion in the infor­ma­tion age.

[See also “Invis­i­ble Genius­es: Could the Knowl­edge Fron­tier Advance Faster?”, Agar­wal & Gaule 2018, which finds a sim­i­lar gra­di­ent within high­ly-math­e­mat­i­cal­ly-tal­ented com­peti­tors: gold medal­ists have 50x the odds of win­ning a Fields Medal than grad­u­ates of top-10 US math pro­grams. Gasser 2019 exam­ines a sin­gle Hun­gar­ian IMO team as a case-s­tudy.]

Muratori et al 2006

“Insights From SMPY’s Great­est For­mer child Prodigies: Drs. Ter­ence (‘Terry’) Tao and Lenhard (‘Lenny’) Ng Reflect on Their Tal­ent Devel­op­ment”, Mura­tori et al 2006:

If the aca­d­e­mic needs of the most pro­foundly gifted stu­dents can be met through the use of exist­ing edu­ca­tional prac­tices, spe­cial­ists in gifted edu­ca­tion can assume that the edu­ca­tional needs of less able, but still aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ent­ed, stu­dents can also be met by using some com­bi­na­tion of these strate­gies as well. This paper illus­trates the fea­si­bil­ity and effec­tive­ness of uti­liz­ing an indi­vid­u­al­ized edu­ca­tional approach with gifted stu­dents by high­light­ing the unique edu­ca­tional paths taken by two of the very ablest math prodi­gies iden­ti­fied by Dr. Julian Stan­ley through the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) since its found­ing in 1971. Inter­views with Dr. and Dr., now both highly suc­cess­ful math­e­mati­cians, are pre­sented in their entire­ty, demon­strat­ing that even among the very ablest, strate­gies can be tai­lored effec­tively to the char­ac­ter­is­tics of each stu­dent through a com­bi­na­tion of cre­ative plan­ning and the coop­er­a­tion of par­ents, edu­ca­tors, and men­tors.

Brody 2007

“Coun­sel­ing highly gifted stu­dents to uti­lize sup­ple­men­tal edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties: Using the SET pro­gram as a model”, Brody 2007, in Serv­ing gifted learn­ers beyond the tra­di­tional class­room ed Van­Tas­sel-Baska 2007.

Halpern et al 2007

“The Sci­ence of Sex Differ­ences in Sci­ence and Math­e­mat­ics”, Halpern et al 2007:

Amid ongo­ing pub­lic spec­u­la­tion about the rea­sons for sex differ­ences in careers in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics, we present a con­sen­sus state­ment that is based on the best avail­able sci­en­tific evi­dence. Sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math achieve­ment and abil­ity are smaller for the mid-range of the abil­i­ties dis­tri­b­u­tion than they are for those with the high­est lev­els of achieve­ment and abil­i­ty. Males are more vari­able on most mea­sures of quan­ti­ta­tive and visu­ospa­tial abil­i­ty, which nec­es­sar­ily results in more males at both high- and low-a­bil­ity extremes; the rea­sons why males are often more vari­able remain elu­sive. Suc­cess­ful careers in math and sci­ence require many types of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties. Females tend to excel in ver­bal abil­i­ties, with large differ­ences between females and males found when assess­ments include writ­ing sam­ples. High­-level achieve­ment in sci­ence and math requires the abil­ity to com­mu­ni­cate effec­tively and com­pre­hend abstract ideas, so the female advan­tage in writ­ing should be help­ful in all aca­d­e­mic domains. Males out­per­form females on most mea­sures of visu­ospa­tial abil­i­ties, which have been impli­cated as con­tribut­ing to sex differ­ences on stan­dard­ized exams in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence. An evo­lu­tion­ary account of sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence sup­ports the con­clu­sion that, although sex differ­ences in math and sci­ence per­for­mance have not directly evolved, they could be indi­rectly related to differ­ences in inter­ests and spe­cific brain and cog­ni­tive sys­tems. We review the brain basis for sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics, describe con­sis­tent effects, and iden­tify numer­ous pos­si­ble cor­re­lates. Expe­ri­ence alters brain struc­tures and func­tion­ing, so causal state­ments about brain differ­ences and suc­cess in math and sci­ence are cir­cu­lar. A wide range of socio­cul­tural forces con­tribute to sex differ­ences in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence achieve­ment and abil­i­ty—in­clud­ing the effects of fam­i­ly, neigh­bor­hood, peer, and school influ­ences; train­ing and expe­ri­ence; and cul­tural prac­tices. We con­clude that early expe­ri­ence, bio­log­i­cal fac­tors, edu­ca­tional pol­i­cy, and cul­tural con­text affect the num­ber of women and men who pur­sue advanced study in sci­ence and math and that these effects add and inter­act in com­plex ways. There are no sin­gle or sim­ple answers to the com­plex ques­tions about sex differ­ences in sci­ence and math­e­mat­ics.

Lubinski & Benbow 2007

“Sex Differ­ences in Per­sonal Attrib­utes for the Devel­op­ment of Sci­en­tific Exper­tise”, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2007, in Why aren’t more women in sci­ence?: Top researchers debate the evi­dence, Ceci & Williams 2007:

Soci­ety is becom­ing increas­ingly sci­en­tific, tech­no­log­i­cal, and knowl­edge-based, depend­ing on the uti­liza­tion and max­i­miza­tion of human tal­ent and poten­tial (Fried­man, 2005). A nation’s strength, both eco­nom­i­cally and civi­cal­ly, is now linked to what it can call forth from the minds of its cit­i­zens. Con­se­quent­ly, much atten­tion is being focused on strate­gies for increas­ing the num­ber of sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) pro­fes­sion­als pro­duced in the United States and pos­si­ble untapped pools of tal­ent. For poli­cies to be effec­tive, they need to build on knowl­edge about what it takes to become excel­lent in STEM areas. Here, we review a series of known antecedents to achiev­ing excel­lence in and com­mit­ment to math and sci­ence domains. Par­tic­u­lar focus is on the well-doc­u­mented sex differ­ences on these attrib­utes and the impli­ca­tions for male ver­sus female rep­re­sen­ta­tion in STEM dis­ci­plines. We do not focus on the edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences and oppor­tu­ni­ties, such as appro­pri­ate devel­op­men­tal place­ment (Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Bleske-Rechek, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2004; Colan­gelo, Assouline, & Gross, 2004; Cron­bach, 1996; Lubin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000; Stan­ley, 2000) or involve­ment in research (Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Shea, Eftekhar­i-San­jani, & Halvor­son, 2001), which are impor­tant for devel­op­ing tal­ent in STEM areas; rather, we con­cen­trate on the per­sonal attrib­utes that pre­dis­pose indi­vid­u­als to pur­sue and achieve highly in STEM careers (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 1992; Lubin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Wai, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2005). This essay is also not about enhanc­ing the sci­en­tific lit­er­acy of the gen­eral U.S. pop­u­la­tion. That, although crit­i­cally impor­tant, is a differ­ent propo­si­tion from pro­duc­ing out­stand­ing STEM pro­fes­sion­als, the topic of this essay. Through our Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), we have spe­cial­ized in the lat­ter (Ben­bow, Lubin­ski, Shea, & Eftekhar­i-San­jani, 2000; Lubin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000, 2001; Lubin­ski, Ben­bow, et al., 2001; Lubin­ski et al., 2006; Wai et al., 2005; Webb, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2002) and draw on that work for this review. Focus­ing on the tal­ent­ed, as SMPY does, is appro­pri­ate, given that most STEM pro­fes­sion­als come from those in the top 10% in abil­ity (Hedges & Now­ell, 1995).

Park 2007

“Con­trast­ing intel­lec­tual pat­terns pre­dict cre­ativ­ity in the arts and sci­ences track­ing intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth over 25 years”, Park 2007:

…Re­cent­ly, empir­i­cal find­ings have shown that indi­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1% of abil­ity pre­dict differ­ences in occu­pa­tional per­for­mance and cre­ativ­i­ty: More abil­ity increases the like­li­hood of accom­plish­ments such as earn­ing a doc­tor­ate, earn­ing tenure at a top-50 U.S. uni­ver­si­ty, earn­ing a high income, and secur­ing a patent (Lu­bin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, & Bleske-Rechek, 2006; Wai, Lubin­ski, & Ben­bow, 2005). Most nor­ma­tive assess­ments, how­ev­er, are unable to differ­en­ti­ate the able from the excep­tion­ally able, because both groups tend to pile up at the ceil­ing of con­ven­tional indi­ca­tors such as col­lege entrance exams. The lack of vari­a­tion at the upper end con­strains the covari­a­tion between these mea­sures and sub­se­quent accom­plish­ments. When col­lege entrance exams are admin­is­tered to the intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious before age 13, how­ev­er, these youth gen­er­ate score dis­tri­b­u­tions like those of typ­i­cal col­lege-go­ing 12th graders, and the able and excep­tion­ally able are read­ily dis­tin­guished (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2006). When these youth are tracked over mul­ti­ple decades, the psy­cho­log­i­cal import of indi­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1%, which cov­ers more than one third of the abil­ity range, becomes open to eval­u­a­tion. For exam­ple, IQs in the top 1% begin at approx­i­mately 137 and extend beyond 200. But in this case, too, out­come cri­te­ria with high ceil­ings are required to appraise the valid­ity of these early assess­ments lon­gi­tu­di­nally (and fol­low-up inter­vals must be suffi­ciently long to allow for the devel­op­ment of the exper­tise needed for cre­ative accom­plish­ments).

In the study reported here, we tested the hypoth­e­sis that among intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth within the top 1% of abil­i­ty, the pat­tern of excep­tional math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties, as assessed at age 12, differ­en­tially pre­dict cre­ative achieve­ments in the human­i­ties ver­sus STEM domains 25 years lat­er.

Park et al 2007

“Con­trast­ing Intel­lec­tual Pat­terns Pre­dict Cre­ativ­ity in the Arts and Sci­ences: Track­ing Intel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth Over 25 Years”, Park et al 2007 (preprint):

A sam­ple of 2,409 intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (top 1%) who were assessed on the SAT by age 13 was tracked lon­gi­tu­di­nally for more than 25 years. Their cre­ative accom­plish­ments, with par­tic­u­lar empha­sis on lit­er­ary achieve­ment and sci­en­tific-tech­ni­cal inno­va­tion, were exam­ined as a func­tion of abil­ity level (sum of math and ver­bal SAT scores) and tilt (math SAT score minus ver­bal SAT score). Results showed that dis­tinct abil­ity pat­terns uncov­ered by age 13 por­tend con­trast­ing forms of cre­ative expres­sion by mid­dle age. Whereas abil­ity level con­tributes sig­nifi­cantly to cre­ative accom­plish­ments, abil­ity tilt is crit­i­cal for pre­dict­ing the spe­cific domain in which they occur (e.g., secur­ing a tenure-track posi­tion in the human­i­ties vs. sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, or math­e­mat­ics; pub­lish­ing a novel vs. secur­ing a paten­t).

Park et al 2008

“Abil­ity Differ­ences Among Peo­ple Who Have Com­men­su­rate Degrees Mat­ter For Sci­en­tific Cre­ativ­ity”, Park et al 2008:

A sam­ple of 1,586 intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (top 1%) were assessed on the math por­tion of the SAT by age 13 and tracked for more than 25 years. Patents and sci­en­tific pub­li­ca­tions were used as cri­te­ria for sci­en­tific and tech­no­log­i­cal accom­plish­ment. Par­tic­i­pants were cat­e­go­rized accord­ing to whether their ter­mi­nal degree was a bach­e­lor’s, mas­ter’s, or doc­tor­ate degree, and within these degree group­ings, the pro­por­tion of par­tic­i­pants with at least one patent or sci­en­tific pub­li­ca­tion in adult­hood increased as a func­tion of this early SAT assess­ment. Infor­ma­tion about indi­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­ity (even when mea­sured in early ado­les­cence) can pre­dict differ­en­tial cre­ative poten­tial in sci­ence and tech­nol­ogy within pop­u­la­tions that have advanced edu­ca­tional degrees.

Swiatek 2007

“The Tal­ent Search Mod­el: Past, Pre­sent, and Future”, Swiatek 2007:

Typ­i­cal stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests can­not pro­vide accu­rate infor­ma­tion about gifted stu­dents’ abil­i­ties because they are not chal­leng­ing enough for such stu­dents. Tal­ent searches solve this prob­lem through above-level test­ing—us­ing tests designed for older stu­dents to raise the ceil­ing for younger, gifted stu­dents. Cur­rent­ly, tal­ent search pro­grams serve gifted stu­dents from grades 2 through 8 through­out the main­land United States and in sev­eral for­eign coun­tries. Exten­sive research demon­strates that above-level test scores differ­en­ti­ate among lev­els of gift­ed­ness and have impor­tant impli­ca­tions for edu­ca­tional plan­ning. Stu­dents with high scores learn advanced mate­r­ial rapidly and well and thrive in accel­er­ated learn­ing set­tings. There­fore, tal­ent searches have fol­lowed up on test­ing with edu­ca­tional pro­grams, many of which focus on accel­er­a­tion. Decades of research have doc­u­mented both aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial ben­e­fits to par­tic­i­pants. Per­haps the great­est chal­lenge ahead of the tal­ent searches is that of facil­i­tat­ing the appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tion of gifted stu­dents in the school set­ting.

Webb et al 2007

“Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: A Neglected Dimen­sion in Tal­ent Searches for Intel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Webb et al 2007:

Stu­dents iden­ti­fied by tal­ent search pro­grams were stud­ied to deter­mine whether spa­tial abil­ity could uncover math­-science promise. In Phase 1, inter­ests and val­ues of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented ado­les­cents (617 boys, 443 girls) were com­pared with those of top math­-science grad­u­ate stu­dents (368 men, 346 wom­en) as a func­tion of their stand­ing on spa­tial visu­al­iza­tion to assess their poten­tial fit with math­-science careers. In Phase 2, 5-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal analy­ses revealed that spa­tial abil­ity coa­lesces with a con­stel­la­tion of per­sonal pref­er­ences indica­tive of fit for pur­su­ing sci­en­tific careers and adds incre­men­tal valid­ity beyond pref­er­ences in pre­dict­ing math­-science cri­te­ria. In Phase 3, data from par­tic­i­pants with Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT) scores were ana­lyzed lon­gi­tu­di­nal­ly, and a salient math­-science con­stel­la­tion again emerged (with which spa­tial abil­ity and SAT-Math were con­sis­tently pos­i­tively cor­re­lated and SAT-Verbal was neg­a­tively cor­re­lat­ed). Results across the 3 phases tri­an­gu­late to sug­gest that adding spa­tial abil­ity to tal­ent search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures (cur­rently restricted to math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ty) could uncover a neglected pool of math­-science tal­ent and holds promise for refin­ing our under­stand­ing of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented youth.

Leder 2008

“High Achiev­ers in Math­e­mat­ics: What Can We Learn From and About Them?”, Leder 2008:

Suc­cess in math­e­mat­ics is widely regarded as an impor­tant gate keeper for many courses and occu­pa­tions. But does suc­cess in math­e­mat­ics at school influ­ence edu­ca­tional and career paths? Do tal­ented math­e­mat­ics stu­dents have dis­tinc­tive work­ing habits, are they attracted to a math­e­mat­ics inten­sive field or more likely to turn to other areas? These and related issues are explored through infor­ma­tion gained from stu­dents rec­og­nized at sec­ondary school as high achiev­ers in math­e­mat­ics. [The Aus­tralian Math­e­mat­ics Com­pe­ti­tion (AMC)]

Review of Pre­vi­ous Research: The devel­op­ment of excep­tion­ally tal­ented indi­vid­u­als, includ­ing high achiev­ers in math­e­mat­ics, has attracted sus­tained and diverse research atten­tion. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY] founded by Julian Stan­ley in 1971 has spawned a huge amount of lit­er­a­ture, rang­ing from pub­li­ca­tions in which the ratio­nale for the pro­gram and early find­ings per­tain­ing to SMPY par­tic­i­pants were described (e.g., Stan­ley, Keat­ing, & Fox, 1974) to more recent doc­u­men­ta­tion of longer term per­sonal growth, edu­ca­tional and voca­tional adult achieve­ments. As noted by Lubin­ski, Ben­bow, Webb, and Bleske-Rechek (2006) many of these lat­ter pub­li­ca­tions focus on stu­dents who “before the age 13, … scored within the top 0.01 % for their age on either SAT math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (SAT-M ≥ 700) or SAT ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­ity (SAT-V ≥ 630)” (p. 194). Oth­ers to explore the devel­op­ment and work­ing pref­er­ences of highly able math­e­mat­ics.

Benbow & Lubinski 2009

“Extend­ing San­dra Scar­r’s Ideas about Devel­op­ment to the Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Intel­lec­tu­ally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Camilla P. Ben­bow & David Lubin­ski 2009:

San­dra Scarr has devoted her career to bring­ing the sci­ence of human indi­vid­u­al­ity to bear on lifes­pan devel­op­men­tal issues (Scarr, 1992, 1996; Scarr & McCart­ney, 1983). Shin­ing a light on the sci­ence of human indi­vid­u­al­ity and the differ­en­tial out­comes revealed by the study of human psy­cho­log­i­cal diver­sity has not always been easy (Scarr, 1992, 1998), but it has almost always been use­ful for both applied and basic psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ence (Lu­bin­ski, 1996, 2000; Under­wood, 1975), as well as for devel­op­ing mean­ing­ful pub­lic poli­cies focused on chang­ing human behav­ior (Scarr, 1996). Still, the psy­cho­log­i­cal import of valid mea­sures of human indi­vid­u­al­ity and the sci­en­tific knowl­edge gleaned by assess­ments thereof are rou­tinely denied or neglect­ed.

In this chap­ter, our objec­tives are twofold. First, we will doc­u­ment the extent to which find­ings about human indi­vid­u­al­ity are fre­quently dis­missed or ignored in the social sci­ences, and how this hob­bles the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment of truly excep­tional human cap­i­tal and mod­el­ing extra­or­di­nary human accom­plish­ment. Sec­ond, we out­line the use­ful­ness of Scar­r’s ideas about niche build­ing and selec­tion (Scarr, 1996; Scarr & McCart­ney, 1983), and how the study of envi­ron­ments from a psy­cho­log­i­cal per­spec­tive informs the cre­ation of more opti­mal learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties for stu­dents with excep­tional abil­i­ties (Ben­bow & Lubin­ski, 1996; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1983; Ben­bow & Stan­ley, 1996; Stan­ley, 2000). Doing so simul­ta­ne­ously affords insight into their life­long learn­ing.

Brody 2009

“The Johns Hop­kins Tal­ent Search Model for Iden­ti­fy­ing and Devel­op­ing Excep­tional Math­e­mat­i­cal and Ver­bal Abil­i­ties”, Brody 2009:

The Johns Hop­kins Tal­ent Search mod­el, which was pio­neered in the early 1970s by Pro­fes­sor Julian Stan­ley, has now spread to coun­tries around the world. Also known as the MVT:D4 model of tal­ent devel­op­ment, the power and effi­cacy of this approach for iden­ti­fy­ing and serv­ing stu­dents with above-grade-level math­e­mat­i­cal and/or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties have been well val­i­dat­ed. Researchers at Johns Hop­kins, as well as at other uni­ver­si­ties who use this mod­el, have con­tributed greatly to our knowl­edge and under­stand­ing of the needs of gifted stu­dents. They have also devel­oped and eval­u­ated numer­ous strate­gies for meet­ing the edu­ca­tional needs of stu­dents with advanced abil­i­ties. This chap­ter sum­ma­rizes the his­tory of the Tal­ent Search, its prin­ci­ples and prac­tices, and the research that has been done on Tal­ent Search stu­dents.

Ferriman et al 2009

“Work Pref­er­ences, Life Val­ues, and Per­sonal Views of Top Math/Science Grad­u­ate Stu­dents and the Pro­foundly Gift­ed: Devel­op­men­tal Changes and Gen­der Differ­ences Dur­ing Emerg­ing Adult­hood and Par­ent­hood”, Fer­ri­man et al 2009:

Work pref­er­ences, life val­ues, and per­sonal views of top math/science grad­u­ate stu­dents (275 men, 255 wom­en) were assessed at ages 25 and 35 years. In Study 1, analy­ses of work pref­er­ences revealed devel­op­men­tal changes and gen­der differ­ences in pri­or­i­ties: Some gen­der differ­ences increased over time and increased more among par­ents than among child­less par­tic­i­pants, seem­ingly because the moth­ers’ pri­or­i­ties changed. In Study 2, gen­der differ­ences in the grad­u­ate stu­dents’ life val­ues and per­sonal views at age 35 were com­pared with those of pro­foundly gifted par­tic­i­pants (top 1 in 10,000, iden­ti­fied by age 13 and tracked for 20 years: 265 men, 84 wom­en). Again, gen­der differ­ences were larger among par­ents. Across both cohorts, men appeared to assume a more agen­tic, career-fo­cused per­spec­tive than women did, plac­ing more impor­tance on cre­at­ing high­-im­pact prod­ucts, receiv­ing com­pen­sa­tion, tak­ing risks, and gain­ing recog­ni­tion as the best in their fields. Women appeared to favor a more com­mu­nal, holis­tic per­spec­tive, empha­siz­ing com­mu­ni­ty, fam­i­ly, friend­ships, and less time devoted to career. Gen­der differ­ences in life pri­or­i­ties, which inten­sify dur­ing par­ent­hood, antic­i­pated differ­en­tial male-fe­male rep­re­sen­ta­tion in high­-level and time-in­ten­sive careers, even among tal­ented men and women with sim­i­lar pro­files of abil­i­ties, voca­tional inter­ests, and edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences.

Lubinski 2009a

“Cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­o­gy: With empha­sis on untan­gling cog­ni­tive abil­ity and socioe­co­nomic sta­tus”, Lubin­ski 2009a:

This com­men­tary touches on prac­ti­cal, pub­lic pol­i­cy, and social sci­ence domains informed by cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy while pulling together com­mon themes run­ning through this impor­tant spe­cial issue. As is made clear in the con­tri­bu­tions assem­bled here, and oth­ers (Deary, Whal­ley, & Starr, 2009; Got­tfred­son, 2004; Lubin­ski & Humphreys, 1992, 1997), social sci­en­tists and prac­ti­tion­ers can­not afford to neglect cog­ni­tive abil­ity when mod­el­ing epi­demi­o­log­i­cal and health care phe­nom­e­na. How­ev­er, given the dom­i­nant con­cern about the con­found­ing of gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity (GCA) and socioe­co­nomic sta­tus (SES), and the extent to which SES is fre­quently seen as the pri­mary cause of health dis­par­i­ties (while GCA is neglected as a pos­si­ble in flu­ence in epi­demi­ol­ogy and health psy­chol­o­gy), some method­olog­i­cal appli­ca­tions for untan­gling the rel­a­tive influ­ences of GCA and SES are reviewed. In addi­tion, cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy is placed in a broader con­text: Just as cog­ni­tive epi­demi­ol­ogy facil­i­tates an under­stand­ing of pathol­ogy (“at risk” pop­u­la­tions, and ways to atten­u­ate unde­sir­able per­sonal and social con­di­tion­s), it may also enrich our under­stand­ing of opti­mal func­tion­ing (“at promise” pop­u­la­tions, and ways to iden­tify and nur­ture the human and social cap­i­tal needed to develop inno­va­tions for sav­ing lives, economies, and per­haps even our plan­et). Final­ly, while GCA is likely the most impor­tant dimen­sion in the study of indi­vid­ual differ­ences for mod­el­ing healthy behav­iors and out­comes, other rel­a­tively inde­pen­dent dimen­sions of psy­cho­log­i­cal diver­sity do add value (Krueger, Caspi, & Moffitt, 2000). For exam­ple, com­pli­ance has at least two psy­cho­log­i­cal com­po­nents: a “can do” com­pe­tency com­po­nent (abil­i­ty) and a “will do” moti­va­tional com­po­nent (con­sci­en­tious­ness). Ulti­mate­ly, devel­op­ing and mod­el­ing healthy behav­iors, inter­per­sonal envi­ron­ments, and med­ical mal­adies are best accom­plished by team­ing mul­ti­ple dimen­sions of human indi­vid­u­al­i­ty.

Lubinski 2009b

“Excep­tional Cog­ni­tive Abil­i­ty: The Phe­no­type”, Lubin­ski 2009b:

Char­ac­ter­iz­ing the out­comes related to the phe­no­type of excep­tional cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties has been fea­si­ble in recent years due to the avail­abil­ity of large sam­ples of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents iden­ti­fied by mod­ern tal­ent searches that have been fol­lowed-up lon­gi­tu­di­nally over mul­ti­ple decades. The level and pat­tern of cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, even among par­tic­i­pants within the top 1% of gen­eral intel­lec­tual abil­i­ty, are related to differ­en­tial devel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries and impor­tant life accom­plish­ments: The like­li­hood of earn­ing a doc­tor­ate, earn­ing excep­tional com­pen­sa­tion, pub­lish­ing nov­els, secur­ing patents, and earn­ing tenure at a top uni­ver­sity (and the aca­d­e­mic dis­ci­plines within which tenure is most likely to occur) all vary as a func­tion of indi­vid­ual differ­ences in cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties assessed decades ear­li­er. Indi­vid­ual differ­ences that dis­tin­guish the able (top 1 in 100) from the excep­tion­ally able (top 1 in 10,000) dur­ing early ado­les­cence mat­ter in life, and, given the her­i­tabil­ity of gen­eral intel­li­gence, they sug­gest that under­stand­ing the genetic and envi­ron­men­tal ori­gins of excep­tional abil­i­ties should be a high pri­or­ity for behav­ior genetic research, espe­cially because the results for extreme groups could differ from the rest of the pop­u­la­tion. In addi­tion to enhanc­ing our under­stand­ing of the eti­ol­ogy of gen­eral intel­li­gence at the extreme, such inquiry may also reveal fun­da­men­tal deter­mi­nants of spe­cific abil­i­ties, like math­e­mat­i­cal ver­sus ver­bal rea­son­ing, and the dis­tinc­tive phe­no­types that con­trast­ing abil­ity pat­terns are most likely to even­tu­ate in at extra­or­di­nary lev­els.

Wai et al 2009

“Spa­tial Abil­ity for STEM Domains: Align­ing Over 50 Years of Cumu­la­tive Psy­cho­log­i­cal Knowl­edge Solid­i­fies Its Impor­tance”, Wai et al 2009:

The impor­tance of spa­tial abil­ity in edu­ca­tional pur­suits and the world of work was exam­ined, with par­tic­u­lar atten­tion devoted to STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) domains. Par­tic­i­pants were drawn from of U.S. high schools (Grades 9–12, n = 400,000) and were tracked for 11+ years; their lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings were aligned with pre-1957 find­ings and with con­tem­po­rary data from the Grad­u­ate Record Exam­i­na­tion [GRE] and the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth [SMPY]. For decades, spa­tial abil­ity assessed dur­ing ado­les­cence has sur­faced as a salient psy­cho­log­i­cal attribute among those ado­les­cents who sub­se­quently go on to achieve advanced edu­ca­tional cre­den­tials and occu­pa­tions in STEM. Results solid­ify the gen­er­al­iza­tion that spa­tial abil­ity plays a crit­i­cal role in devel­op­ing exper­tise in STEM and sug­gest, among other things, that includ­ing spa­tial abil­ity in mod­ern tal­ent searches would iden­tify many ado­les­cents with poten­tial for STEM who are cur­rently being missed.

Park et al 2009

“Rec­og­niz­ing Spa­tial Intel­li­gence: Our schools, and our soci­ety, must do more to rec­og­nize spa­tial rea­son­ing, a key kind of intel­li­gence”, Park et al 2009 (Sci­en­tific Amer­i­can):

…Re­cent research on cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties is rein­forc­ing what some psy­chol­o­gists sug­gested decades ago: spa­tial abil­i­ty, also known as spa­tial visu­al­iza­tion, plays a crit­i­cal role in engi­neer­ing and sci­en­tific dis­ci­plines. Yet more ver­bal­ly-loaded IQ tests, as well as many pop­u­lar stan­dard­ized tests used today, do not ade­quately mea­sure this trait, espe­cially in those who are most gifted with it.

A recent review, pub­lished in the Jour­nal of Edu­ca­tional Psy­chol­ogy, ana­lyzed data from two large lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies. Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Jonathan Wai worked with two of us (Lu­bin­ski and Ben­bow) and showed how neglect­ing spa­tial abil­i­ties could have wide­spread con­se­quences. In both stud­ies, par­tic­i­pants’ spa­tial abil­i­ties, along with many oth­ers, were mea­sured in ado­les­cence. The par­tic­i­pants with rel­a­tively strong spa­tial abil­i­ties tended to grav­i­tate towards, and excel in, sci­en­tific and tech­ni­cal fields such as the phys­i­cal sci­ences, engi­neer­ing, math­e­mat­ics, and com­puter sci­ence. Sur­pris­ing­ly, this was after account­ing for quan­ti­ta­tive and ver­bal abil­i­ties, which have long been known to be pre­dic­tive of edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional out­comes. In a time when edu­ca­tors and pol­i­cy-mak­ers are under pres­sure to increase the num­ber stu­dents enter­ing these fields, incor­po­rat­ing knowl­edge of spa­tial abil­ity into cur­rent prac­tices in edu­ca­tion and tal­ent searches may be the key to improv­ing such efforts.

…Due to the neglect of spa­tial abil­ity in school cur­ric­u­la, tra­di­tional stan­dard­ized assess­ments, and in national tal­ent search­es, those with rel­a­tive spa­tial strengths across the entire range of abil­ity con­sti­tute an under­-served pop­u­la­tion with poten­tial to bol­ster to the cur­rent sci­en­tific and tech­ni­cal work­force. Alvarez and Shock­ley found their way despite being missed by the Ter­man search, and each had con­sid­er­able impact on tech­nol­ogy in the last cen­tu­ry. But how many more Alvarezes and Shock­leys have we missed? Given the poten­tial of sci­en­tific inno­va­tions to improve almost all aspects of mod­ern life, miss­ing just one is prob­a­bly one too many.

Wai et al 2009b

“Align­ing Poten­tial and Pas­sion for Promise: A Model for Edu­cat­ing Intel­lec­tu­ally Tal­ented Youth”, Wai et al 2009b (in ed Ren­zulli et al 2009, Sys­tems and Mod­els for Devel­op­ing Pro­grams for the Gifted and Tal­ented (Sec­ond Edi­tion)):

For effec­tive inter­ven­tions and pro­grams for the intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented to be opti­mally devel­oped and imple­ment­ed, edu­ca­tors first need to real­ize what is impor­tant to under­stand for all stu­dents, name­ly, the nature and scope of their psy­cho­log­i­cal diver­si­ty-or, their Indi­vid­u­al­ity, the title of E. L. Thorndike’s (1911) land­mark essay, from which an appre­ci­a­tion of indi­vid­ual differ­ences was ush­ered into Amer­i­can psy­chol­ogy (Daw­is, 1992). In essence, pro­gram design should align oppor­tu­ni­ties to learn with each stu­den­t’s indi­vid­ual char­ac­ter­is­tics (Lu­bin­ski & Ben­bow, 2000, 2006). Or, stated another way, it should merge an indi­vid­u­al’s poten­tial (abil­i­ties) and pas­sion (pref­er­ences) with edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences tai­lored to each stu­den­t’s unique promise (readi­ness to learn). Per­sonal promise for differ­en­tial devel­op­ment ema­nat­ing from con­stel­la­tions of con­trast­ing ability/preference pat­terns is expressed in syn­thetic con­cepts such as “trait clus­ters” (Ack­er­man, 1996), “apti­tude com­plexes” (Corno, et al., 2002; Snow, 1991), and “tax­ons” (Dawis & Lofquist, 1984). The basic idea is that know­ing what a per­son can do (abil­i­ties or capa­bil­i­ties) is only one part of the equa­tion; another impor­tant com­po­nent is know­ing what he/she will do or would like to do (viz., inter­ests, needs, and val­ues)…The lon­gi­tu­di­nal data we will draw on to sup­port our model stems pri­mar­ily from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY).

Steenbergen-Hu 2009

“The effects of accel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers: A meta-analy­sis”, Steen­ber­gen-Hu 2009 (the­sis):

Cur­rent empir­i­cal research find­ings about the effects of accel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment and social-e­mo­tional devel­op­ment were syn­the­sized using meta-an­a­lytic tech­niques. A total of 38 pri­mary stud­ies con­ducted between 1984 and 2008 were includ­ed. The included stud­ies were closely exam­ined to ensure that accel­er­ated high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers were com­pared with appro­pri­ate com­par­i­son groups. Hedges’s g was used as the pri­mary effect size index. Analy­ses were per­formed using ran­dom effects mod­els, which assume that the effects vary across differ­ent con­texts, inter­ven­tion con­di­tions, and/or sub­jects. The over­all effects of accel­er­a­tion were ana­lyzed first. Then, the results were bro­ken down by devel­op­men­tal lev­els (P-12 and post-sec­ondary) and com­par­i­son groups (whether accel­er­ants were com­pared with same age, older age, or mixed-age peer­s). In addi­tion, analy­ses were con­ducted to iden­tify poten­tial mod­er­a­tors of the effects. Results were inter­preted in terms of prac­ti­cal sig­nifi­cance and were also com­pared with those from rel­e­vant pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies.

In terms of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects, the find­ings from this meta-analy­sis are con­sis­tent with the con­clu­sions from pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, sug­gest­ing that accel­er­a­tion had a pos­i­tive impact on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers. When the aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects were sorted by devel­op­men­tal lev­els, pos­i­tive effects were found at both lev­els. The sub­-group of ‘with same age peers’ con­sis­tently showed a pos­i­tive effect on aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment that were higher than the other sub­groups, sug­gest­ing that the effects of accel­er­a­tion may be more dis­cernible when accel­er­ated high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers are com­pared with their non-ac­cel­er­ated same age peers. Fur­ther­more, accel­er­a­tion dura­tion and sta­tis­ti­cal analy­sis were iden­ti­fied as mod­er­a­tors of aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment effects.

The effects of accel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ social-e­mo­tional devel­op­ment appeared to be slightly pos­i­tive, although the pos­i­tive effect was not as strong as for aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. How­ev­er, com­pared to prior meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, a more pos­i­tive impres­sion of the effects of accel­er­a­tion on social-e­mo­tional devel­op­ment was found.

Steenbergen-Hu & Moon 2010

“The Effects of Accel­er­a­tion on High­-A­bil­ity Learn­ers: A Meta-Analy­sis”, Steen­ber­gen-Hu & Moon 2010 (pa­per ver­sion of Steen­ber­gen-Hu 2009 the­sis):

Cur­rent empir­i­cal research about the effects of accel­er­a­tion on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment and social- emo­tional devel­op­ment were syn­the­sized using meta-an­a­lytic tech­niques. A total of 38 pri­mary stud­ies con­ducted between 1984 and 2008 were includ­ed. The results were bro­ken down by devel­op­men­tal level (P-12 and post-sec­ondary) and com­par­i­son group (whether the accel­er­ants were com­pared with same-age, old­er, or mixed-age peer­s). The find­ings are con­sis­tent with the con­clu­sions from pre­vi­ous meta-an­a­lytic stud­ies, sug­gest­ing that accel­er­a­tion had a pos­i­tive impact on high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers’ aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment (g = 0.180, 95% CI = -0.072, 0.431, under a ran­dom-effects mod­el). In addi­tion, the social-e­mo­tional devel­op­ment effects appeared to be slightly pos­i­tive (g = 0.076, 95% CI = -0.025, 0.176, under a ran­dom-effects mod­el), although not as strong as for aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. No strong evi­dence regard­ing the mod­er­a­tors of the effects was found.

Putting the Research to Use: The find­ings of this meta-analy­sis sug­gest that accel­er­a­tion influ­ences high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers in pos­i­tive ways, espe­cially on aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment. An impor­tant mes­sage for edu­ca­tors, par­ents and stu­dents is that high­-a­bil­ity learn­ers can ben­e­fit from accel­er­a­tion both in the short­-term and in the long run. Specifi­cal­ly, accel­er­ated stu­dents tend to out­per­form stu­dents who are not accel­er­ated in their per­for­mance on stan­dard­ized achieve­ment tests, col­lege grades, degrees obtained, sta­tus of uni­ver­si­ties or col­leges attend­ed, and career sta­tus. Accel­er­ants equal or sur­pass non-ac­cel­er­ants in self­-con­cept, self­-es­teem, self­-con­fi­dence, social rela­tion­ships, par­tic­i­pa­tion in extracur­ric­u­lar activ­i­ties, and life sat­is­fac­tion. It is infor­ma­tive for pol­i­cy-mak­ers that accel­er­a­tion pro­grams, espe­cially uni­ver­si­ty-based early col­lege entrance pro­grams, have been fre­quently assessed and appear to be the most effec­tive. In sum­ma­ry, accel­er­a­tion can be effec­tive both in K-12 edu­ca­tion and in col­lege. Par­ents are encour­aged to con­sider accel­er­a­tion for their aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented chil­dren and edu­ca­tors are encour­aged to make accel­er­a­tion options avail­able.


Henshon 2010

“Tal­ent Sleuth Extra­or­di­naire: An Inter­view With Camilla P. Ben­bow”, Hen­shon 2010

Lubinski 2010

“Spa­tial abil­ity and STEM: A sleep­ing giant for tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment”, Lubin­ski 2010:

Spa­tial abil­ity is a pow­er­ful sys­tem­atic source of indi­vid­ual differ­ences that has been neglected in com­plex learn­ing and work set­tings; it has also been neglected in mod­el­ing the devel­op­ment of exper­tise and cre­ative accom­plish­ments. Nev­er­the­less, over 50 years of lon­gi­tu­di­nal research doc­u­ments the impor­tant role that spa­tial abil­ity plays in edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional set­tings wherein sophis­ti­cated rea­son­ing with fig­ures, pat­terns, and shapes is essen­tial. Given the con­tem­po­rary push for devel­op­ing STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) tal­ent in the infor­ma­tion age, an oppor­tu­nity is avail­able to high­light the psy­cho­log­i­cal sig­nifi­cance of spa­tial abil­i­ty. Doing so is likely to inform research on apti­tude-by-treat­ment inter­ac­tions and Under­wood’s (1975) idea to uti­lize indi­vid­ual differ­ences as a cru­cible for the­ory con­struc­tion. Incor­po­rat­ing spa­tial abil­ity in tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures for advanced learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties uncov­ers an under­-u­ti­lized pool of tal­ent for meet­ing the com­plex needs of an ever-grow­ing tech­no­log­i­cal world; fur­ther­more, select­ing stu­dents for advanced learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties in STEM with­out con­sid­er­ing spa­tial abil­ity might be iatro­genic.

Robertson et al 2010

“Beyond the thresh­old hypoth­e­sis: Even among the gifted and top math/science grad­u­ate stu­dents, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties, voca­tional inter­ests, and lifestyle pref­er­ences mat­ter for career choice, per­for­mance, and per­sis­tence”, Robert­son et al 2010:

The asser­tion that abil­ity differ­ences no longer mat­ter beyond a cer­tain thresh­old is inac­cu­rate. Among young ado­les­cents in the top 1% of quan­ti­ta­tive rea­son­ing abil­i­ty, indi­vid­ual differ­ences in gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­ity level and in spe­cific cog­ni­tive abil­ity pat­tern (that is, the rela­tion­ships among an indi­vid­u­al’s math, ver­bal, and spa­tial abil­i­ties) lead to differ­ences in edu­ca­tion­al, occu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes decades lat­er. Whereas abil­ity level pre­dicts the level of achieve­ment, abil­ity pat­tern pre­dicts the realm of achieve­ment. Adding infor­ma­tion on voca­tional inter­ests refines pre­dic­tion of edu­ca­tional and career choic­es. Final­ly, lifestyle pref­er­ences rel­e­vant to career choice, per­for­mance, and per­sis­tence often change between ages 25 and 35. This change results in sex differ­ences in pref­er­ences, which likely have rel­e­vance for under­stand­ing the under­rep­re­sen­ta­tion of women in careers that demand more than ful­l-time (40 hours per week) com­mit­ment.

Fig. 1. Accom­plish­ments across indi­vid­ual differ­ences within the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity 25+ years after iden­ti­fi­ca­tion at age 13. Par­tic­i­pants from Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) Cohorts 1, 2, and 3 (N = 2,385) are sep­a­rated into quar­tiles based on their age-13 SAT-M score. The quar­tiles are plot­ted along the x-axis by their mean SAT-M score. The cut­off for a score in the top 1% of cog­ni­tive abil­ity was 390, and the max­i­mum pos­si­ble score was 800. Odds ratios (OR) com­par­ing the odds of each out­come in the top (Q4) and bot­tom (Q1) SAT-M quar­tiles are dis­played at the end of every respec­tive cri­te­rion line. An aster­isk indi­cates that the odds of the out­come in Q4 was sig­nifi­cantly greater than in Q1. STEM=science, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, or math­e­mat­ics. STEM Tenure (Top 50)=tenure in a STEM field at a U.S. uni­ver­sity ranked in the top 50 by U.S. News and World Report’s “Amer­i­ca’s Best Col­leges 2007”. Adapted in part from Park, Lubin­ski, and Ben­bow (2007, 2008).

Wai et al 2010

“Accom­plish­ment in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) and its rela­tion to STEM edu­ca­tional dose: A 25-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study”, Wai et al 2010:

Two stud­ies exam­ined the rela­tion­ship between pre­c­ol­le­giate advanced/enriched edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences and adult accom­plish­ments in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM). In Study 1, 1,467 13-year-olds were iden­ti­fied as math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented on the basis of scores ≥ 500 (top 0.5%) on the math sec­tion of the Scholas­tic Assess­ment Test; sub­se­quent­ly, their devel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries were stud­ied over 25 years. Par­tic­u­lar atten­tion was paid to high­-level STEM accom­plish­ments with low base rates in the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion (STEM PhDs, STEM pub­li­ca­tions, STEM tenure, STEM patents, and STEM occu­pa­tion­s). Study 2 ret­ro­spec­tively pro­filed the ado­les­cent advanced/enriched edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences of 714 top STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents (mean age = 25), and related these expe­ri­ences to their STEM accom­plish­ments up to age 35. In both lon­gi­tu­di­nal stud­ies, those with notable STEM accom­plish­ments man­i­fested past his­to­ries involv­ing a richer den­sity of advanced pre­c­ol­le­giate edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties in STEM (a higher “STEM dose”) than less highly achiev­ing mem­bers of their respec­tive cohorts. While both stud­ies are qua­si­-ex­per­i­men­tal, they sug­gest that for math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented and aca­d­e­m­i­cally moti­vated young ado­les­cents, STEM accom­plish­ments are facil­i­tated by a rich mix of pre­c­ol­le­giate STEM edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties that are designed to be intel­lec­tu­ally chal­leng­ing, even for stu­dents at pre­co­cious devel­op­men­tal lev­els. These oppor­tu­ni­ties appear to be uni­formly impor­tant for both sex­es.

Hunt 2011

Human Intel­li­gence, Hunt 2011 (ISBN 978-0-521-88162-3). Text­book: chap­ter 10, “What Use Is Intel­li­gence?” (re­views SMPY along with other rel­e­vant demon­stra­tions of pre­dic­tive valid­ity of IQ like Ter­man, Project 100,000, and the ASVAB Mis­norm­ing)

Touron & Touron 2011

“The Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Mod­el: A Review of the Lit­er­a­ture”, Tourón & Tourón 2011:

This paper reviews the lit­er­a­ture on the Tal­ent Search iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model that was devel­oped by Julian Stan­ley as the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth at Johns Hop­kins in the 1970s and imple­mented by the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth from the early 1980s through to the pre­sent. Other uni­ver­si­ties in the United States have also adopted this model for tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment, and it has been adapted for use in other coun­tries. To date, more than 3.5 mil­lion stu­dents have par­tic­i­pated in Tal­ent Search assess­ments, and hun­dreds of thou­sands of stu­dents have enrolled in spe­cial­ized aca­d­e­mic pro­grams for able learn­ers. Here we ana­lyze the mod­el’s found­ing prin­ci­ples, its uni­ver­sal char­ac­ter­is­tics, and its appli­ca­tion and func­tion­ing in Spain. We con­clude with some reflec­tions about what we have learned and what could be done world­wide.

Touron & Touron 2016

“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of Ver­bal and Math­e­mat­i­cal Tal­ent: The Rel­e­vance of ‘Out of Level’ Mea­sure­ment”, Tourón & Tourón 2016:

This study has two main objec­tives. First one to carry out a con­cep­tual review of the lit­er­a­ture together with the work done in Spain by the authors about the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion model known in the inter­na­tional lit­er­a­ture as Tal­ent Search model or con­cept. This model cre­ated by J. C. Stan­ley in the early 70s has led to a huge devel­op­ment in the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of ver­bal and math­e­mat­i­cal tal­ent of young peo­ple, in order to pro­vide the appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tional pro­vi­sion their abil­ity needs. Far from being an Amer­i­can mod­el, in this paper we show, and this is the sec­ond objec­tive, through data from sev­eral years of imple­men­ta­tion of the model in Spain, that it can be con­sid­ered a uni­ver­sal mod­el, based among oth­ers in the prin­ci­ple of above or out of level mea­sure­ment. Using this above level mea­sure­ment, we can ade­quately dis­crim­i­nate the diverse abil­ity of the stu­dents test­ed, that when mea­sured alone with in level test­ing, is masked due to lack diffi­culty and dis­crim­i­na­tion of the tests used. Some sug­ges­tions for large-s­cale use of these pro­ce­dures in schools are pro­vid­ed.

Benbow 2012

“Iden­ti­fy­ing and Nur­tur­ing Future Inno­va­tors in Sci­ence, Tech­nol­o­gy, Engi­neer­ing, and Math­e­mat­ics: A Review of Find­ings From the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Ben­bow 2012:

Calls to strengthen edu­ca­tion in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) are under­scored by employ­ment trends and the impor­tance of STEM inno­va­tion for the econ­o­my. The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) has been track­ing over 5,000 tal­ented indi­vid­u­als lon­gi­tu­di­nally for 40 years, throw­ing light on crit­i­cal ques­tions in tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment in STEM. SMPY includes indi­vid­u­als iden­ti­fied in 7th/8th grade as in the top 1% or higher in math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal abil­i­ty, and a com­par­i­son group iden­ti­fied as top STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents. SMPY find­ings cover the edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional attain­ments of par­tic­i­pants, includ­ing a large per­cent­age earn­ing a degree or pur­su­ing high pow­ered careers in STEM; gen­der differ­ences; the extent to which high school expe­ri­ences, abil­i­ties, and inter­ests pre­dict later out­comes; and sub­se­quent cre­ative pro­duc­tion. Math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity as mea­sured by stan­dard­ized tests is a reli­able pre­dic­tor for later math/science engage­ment and achieve­ment in adult­hood, and spa­tial abil­ity adds pre­dic­tive val­ue. Expo­sure to appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tional oppor­tu­ni­ties do cor­re­late with career achieve­ment and cre­ative pro­duc­tion. SMPY researchers have con­cluded that poten­tial future STEM inno­va­tors can be iden­ti­fied early and that edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions can increase their chances of suc­cess.

Kell & Lubinski 2013

“Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: A Neglected Tal­ent in Edu­ca­tional and Occu­pa­tional Set­tings”, Kell & Lubin­ski 2013 (re­view):

For over 60 years, lon­gi­tu­di­nal research on tens of thou­sands of high abil­ity and intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth has con­sis­tently revealed the impor­tance of spa­tial abil­ity for hand­s-on cre­ative accom­plish­ments and the devel­op­ment of exper­tise in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­i­cal (STEM) dis­ci­plines. Yet, indi­vid­ual differ­ences in spa­tial abil­ity are sel­dom assessed for edu­ca­tional coun­sel­ing and selec­tion. Stu­dents espe­cially tal­ented in spa­tial visu­al­iza­tion rel­a­tive to their sta­tus on math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing are par­tic­u­larly likely to be under­served by our edu­ca­tional insti­tu­tions. Evi­dence for the impor­tance of assess­ing spa­tial abil­ity is reviewed and ways to uti­lize infor­ma­tion about indi­vid­ual differ­ences in this attribute in learn­ing and work set­tings are offered. The lit­er­a­ture reviewed stresses the impor­tance of spa­tial abil­ity in real-world set­tings and con­sti­tutes a rare instance in the social sci­ences where more research is not need­ed. What is needed is the incor­po­ra­tion of spa­tial abil­ity into tal­ent iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures and research on cur­ricu­lum devel­op­ment and train­ing, along with other cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties har­bor­ing differ­en­tial—and incre­men­tal—­va­lid­ity for socially val­ued out­comes beyond IQ (or, g, gen­eral intel­li­gence).

Kell et al 2013a

, Kell et al 2013a:

Youth iden­ti­fied before age 13 (n = 320) as hav­ing pro­found math­e­mat­i­cal or ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties (top 1 in 10,000) were tracked for nearly three decades. Their awards and cre­ative accom­plish­ments by age 38, in com­bi­na­tion with spe­cific details about their occu­pa­tional respon­si­bil­i­ties, illu­mi­nate the mag­ni­tude of their con­tri­bu­tion and pro­fes­sional stature. Many have been entrusted with oblig­a­tions and resources for mak­ing crit­i­cal deci­sions about indi­vid­ual and orga­ni­za­tional well-be­ing. Their lead­er­ship posi­tions in busi­ness, health care, law, the pro­fes­so­ri­ate, and STEM (science, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics) sug­gest that many are out­stand­ing cre­ators of mod­ern cul­ture, con­sti­tut­ing a pre­cious human-cap­i­tal resource. Iden­ti­fy­ing truly pro­found human poten­tial, and fore­cast­ing differ­en­tial devel­op­ment within such pop­u­la­tions, requires assess­ing mul­ti­ple cog­ni­tive abil­i­ties and using atyp­i­cal mea­sure­ment pro­ce­dures. This study illus­trates how ulti­mate cri­te­ria may be aggre­gated and lon­gi­tu­di­nally sequenced to val­i­date such mea­sures.

Kell et al 2013b

“Cre­ativ­ity and Tech­ni­cal Inno­va­tion: Spa­tial Abil­i­ty’s Unique Role”, Kell et al 2013b:

In the late 1970s, 563 intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds (iden­ti­fied by the SAT as in the top 0.5% of abil­i­ty) were assessed on spa­tial abil­i­ty. More than 30 years lat­er, the present study eval­u­ated whether spa­tial abil­ity pro­vided incre­men­tal valid­ity (be­yond the SAT’s math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing sub­tests) for differ­en­tially pre­dict­ing which of these indi­vid­u­als had patents and three classes of ref­er­eed pub­li­ca­tions. A two-step dis­crim­i­nan­t-func­tion analy­sis revealed that the SAT sub­tests jointly accounted for 10.8% of the vari­ance among these out­comes (p < 0.01); when spa­tial abil­ity was added, an addi­tional 7.6% was accounted for—a sta­tis­ti­cally sig­nifi­cant increase (p < 0.01). The find­ings indi­cate that spa­tial abil­ity has a unique role in the devel­op­ment of cre­ativ­i­ty, beyond the roles played by the abil­i­ties tra­di­tion­ally mea­sured in edu­ca­tional selec­tion, coun­sel­ing, and indus­tri­al-or­ga­ni­za­tional psy­chol­o­gy. Spa­tial abil­ity plays a key and unique role in struc­tur­ing many impor­tant psy­cho­log­i­cal phe­nom­ena and should be exam­ined more broadly across the applied and basic psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ences.

Park et al 2013

“When less is more: Effects of grade skip­ping on adult STEM pro­duc­tiv­ity among math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious ado­les­cents”, Park et al 2013:

Using data from a 40-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study, the authors exam­ined 3 related hypothe­ses about the effects of grade skip­ping on future edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional out­comes in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM). From a com­bined sam­ple of 3,467 math­e­mat­i­cally pre­co­cious stu­dents (top 1%), a com­bi­na­tion of exact and propen­sity score match­ing was used to cre­ate bal­anced com­par­i­son groups of 363 grade skip­pers and 657 matched con­trols. Results sug­gest that grade skip­pers (a) were more likely to pur­sue advanced degrees in STEM and author peer-re­viewed pub­li­ca­tions in STEM, (b) earned their degrees and authored their 1st pub­li­ca­tion ear­lier, and (c) accrued more total cita­tions and highly cited pub­li­ca­tions by age 50 years. These pat­terns were con­sis­tent among male par­tic­i­pants but less so among female par­tic­i­pants (who had a greater ten­dency to pur­sue advanced degrees in med­i­cine or law). Find­ings sug­gest that grade skip­ping may enhance STEM accom­plish­ments among the math­e­mat­i­cally tal­ented

Nature 2013

“Chi­nese project probes the genet­ics of genius: Bid to unravel the secrets of brain­power faces scep­ti­cism”, Ed Yong, 2013-05-14

The US ado­les­cents who signed up for the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) in the 1970s were the smartest of the smart, with math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal-rea­son­ing skills within the top 1% of the pop­u­la­tion. Now, researchers at BGI (formerly the Bei­jing Genomics Insti­tute) in Shen­zhen, Chi­na, the largest gene-se­quenc­ing facil­ity in the world, are search­ing for the quirks of DNA that may con­tribute to such gifts. Plung­ing into an area that is lit­tered with fail­ures and riven with con­tro­ver­sy, the researchers are scour­ing the genomes of 1,600 of these high­-fliers in an ambi­tious project to find the first com­mon genetic vari­ants asso­ci­ated with human intel­li­gence.

…After this, Plomin switched his strat­egy to focus on only the bright­est minds. He col­lected DNA sam­ples from 2,000 of the SMPY’s recruits, whose aver­age IQ is above 150—­sur­pass­ing the aver­age of Nobel lau­re­ates and putting them three stan­dard devi­a­tions above the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion’s mean score of 100. “In the ear­lier study, I bet we did­n’t have more than two or three peo­ple with an IQ that high,” says Plom­in, who has been study­ing the her­i­tabil­ity of intel­li­gence since the 1970s.

…Then he [Steve Hsu] heard about Plom­in’s sam­ple. The two struck up a part­ner­ship: Plomin sup­plied DNA sam­ples from 1,600 SMPY recruits, and Hsu added sam­ples from more than 500 peo­ple recruit­ed—al­beit less selec­tive­ly—through his web­site…

[The sum­mary here seems to be incor­rect. Plom­in’s work here was ulti­mately pub­lished as Spain et al 2016 (the BGI work remains unpub­lished, report­edly due to inter­nal dis­ar­ray); as men­tioned pre­vi­ous­ly, no spe­cial rare muta­tions con­fer­ring rel­a­tively large increases in intel­li­gence were found, although of course the extreme/case-control design offers rel­a­tively high power for such a small n. Spain et al 2016, how­ev­er, is explicit about the high­-IQ sam­ple being from Duke TIP, despite the claim here that it was com­ing from SMPY.

An SMPYer I spoke with did not remem­ber any recruit­ing around 2013, and describes the cohort as being “alumni of gifted pro­grams sim­i­lar to SMPY who tested at the 1 in 10k level before age 13 (DNA sam­ples obtained by lead­ing behav­ior geneti­cist Robert Plomin of King’s Col­lege Lon­don using funds from the Tem­ple­ton Foun­da­tion)” (em­pha­sis added). I asked Steve Hsu in Sep­tem­ber 2018 about the dis­crep­ancy and he believes “the ref­er­ences to 2k SMPY were really to the TIP sam­ples” so pre­sum­ably he mis­spoke or pos­si­bly Yong mis­un­der­stood a com­par­i­son of the TIP sam­ple to SMPY.]

Stumpf et al 2013

“Expand­ing tal­ent search pro­ce­dures by includ­ing mea­sures of spa­tial abil­i­ty: CTY’s spa­tial test bat­tery”, Stumpf et al 2013:

The impor­tance of spa­tial abil­ity for suc­cess in a vari­ety of domains, par­tic­u­larly in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM), is widely acknowl­edged. Yet, stu­dents with high spa­tial abil­ity are rarely iden­ti­fied, as Tal­ent Searches for aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents focus on iden­ti­fy­ing high math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal abil­i­ties. Con­se­quent­ly, stu­dents with high spa­tial abil­i­ties who do not also have high math or ver­bal abil­i­ties may not qual­i­fy. In an effort to iden­tify stu­dents with spa­tial tal­ent, the Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth devel­oped a Spa­tial Test Bat­tery to sup­ple­ment its math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal Tal­ent Search­es. This arti­cle traces the devel­op­ment of the bat­tery; describes its com­po­nents, impor­tant psy­cho­me­t­ric prop­er­ties, and con­tin­u­ing devel­op­ment; and encour­ages its use by researchers and edu­ca­tors inter­ested in devel­op­ing spa­tial tal­ent.

Beattie 2014

“Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth”, Beat­tie 2014; entry in Ency­clo­pe­dia of Spe­cial Edu­ca­tion: A Ref­er­ence for the Edu­ca­tion of Chil­dren, Ado­les­cents, and Adults with Dis­abil­i­ties and Other Excep­tional Indi­vid­u­als (ISBN 9781118660584)

Brody & Muratori 2014

“Early entrance to col­lege: Aca­d­e­mic, social, and emo­tional con­sid­er­a­tions”, Brody & Mura­tori 2014 (from : Evi­dence Trumps the Excuses Hold­ing Back Amer­i­ca’s Bright­est Stu­dents, Vol­ume 2, ed Assouline et al 2014):

As one of many accel­er­a­tive options avail­able today, early col­lege entrance pro­vides some young stu­dents who are ready for the demands of col­lege early with the unique oppor­tu­nity to move for­ward in their edu­ca­tional tra­jec­to­ries one, two, or even more years sooner than most of their age peers. Early col­lege entrance has increased in pop­u­lar­ity among high school stu­dents in search of greater chal­lenge, as evi­denced by the upsurge in early col­lege entrance pro­grams in the United States. This chap­ter pro­vides an his­tor­i­cal overview of early col­lege entrance and describes the widely vary­ing pro­gram mod­els being imple­mented today. Research find­ings high­light­ing both aca­d­e­mic and social/emotional out­comes of early entrants and the impli­ca­tions of this research for edu­ca­tors are pre­sented

Lubinski et al 2014

“Life Paths and Accom­plish­ments of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Males and Females Four Decades Later”, Lubin­ski et al 2014:

Two cohorts of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds were iden­ti­fied in the 1970s (1972–1974 and 1976–1978) as being in the top 1% of math­e­mat­i­cal rea­son­ing abil­ity (1,037 males, 613 females). About four decades lat­er, data on their careers, accom­plish­ments, psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing, fam­i­lies, and life pref­er­ences and pri­or­i­ties were col­lect­ed. Their accom­plish­ments far exceeded base-rate expec­ta­tions: Across the two cohorts, 4.1% had earned tenure at a major research uni­ver­si­ty, 2.3% were top exec­u­tives at “name brand” or For­tune 500 com­pa­nies, and 2.4% were attor­neys at major firms or orga­ni­za­tions; par­tic­i­pants had pub­lished 85 books and 7,572 ref­er­eed arti­cles, secured 681 patents, and amassed $440 mil­lion in grants. For both males and females, math­e­mat­i­cal pre­coc­ity early in life pre­dicts later cre­ative con­tri­bu­tions and lead­er­ship in crit­i­cal occu­pa­tional roles. On aver­age, males had incomes much greater than their spous­es’, whereas females had incomes slightly lower than their spous­es’. Salient sex differ­ences that par­al­leled the differ­en­tial career out­comes of the male and female par­tic­i­pants were found in lifestyle pref­er­ences and pri­or­i­ties and in time allo­ca­tion.

Boston Globe 2014

“The poor neglected gifted child: Pre­co­cious kids do seem to become high­-achiev­ing adults. Why that makes some edu­ca­tors wor­ried about Amer­i­ca’s future”:

[dis­cus­sion of SMPY and Lubin­ski et al 2014, focus­ing on how the screen­ing process still misses chil­dren and gen­eral neglect of gifted & tal­ented edu­ca­tion.]

Kell & Lubinski 2014

“The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth at Matu­ri­ty: Insights into Ele­ments of Genius”, Kell & Lubin­ski 2014 in The Wiley Hand­book of Genius, ed Simon­ton 2014 (ISBN 9781118367377)4:

The Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) was founded in 1971 as a means of iden­ti­fy­ing and nur­tur­ing intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious young ado­les­cents. SMPY’s old­est of five cohorts are now in their early 50s. This chap­ter reviews lon­gi­tu­di­nal find­ings based on over 5,000 par­tic­i­pants SMPY is cur­rently track­ing to ascer­tain the many differ­ent ways in which intel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity may unfold, whether edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions are help­ful, and the per­sonal char­ac­ter­is­tics of those who become emi­nent ver­sus those who do not. A model of tal­ent devel­op­ment is pre­sent­ed, which orga­nizes crit­i­cal cog­ni­tive, affec­tive, and cona­tive deter­mi­nants of excep­tional achieve­ment. We describe these char­ac­ter­is­tics in terms of iden­ti­fy­ing pop­u­la­tions at promise for mak­ing out­stand­ing cre­ative accom­plish­ments, as we believe doing so affords insight into the devel­op­ment of per­for­mances approach­ing, if not denot­ing, “genius”.

Wai 2014a

“Experts are born, then made: Com­bin­ing prospec­tive and ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data shows that cog­ni­tive abil­ity mat­ters”, Wai 2014a:

Does cog­ni­tive abil­ity mat­ter in the devel­op­ment of exper­tise in edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional domains? Study 1 reviewed prospec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data from the top 1% in abil­ity within two cohorts of the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY; Total N = 1975) and exam­ined four cohorts of a strat­i­fied ran­dom sam­ple of Amer­i­ca’s pop­u­la­tion (Pro­ject Tal­ent; Total N = 1536) to see whether abil­ity differ­ences at a younger age made a differ­ence in the attain­ment of a higher per­cent­age of edu­ca­tional degrees and specifi­cally doc­tor­ates (e.g., JDs, MDs, or PhDs) at a later age. Com­pared to the gen­eral pop­u­la­tion, the top 1% in abil­ity earned a much higher per­cent­age of edu­ca­tional degrees at each lev­el. And even within the top 1% of abil­i­ty, abil­ity differ­ences made a differ­ence in obtain­ing a doc­tor­ate degree. Study 2 reviewed ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data from five groups of Amer­i­ca’s elite (To­tal N = 2254)—­For­tune 500 CEOs, fed­eral judges, bil­lion­aires, Sen­a­tors, and mem­bers of the House of Rep­re­sen­ta­tives—to deter­mine what per­cent­age of each group was in the top 1% of gen­eral abil­ity at a younger age. A large per­cent­age of indi­vid­u­als within each of these areas of occu­pa­tional exper­tise were found to be in the top 1% of abil­i­ty. By com­bin­ing mul­ti­ple sam­ples of both prospec­tive and ret­ro­spec­tive lon­gi­tu­di­nal data, cog­ni­tive abil­ity was found to mat­ter in the acqui­si­tion of edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional exper­tise.

Wai 2014b

“Long-Term Effects of Edu­ca­tional Accel­er­a­tion”, Wai 2014b (from A Nation Empow­ered: Evi­dence Trumps the Excuses Hold­ing Back Amer­i­ca’s Bright­est Stu­dents, Vol­ume 2; not to be con­fused with Lubin­ski 2004b’s paper of the same title in the 2004 pre­quel book, A Nation Deceived):

Edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tion comes in many forms. Edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion is an impor­tant class of inter­ven­tions that com­prise the appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tional dose for an indi­vid­ual. Dosage implies that one spe­cific inter­ven­tion may not be as rel­e­vant as the right mix, num­ber, and inten­sity of edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions for any given per­son. This chap­ter reviews find­ings from the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), a lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of thou­sands of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented stu­dents fol­lowed for many decades to the pre­sent. The long-term edu­ca­tion­al-oc­cu­pa­tional impact and pos­i­tive sub­jec­tive impres­sions about edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion from aca­d­e­m­i­cally advanced par­tic­i­pants reported in these stud­ies sup­ports the impor­tance of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion and, more broad­ly, an appro­pri­ate edu­ca­tional dose. The lon­gi­tu­di­nal research find­ings reveal that an edu­ca­tional pro­gram designed to move stu­dents at a pace com­men­su­rate with their rate of learn­ing is edu­ca­tion­ally appro­pri­ate and nec­es­sary. Excep­tion­ally tal­ented stu­dents ben­e­fit from accel­er­a­tive learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties, have few regrets about their accel­er­a­tion, and demon­strate excep­tional achieve­ments. What mat­ters for each stu­dent is a con­sis­tent and suffi­cient edu­ca­tional dose across a long span of time, what we think of as life-long learn­ing, or learn­ing at a pace and inten­sity that matches a stu­den­t’s indi­vid­ual needs. All stu­dents deserve to learn some­thing new each day, and if aca­d­e­m­i­cally tal­ented stu­dents desire to be accel­er­ated and are ready for it, the long-term evi­dence clearly sup­ports the inter­ven­tion.

Brody 2015

“The Julian C. Stan­ley Study of Excep­tional Tal­ent: A Per­son­al­ized Approach to Meet­ing the Needs of High Abil­ity Stu­dents”, Brody 2015 (note: paper is in Span­ish):

Typ­i­cal school pro­grams that are designed for aver­age stu­dents, as well as pro­grams for gifted stu­dents that do not address their unique char­ac­ter­is­tics, fail to meet the aca­d­e­mic and per­sonal needs of most advanced learn­ers. In devel­op­ing an appro­pri­ately chal­leng­ing pro­gram to meet their indi­vid­ual needs, each stu­den­t’s spe­cific pat­tern of abil­i­ties, achieve­ment lev­els, inter­ests, moti­va­tion, and other per­sonal traits should be con­sid­ered, along with a wide a vari­ety of edu­ca­tional strate­gies and pro­grams in- and out­-of-school. The level and pace of instruc­tion should be adjusted as need­ed, stu­dents should have oppor­tu­ni­ties to probe top­ics of inter­est in depth, and pro­vi­sion should be made for them to inter­act with peers who share their inter­ests and abil­i­ties. This per­son­al­ized approach to meet­ing the aca­d­e­mic and psy­choso­cial needs of excep­tion­ally advanced stu­dents has long been suc­cess­fully employed by staff at the Study of Excep­tional Tal­ent (SET) at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, as well as its pre­de­ces­sor the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY). With a renewed inter­est today in per­son­al­ized learn­ing, there is an oppor­tu­nity to insti­tu­tion­al­ize this approach more wide­ly. How­ev­er, stu­dents need infor­ma­tion and rec­om­men­da­tions from knowl­edge­able adults about pro­grams that will develop their tal­ents; schools must be flex­i­ble and will­ing to mod­ify their cur­ric­ula and to grant credit for work done out­side of school; and finan­cial bar­ri­ers that might limit access to out­-of-school pro­grams need to be addressed.

In addi­tion, informed deci­sions are often helped by assess­ment, espe­cially above-grade-level assess­ments, that differ­en­ti­ate among gifted stu­dents, some of whom ben­e­fit from chal­leng­ing grade level work while oth­ers need access to above-level con­tent. This arti­cle describes SET’s approach to per­son­al­iz­ing the edu­ca­tional expe­ri­ences of the stu­dents with whom this pro­gram has worked in the hope that it can be repli­cated by oth­ers.

Lubinski 2016

“From Ter­man to Today: A Cen­tury of Find­ings on Intel­lec­tual Pre­coc­ity”, Lubin­ski 2016:

One hun­dred years of research (1916–2016) on intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth is reviewed, paint­ing a por­trait of an extra­or­di­nary source of human cap­i­tal and the kinds of learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties needed to facil­i­tate excep­tional accom­plish­ments, life sat­is­fac­tion, and pos­i­tive growth. The focus is on those stud­ies con­ducted on indi­vid­u­als within the top 1% in gen­eral or spe­cific (math­e­mat­i­cal, spa­tial, or ver­bal rea­son­ing) abil­i­ties. Early insights into the gift­ed­ness phe­nom­e­non actu­ally fore­told what would be sci­en­tifi­cally demon­strated 100 years lat­er. Thus, evi­dence-based con­cep­tu­al­iza­tions quickly moved from view­ing intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious indi­vid­u­als as weak and emo­tion­ally liable to highly effec­tive and resilient indi­vid­u­als. Like all groups, intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious stu­dents and adults have strengths and rel­a­tive weak­ness­es; they also reveal vast differ­ences in their pas­sion for differ­ent pur­suits and their drive to achieve. Because they do not pos­sess mul­ti­-po­ten­tial­i­ty, we must take a mul­ti­di­men­sional view of their indi­vid­u­al­i­ty. When done, it pre­dicts well long-term edu­ca­tion­al, occu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes.

Nature 2016

“How to Raise a Genius: Lessons from a 45-Year Study of Super­s­mart Chil­dren—A long-run­ning inves­ti­ga­tion of excep­tional chil­dren reveals what it takes to pro­duce the sci­en­tists who will lead the 21st cen­tury”, Clynes 2016:

On a sum­mer day in 1968, pro­fes­sor Julian Stan­ley met a bril­liant but bored 12-year-old named Joseph Bates. The Bal­ti­more stu­dent was so far ahead of his class­mates in math­e­mat­ics that his par­ents had arranged for him to take a com­put­er-science course at Johns Hop­kins Uni­ver­si­ty, where Stan­ley taught. Even that was­n’t enough. Hav­ing leapfrogged ahead of the adults in the class, the child kept him­self busy by teach­ing the FORTRAN pro­gram­ming lan­guage to grad­u­ate stu­dents…­Bates’s score was well above the thresh­old for admis­sion to Johns Hop­kins, and prompted Stan­ley to search for a local high school that would let the child take advanced math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence class­es. When that plan failed, Stan­ley con­vinced a dean at Johns Hop­kins to let Bates, then 13, enrol as an under­grad­u­ate.

Stan­ley would affec­tion­ately refer to Bates as “stu­dent zero” of his Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY), which would trans­form how gifted chil­dren are iden­ti­fied and sup­ported by the US edu­ca­tion sys­tem. As the longest-run­ning cur­rent lon­gi­tu­di­nal sur­vey of intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented chil­dren, SMPY has for 45 years tracked the careers and accom­plish­ments of some 5,000 indi­vid­u­als, many of whom have gone on to become high­-achiev­ing sci­en­tists. The study’s ever-grow­ing data set has gen­er­ated more than 400 papers and sev­eral books, and pro­vided key insights into how to spot and develop tal­ent in sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, math­e­mat­ics (STEM) and beyond…

Makel et al 2016

, Makel et al 2016

The edu­ca­tion­al, occu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative accom­plish­ments of the pro­foundly gifted par­tic­i­pants (IQs > 160) in the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) are astound­ing, but are they rep­re­sen­ta­tive of equally able 12-year-olds? Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP) iden­ti­fied 259 young ado­les­cents who were equally gift­ed. By age 40, their life accom­plish­ments also were extra­or­di­nary: 37% had earned doc­tor­ates, 7.5% had achieved aca­d­e­mic tenure (4.3% at research-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties), and 9% held patents; many were high­-level lead­ers in major orga­ni­za­tions. As was the case for the SMPY sam­ple before them, differ­en­tial abil­ity strengths pre­dicted their con­trast­ing and even­tual devel­op­men­tal tra­jec­to­ries—even though essen­tially all par­tic­i­pants pos­sessed both math­e­mat­i­cal and ver­bal rea­son­ing abil­i­ties far supe­rior to those of typ­i­cal Ph.D. recip­i­ents. Indi­vid­u­als, even pro­foundly gifted ones, pri­mar­ily do what they are best at. Differ­ences in abil­ity pat­terns, like differ­ences in inter­ests, guide devel­op­ment along differ­ent paths, but abil­ity lev­el, cou­pled with com­mit­ment, deter­mines whether and the extent to which note­wor­thy accom­plish­ments are reached if oppor­tu­nity presents itself.

Fig. 1. Scat­ter­plot of age-13 SAT-Math and SAT-Verbal scores for the two sam­ples: Duke Uni­ver­si­ty’s Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram par­tic­i­pants (top pan­el) and the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth par­tic­i­pants (bot­tom pan­el). The diag­o­nal line in each scat­ter­plot denotes where an esti­mated IQ of 160 falls (Frey & Det­ter­man, 2004; Lubin­ski, Webb, More­lock, & Ben­bow, 2001, p. 719); bivari­ate val­ues above these diag­o­nals cor­re­spond to esti­mated IQs above 160. On the axes, the bold­face num­bers indi­cate cut­offs for the top 1 in 200 and the top 1 in 10,000 for this age group.

Table 1. Selected Edu­ca­tion­al, Occu­pa­tion­al, and Cre­ative Accom­plish­ments of the Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram  and Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth  Par­tic­i­pants Table 2. Out­ly­ing Accom­plish­ments of the Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram  and Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth  Par­tic­i­pants

Table 3. Details on Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants’ Cre­ative Accom­plish­ments (N = 259)
Table 4. Job Titles of the Duke Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants and Descrip­tions of Their Employ­ing Orga­ni­za­tions
Table 5. Insti­tu­tions at Which Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram Par­tic­i­pants Had Been Granted Aca­d­e­mic Tenure and Ref­er­eed Pub­li­ca­tions in Which Their Work Had Appeared

Spain et al 2016

“A genome-wide analy­sis of puta­tive func­tional and exonic vari­a­tion asso­ci­ated with extremely high intel­li­gence”, Spain et al 2016:

Although indi­vid­ual differ­ences in intel­li­gence (gen­eral cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty) are highly her­i­ta­ble, mol­e­c­u­lar genetic analy­ses to date have had lim­ited suc­cess in iden­ti­fy­ing spe­cific loci respon­si­ble for its her­i­tabil­i­ty. This study is the first to inves­ti­gate exome vari­a­tion in indi­vid­u­als of extremely high intel­li­gence. Under the quan­ti­ta­tive genetic mod­el, sam­pling from the high extreme of the dis­tri­b­u­tion should pro­vide increased power to detect asso­ci­a­tions. We there­fore per­formed a case-con­trol asso­ci­a­tion analy­sis with 1409 indi­vid­u­als drawn from the top 0.0003 (IQ >170) of the pop­u­la­tion dis­tri­b­u­tion of intel­li­gence and 3253 uns­e­lected pop­u­la­tion-based con­trols. Our analy­sis focused on puta­tive func­tional exonic vari­ants assayed on the Illu­mina HumanEx­ome Bead­Chip. We did not observe any indi­vid­ual pro­tein-al­ter­ing vari­ants that are repro­ducibly asso­ci­ated with extremely high intel­li­gence and within the entire dis­tri­b­u­tion of intel­li­gence. More­over, no sig­nifi­cant asso­ci­a­tions were found for mul­ti­ple rare alle­les within indi­vid­ual genes. How­ev­er, analy­ses using genome-wide sim­i­lar­ity between unre­lated indi­vid­u­als (genome-wide com­plex trait analy­sis) indi­cate that the geno­typed func­tional pro­tein-al­ter­ing vari­a­tion yields a her­i­tabil­ity esti­mate of 17.4% (s.e. 1.7%) based on a . In addi­tion, inves­ti­ga­tion of nom­i­nally sig­nifi­cant asso­ci­a­tions revealed fewer rare alle­les asso­ci­ated with extremely high intel­li­gence than would be expected under the null hypoth­e­sis. This obser­va­tion is con­sis­tent with the hypoth­e­sis that rare func­tional alle­les are more fre­quently detri­men­tal than ben­e­fi­cial to intel­li­gence.

High­-in­tel­li­gence cases (HiQ): Indi­vid­u­als were recruited from the Duke Uni­ver­sity Tal­ent Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion Pro­gram (TIP), a non-profit organ­i­sa­tion estab­lished in 1980 and ded­i­cated to iden­ti­fy­ing and fos­ter­ing the devel­op­ment of aca­d­e­m­i­cally gifted chil­dren35 (see Tip.­ Indi­vid­u­als were selected from the United States for par­tic­i­pa­tion in the HiQ study on the basis of per­for­mance on the Scholas­tic Assess­ment Test (SAT) or Amer­i­can Col­lege Test (ACT) taken at age 12 rather than the usual age of 18 years. A com­pos­ite that aggre­gates ver­bal and math­e­mat­ics SAT and ACT scores cor­re­lates >0.80 with intel­li­gence tests and it is esti­mated that the TIP pro­gram recruits from the top 3% of the intel­li­gence dis­tri­b­u­tion.36

Wai & Kell 2017

“What Inno­va­tions Have We Already Lost?: The Impor­tance of Iden­ti­fy­ing and Devel­op­ing Spa­tial Tal­ent”, Wai & Kell 2017:

In a famous tal­ent search by Lewis Ter­man, there were two young boys who were not iden­ti­fied as gifted but would go on to win the Nobel Prize in physics. Their names were and and the sci­en­tific area in which they achieved their fame was arguably heav­ily visu­al-s­pa­tial in nature. Why were two Nobel win­ners missed? Likely because Ter­man had used the highly ver­bal Stan­ford-Bi­net, which did not include a good spa­tial mea­sure. Many stan­dard­ized tests in schools today lack spa­tial mea­sures, and this means many spa­tially tal­ented stu­dents are not being iden­ti­fied, and their tal­ent is there­fore not fully encour­aged and devel­oped. This chap­ter first reviews over 50 years of data show­ing that spa­tial abil­ity in addi­tion to math and ver­bal abil­ity has pre­dic­tive power in STEM domains. Next, the issue of spa­tial train­ing and females in STEM are dis­cussed. Then, how these find­ings and other research can be trans­lated into edu­ca­tion prac­tice is pre­sent­ed. Final­ly, a dis­cus­sion of the broader soci­etal impli­ca­tions of neglect­ing spa­tially tal­ented stu­dents will be laid out. For exam­ple, how many inno­va­tions have we already lost because we have not ade­quately iden­ti­fied and devel­oped the tal­ent of some of our most promis­ing inno­va­tors?

Lubinski 2018

“Indi­vid­ual Differ­ences at the Top: Map­ping the Outer Enve­lope of Intel­li­gence”, David Lubin­ski (in The Nature of Human Intel­li­gence, ed Stern­berg 2018, ISBN 1316819566)

Bernstein et al 2019

“Psy­cho­log­i­cal Con­stel­la­tions Assessed at Age 13 Pre­dict Dis­tinct Forms of Emi­nence 35 Years Later”, Bern­stein et al 2019:

This inves­ti­ga­tion exam­ined whether math/scientific and verbal/humanistic abil­ity and pref­er­ence con­stel­la­tions, devel­oped on intel­lec­tu­ally tal­ented 13-year-olds to pre­dict their edu­ca­tional out­comes at age 23, con­tinue to main­tain their lon­gi­tu­di­nal potency by dis­tin­guish­ing dis­tinct forms of emi­nence 35 years lat­er. Emi­nent indi­vid­u­als were defined as those who, by age 50, had accom­plished some­thing rare: cre­ative and highly impact­ful careers (e.g., full pro­fes­sors at research-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties, For­tune 500 exec­u­tives, dis­tin­guished judges and lawyers, lead­ers in bio­med­i­cine, award-win­ning jour­nal­ists and writ­er­s). Study 1 con­sisted of 677 intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youths, assessed at age 13, whose lead­er­ship and cre­ative accom­plish­ments were assessed 35 years lat­er. Study 2 con­sti­tuted a con­struc­tive repli­ca­tion—an analy­sis of 605 top sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math (STEM) grad­u­ate stu­dents, assessed on the same pre­dic­tor con­structs early in grad­u­ate school and assessed again 25 years lat­er. In both sam­ples, the same abil­ity and pref­er­ence para­me­ter val­ues, which defined math/scientific ver­sus verbal/humanistic con­stel­la­tions, dis­crim­i­nated par­tic­i­pants who ulti­mately achieved dis­tinct forms of emi­nence from their peers pur­su­ing other life endeav­ors.

McCabe et al 2019

“Who shines most among the bright­est?: A 25-year lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of elite STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents”, McCabe et al 2019:

In 1992, the Study of Math­e­mat­i­cally Pre­co­cious Youth (SMPY) sur­veyed 714 first- and sec­ond-year grad­u­ate stu­dents (48.5% female) attend­ing U.S. uni­ver­si­ties ranked in the top-15 by sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics (STEM) field. This study inves­ti­gated whether indi­vid­ual differ­ences assessed early in their grad­u­ate school career were asso­ci­ated with becom­ing a STEM leader 25 years later (e.g., STEM full pro­fes­sors at research-in­ten­sive uni­ver­si­ties, STEM CEOs, and STEM lead­ers in gov­ern­ment) ver­sus not becom­ing a STEM leader. We also stud­ied whether there were any impor­tant gen­der differ­ences in rela­tion to STEM lead­er­ship. For both men and wom­en, small to medium effect size differ­ences in inter­ests, val­ues, and per­son­al­ity dis­tin­guished STEM lead­ers from non­lead­ers. Lifestyle and work pref­er­ences also dis­tin­guished STEM lead­ers who were more exclu­sively career-fo­cused and pre­ferred to work—and did work—­more hours than non­lead­ers. Also, there were small to large gen­der differ­ences in abil­i­ties, inter­ests, and lifestyle pref­er­ences. Men had more intense inter­ests in STEM and were more career-fo­cused. Women had more diverse edu­ca­tional and occu­pa­tional inter­ests, and they were more inter­ested in activ­i­ties out­side of work. Early in grad­u­ate school, there­fore, there are signs that pre­dict who will become a STEM lead­er—even among elite STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents. Given the many ways in which STEM lead­er­ship can be achieved, the gen­der differ­ences uncov­ered within this high­-po­ten­tial sam­ple sug­gest that men and women are likely to assign differ­ent pri­or­i­ties to these oppor­tu­ni­ties.

Note that this is not a direct inves­ti­ga­tion of an SMPY cohort recruited through the SAT-M or child­hood test­ing but a fol­lowup inves­ti­ga­tion of a cohort recruited as STEM grad­u­ate stu­dents at elite uni­ver­si­ties, reported in Lubin­ski et al 2001a.

Kell & Wai 2019

, Kell & Wai 2019

It has been claimed by promi­nent authors that there is no rela­tion­ship between differ­ences in some human traits (e.g., cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty, phys­i­cal abil­i­ty) and differ­ences in skill among experts. We assert that the fail­ure to detect such asso­ci­a­tions is often due to an extreme form of range restric­tion that par­tic­u­larly plagues research focused on expert sam­ples: right-tail range restric­tion (RTRR). RTRR refers to a lack of rep­re­sen­ta­tion of data from the far right seg­ment of the nor­mal dis­tri­b­u­tion, inhibit­ing the obser­va­tion of sta­tis­ti­cal asso­ci­a­tions. Using two exam­ple stud­ies we demon­strate that, when RTRR is not pre­sent, rela­tion­ships between differ­ences in experts’ traits and differ­ences in their degree of skill can be observed. Based on the char­ac­ter­is­tics of these stud­ies we make rec­om­men­da­tions for method­olog­i­cal prac­tices that can be fol­lowed to help inves­ti­ga­tors over­come RTRR and facil­i­tate the con­tin­ued devel­op­ment of a robust and replic­a­ble sci­ence of exper­tise. [Key­words: Range restric­tion, exper­tise, traits, cog­ni­tive abil­i­ty, phys­i­cal abil­i­ty, per­for­mance, ath­let­ics, psy­cho­log­i­cal attrib­ut­es]

Re-an­a­lyzes Kell et al 2013, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2006, Lubin­ski et al 2014, & Makel et al 2016.


Bernstein et al 2020

, Bern­stein et al 2020:

Aca­d­e­mic accel­er­a­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth is believed to harm over­all psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing even though short­-term stud­ies do not sup­port this belief. Here we exam­ine the long-term effects. Study 1 involves three cohorts iden­ti­fied before age 13, then lon­gi­tu­di­nally tracked for over 35 years: Cohort 1 gifted (top 1% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1972–1974, n = 1,020), Cohort 2 highly gifted (top 0.5% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1976–1979, n = 396), and Cohort 3 pro­foundly gifted (top 0.01% in abil­i­ty, iden­ti­fied 1980–1983, n = 220). Two forms of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion were exam­ined: (a) age at high school grad­u­a­tion and (b) quan­tity of advanced learn­ing oppor­tu­ni­ties pur­sued prior to high school grad­u­a­tion. Par­tic­i­pants were eval­u­ated at age 50 on sev­eral well-known indi­ca­tors of psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Amount of accel­er­a­tion did not covary with psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Study 2, a con­struc­tive repli­ca­tion of Study 1, used a differ­ent high­-po­ten­tial sam­ple—elite sci­ence, tech­nol­o­gy, engi­neer­ing, and math­e­mat­ics grad­u­ate stu­dents (n = 478) iden­ti­fied in 1992. Their edu­ca­tional his­to­ries were assessed at age 25 and they were fol­lowed up at age 50 using the same psy­cho­log­i­cal assess­ments. Again, the amount of edu­ca­tional accel­er­a­tion did not covary with psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing. Fur­ther, the psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing of par­tic­i­pants in both stud­ies was above the aver­age of national prob­a­bil­ity sam­ples. Con­cerns about long-term social/emotional effects of accel­er­a­tion for high­-po­ten­tial stu­dents appear to be unwar­rant­ed, as has been demon­strated for short­-term effects. [Key­words: gift­ed, accel­er­a­tion, repli­ca­tion, appro­pri­ate devel­op­men­tal place­ment, psy­cho­log­i­cal well-be­ing]

Impact State­ment: Best prac­tices sug­gest that accel­er­a­tion in one of its many forms is edu­ca­tion­ally effi­ca­cious for meet­ing the advanced learn­ing needs of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth. Yet, par­ents, teach­ers, aca­d­e­mic admin­is­tra­tors, and psy­cho­log­i­cal the­o­rists worry that this prac­tice engen­ders neg­a­tive psy­cho­log­i­cal effects. A three­-co­hort study of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth fol­lowed for 35 years sug­gests that there is no cause for con­cern. These find­ings were repli­cated on a sam­ple of elite STEM grad­u­ates whose edu­ca­tional his­to­ries were assessed at age 25 and tracked for 25 years.

Lubinski & Benbow 2020

, Lubin­ski & Ben­bow 2020 (re­view):

Over the past 50 years, eight robust gen­er­al­iza­tions about intel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity have emerged, been empir­i­cally doc­u­ment­ed, and repli­cated through lon­gi­tu­di­nal research. Within the top 1% of gen­eral and spe­cific abil­i­ties (math­e­mat­i­cal, spa­tial, and ver­bal) over one third of the range of indi­vid­ual differ­ences are to be found, and they are mean­ing­ful. These indi­vid­ual differ­ences in abil­ity level and in pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties, which are uncov­ered by the use of above-level assess­ments, struc­ture con­se­quen­tial quan­ti­ta­tive and qual­i­ta­tive differ­ences in edu­ca­tion­al, occu­pa­tion­al, and cre­ative out­comes. There is no thresh­old effect for abil­i­ties in pre­dict­ing future accom­plish­ments; and the con­cept of mul­ti­po­ten­tial­ity evap­o­rates when assess­ments cover the full range of all three pri­mary abil­i­ties. Beyond abil­i­ties, educational/occupational inter­ests add value in iden­ti­fy­ing opti­mal learn­ing envi­ron­ments for pre­co­cious youth and, with the addi­tion of cona­tive vari­ables, for mod­el­ing sub­se­quent life span devel­op­ment. While over­all pro­fes­sional out­comes of excep­tion­ally pre­co­cious youth are as excep­tional as their abil­i­ties, edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions of suffi­cient dosage enhance the prob­a­bil­ity of them lead­ing excep­tion­ally impact­ful careers and mak­ing cre­ative con­tri­bu­tions. Find­ings have made evi­dent the psy­cho­log­i­cal diver­sity within intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious pop­u­la­tions, their mean­ing­ful­ness, and the envi­ron­men­tal diver­sity required to meet their learn­ing needs. See­ing gift­ed­ness and inter­ven­tions on their behalf cat­e­gor­i­cally has held the field back. [Key­words: basic inter­pre­tive, mixed meth­ods, psy­cho­met­rics, assess­ment, cre­ativ­i­ty, gift­ed]

  1. Is there an abil­ity thresh­old, beyond which more abil­ity does­n’t mat­ter? No.

  2. Does the pat­tern of spe­cific abil­i­ties mat­ter? Yes.

    Is there evi­dence for mul­ti­po­ten­tial­i­ty? No.

  3. Is abil­ity pat­tern impor­tant for stu­dents with espe­cially pro­found intel­lec­tual gifts? Yes.

  4. Do educational/occupational inter­ests add value to abil­ity assess­ments of intel­lec­tu­ally pre­co­cious youth? Yes.

  5. Given the con­tem­po­rary empha­sis placed on the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and devel­op­ment of human cap­i­tal in STEM dis­ci­plines, are there other impor­tant find­ings from the gifted field ger­mane to this need? Yes.

  6. Can edu­ca­tional inter­ven­tions enhance learn­ing and ulti­mate lev­els of cre­ative expres­sion? Yes.

  7. Beyond abil­i­ty, inter­est, and oppor­tu­ni­ty, are cona­tive attrib­utes impor­tant? Yes.

  8. Has the study of intel­lec­tual pre­coc­ity con­tributed to its par­ent dis­ci­plines in the edu­ca­tional and psy­cho­log­i­cal sci­ences? Is there a com­mon theme that cuts across the above empir­i­cal gen­er­al­iza­tions, which have been repli­cated over mul­ti­ple decades? Yes. And yes.

Henshon 2020

, Hen­shon 2020:

[Short inter­view with Linda Brody, cur­rent direc­tor of Study of Excep­tional Tal­ent (SET) at the Johns Hop­kins Cen­ter for Tal­ented Youth (CTY); she orig­i­nally started work­ing for SMPY in the 1970s along with Cohn/Pyryt/Benbow and for Lynn Fox & Julian Stan­ley, leav­ing in 1991 for CTY. She spe­cial­ized in “twice-ex­cep­tional stu­dents” (both gifted & dis­abled). SET is cur­rently study­ing its alum­ni.]

Schuur et al 2020

, Schuur et al 2020 (sys­tem­atic review):

Gifted stu­dents who expe­ri­enced grade-based accel­er­a­tion in pri­mary or sec­ondary edu­ca­tion have to meet the chal­lenges of adjust­ing to uni­ver­sity at a younger age than stu­dents who did not accel­er­ate. This sys­tem­atic review crit­i­cally eval­u­ates the research on social–e­mo­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics and adjust­ment of these gifted accel­er­ated uni­ver­sity stu­dents. Based on a review of 22 stud­ies, we may con­clude that accel­er­ated stu­dents did not differ very much in domains of social–e­mo­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics from their nonac­cel­er­ated gifted and nongifted peers. Fac­tors that facil­i­tated adjust­ment and well-be­ing were cheer­ful­ness, resilience, self­-effi­ca­cy, a pos­i­tive self­-con­cept, high prior aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment, and sup­port­ive fam­ily envi­ron­ment. Fur­ther­more, it was found that stud­ies were incom­plete in report­ing the pre­vi­ous accel­er­a­tion expe­ri­ences of the stu­dents and that research on stu­dents who indi­vid­u­ally accel­er­ated by 1 or 2 years was scarce. Future research should include indi­vid­u­ally accel­er­ated stu­dents, pre­vi­ous accel­er­a­tion expe­ri­ences, gen­der differ­ences, and com­par­i­son groups.

See Also



Sci­en­tific Careers and Voca­tional Devel­op­ment The­o­ry: A review, a cri­tique and some rec­om­men­da­tions, Super & Bachrach 1957:

The find­ings, con­clu­sions and rec­om­men­da­tions of the panel par­tic­i­pat­ing in the Sci­en­tific Careers Project on the char­ac­ter­is­tics and moti­va­tions of nat­ural sci­en­tists, math­e­mati­cians, and engi­neers rep­re­sent an inter­dis­ci­pli­nary approach to the process of voca­tional devel­op­ment and choice. Differ­en­ti­a­tion between career and occu­pa­tion and among the var­i­ous sub­-spe­cial­ties and sub­cat­e­gories of the same career is stressed. The 3 basic ori­en­ta­tions, trait-and-fac­tor the­o­ry, social sys­tem the­o­ry, and per­son­al­ity the­ory should be inte­grated to a dynamic con­cept of career pat­tern as expressed in the voca­tional devel­op­ment the­ory deal­ing with voca­tional choice as a process which takes place over a period of time.


Spa­tial Abil­i­ty: Its Edu­ca­tional and Social Sig­nifi­cance, Smith 1964; from the fore­word:

At first sight it would appear to be a highly tech­ni­cal sur­vey of the sta­tis­ti­cal find­ings of cer­tain men­tal tests. But the con­clu­sions which the author draws from his care­ful weigh­ing of the evi­dence have very impor­tant impli­ca­tions for cur­rent edu­ca­tional pol­i­cy. It is high time, there­fore, that edu­ca­tion­ists should take the trou­ble to acquaint them­selves with this tech­ni­cal evi­dence, to pon­der on it. Briefly stat­ed, Dr. Mac­far­lane Smith’s the­sis is that British edu­ca­tion, par­tic­u­larly that given in gram­mar schools, while stress­ing the devel­op­ment of gen­eral or all-round intel­li­gence, has over-val­ued the ver­bal type of abil­ity at the expense of its psy­cho­log­i­cal oppo­site—s­pa­tial abil­i­ty. The Crowther Report, Sir Charles Snow and many other pub­lic fig­ures have, of course, urged the claims of math­e­mat­i­cal, tech­ni­cal and sci­en­tific edu­ca­tion, together with Britain’s need for tech­nol­o­gists and sci­en­tists. But few of such advo­cates pos­sess any sci­en­tific knowl­edge of the nature of these abil­i­ties they wish to encour­age, what is their com­mon essence, nor how this essence is related to other abil­i­ties or to tem­pera­men­tal traits and Per­son­al­ity qual­i­ties. Nor are they, per­haps, suffi­ciently aware that our cur­rent sys­tem of selec­tion for sec­ondary and uni­ver­sity edu­ca­tion actively dis­crim­i­nates against the pupil or stu­dent who is most likely to be tal­ented in these direc­tions.

Dr. Mac­far­lane Smith out­lines a large body of work on spa­tial, per­for­mance, mechan­i­cal and other non-ver­bal tests and shows th.t there is a major under­ly­ing fac­tor or type of abil­ity which is best defined as the capac­ity to per­ceive and hold in mind the struc­ture and pro­por­tions of a form or fig­ure, grasped as a whole. This view rec­on­ciles the some­what diver­gent results of British and Amer­i­can work­ers, since the lat­ter have often used less appro­pri­ate mul­ti­ple-choice tests involv­ing recog­ni­tion of details rather than per­cep­tion and repro­duc­tion of com­plex wholes. There is ample evi­dence of the use­ful­ness of such tests in selec­tion for tech­ni­cal courses and train­ing, for geom­e­try and art. But in addi­tion a com­pre­hen­sive sur­vey of work on math­e­mat­i­cal apti­tude indi­cates that, apart from gen­eral (prefer­ably non-ver­bal) intel­li­gence tests, the most pre­dic­tive tests are also those of the spa­tial fac­tor. In con­trast, mechan­i­cal arith­metic tests give very lit­tle indi­ca­tion of future math­e­mat­i­cal or sci­en­tific abil­ity (hence Crowther’s advo­cacy of ‘numer­acy’ is psy­cho­log­i­cally mis­lead­ing). It would seem that the per­cep­tion of form is a gen­eral char­ac­ter­is­tic of the abstract think­ing involved in math­e­mat­ics and sci­ence, as dis­tinct from the ver­bal think­ing involved in most school sub­jects.

A good deal of inter­est­ing work is sur­veyed, also, on defects in spa­tial abil­ity asso­ci­ated with brain injury, cere­bral palsy and leu­co­to­my; and a dis­cus­sion of the rela­tions of this abil­ity to types of atten­tion (an­a­lytic vs syn­the­sis) and to EEG brain waves throws fur­ther light on the neu­ro­log­i­cal and men­tal processes involved. Finally the author makes a strong case for some rela­tion between the abil­ity and tem­pera­men­tal qual­i­ties akin to intro­ver­sion, mas­culin­ity and ini­tia­tive. The lack of under­stand­ing between the sci­en­tist and the human­ist prob­a­bly arises from the fact that their modes of think­ing are inti­mately bound up with their whole per­son­al­ity orga­ni­za­tion.


“Visual Think­ing: The Art of Imag­in­ing Real­ity”, Root-Bern­stein 1985:

[Dis­cus­sion of the role of visu­ospa­tial rea­son­ing ability/spatial ability/‘imag­i­na­tion’ in sci­en­tific dis­cov­ery, start­ing with the exam­ple of , a pro­po­nent of the role of visu­al­iza­tion in sci­ence, who pre­dicted the by tak­ing lit­er­ally the idea of ‘atoms’ and imag­in­ing them geo­met­ri­cal­ly. Root-Bern­stein dis­cusses his own bio­graph­i­cal stud­ies of emi­nent sci­en­tists, who are often quite cre­ative in other areas or hob­bies such as paint­ing, and cites exam­ples such as Robert Ful­ton or Louis Pas­teur who were painters before they became great inven­tors or sci­en­tist­s—­such train­ing may have been directly use­ful in care­ful obser­va­tion of spec­i­mens & repro­duc­tion in sketch form. Root-Bern­stein con­cludes that

  1. visual rea­son­ing may be dras­ti­cally under­rated com­pared to ver­bal rea­son­ing, because “most peo­ple seem to con­sider ver­bal thought to be the high­est or even the only form of thought.”
  2. the diffi­culty of phi­los­o­phy of sci­ence or for­mal logic in pro­vid­ing any mean­ing­ful account of where sci­en­tific ideas come from, as opposed to how they are expressed or test­ed, may be due to this over­re­liance on ver­bal for­malisms; visual approaches may expose the true logic of sci­en­tific cre­ation
  3. Gard­ner’s ‘mul­ti­ple intel­li­gences’ the­ory may be related
  4. cur­rent edu­ca­tion, per #1, may badly under­mine stu­dents’ sci­en­tific abil­i­ties: “exclu­sive reliance upon book learn­ing is itself mis­guid­ed. Cer­tainly Ost­wald, Maxwell, and Gibbs learned as much (if not more) about nature by explor­ing it through hob­bies such as paint­ing, sculpt­ing, invent­ing, and build­ing as they did through for­mal book stud­ies. And, return­ing to Hindle’s study of Morse and Ful­ton, one sees clearly that the non­ver­bal skills of the inven­tor sci­en­tist may best be stim­u­lated by active par­tic­i­pa­tion in the arts. Yet in many Amer­i­can high schools and uni­ver­si­ties, sci­ence majors are actively dis­cour­aged from par­tic­i­pat­ing in arts pro­grams because arts and crafts skills are con­sid­ered to have no intel­lec­tual val­ue.”]

See also


“Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion and fos­ter­ing of math­e­mat­i­cally gifted stu­dents: Ratio­nale of a pilot study”, Wag­ner & Zim­mer­man 1986:

In a three year research pro­ject, annual math­e­mat­ics tal­ent searches for highly able and moti­vated twelve year old stu­dents were con­duct­ed. Of the­se, 150 took part in a long term Sat­ur­day enrich­ment pro­gram to train their math­e­mat­i­cal abil­i­ties in prob­lem find­ing and prob­lem solv­ing. The arti­cle first dis­cusses the edu­ca­tional and orga­ni­za­tional con­straints of pro­grams for gifted chil­dren. Math­e­mat­i­cal gift­ed­ness is defined by high achieve­ment in two tests: The Scholas­tic Apti­tude Test (SAT-M) and the HTMB, a set of seven prob­lems spe­cially devised for the tal­ent search. The phi­los­o­phy of the teach­ing pro­gram is explained and illus­trated by exam­ples. Pre­lim­i­nary results indi­cate the con­sid­er­able suc­cess of the pro­gram. Pos­si­ble con­se­quences for nor­mal class­room teach­ing are indi­cat­ed.

Anne Roe

Some of the ear­li­est direct stud­ies of very high IQ researchers were con­ducted by , who, akin to SMPY’s use of the SAT, used spe­cial­ly-con­structed stan­dard­ized test items to avoid ceil­ing effects:

Fullerton Longitudinal Study

Below are a sub­set of papers from the FLS on the topic of “Intel­lec­tual and Moti­va­tional Gift­ed­ness”:

  • Gifted IQ: Early Devel­op­men­tal Aspects: The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study, Got­tfried et al 1994

  • “A lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion in intel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren: Child­hood through ado­les­cence”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 1996:

    Aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion of intel­lec­tu­ally gifted chil­dren and a com­par­i­son group was exam­ined in the Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study. Chil­dren at ages 9 through 13 years were admin­is­tered the Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic Intrin­sic Moti­va­tion Inven­tory which assesses intrin­sic moti­va­tion for school learn­ing in read­ing, math, social stud­ies, sci­ence, and for school in gen­er­al. Analy­ses showed that across the ages, rel­a­tive to a peer com­par­ison, gifted chil­dren had sig­nifi­cantly higher aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion across all sub­ject areas and school in gen­er­al. It is sug­gested that: Chil­dren who become intel­lec­tu­ally gifted enjoy the process of learn­ing to a greater extent; intrin­sic moti­va­tion is impor­tant for poten­ti­a­tion of gift­ed­ness; Assess­ment of aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion be included in selec­tion of chil­dren for gifted pro­grams.

  • “Toward the devel­op­ment of a con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of gifted moti­va­tion”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 2004:

    Whereas per­spec­tives on gift­ed­ness have included moti­va­tion as a con­struct related to gift­ed­ness, the pro­posed con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion advances a new view that moti­va­tion is an area of gift­ed­ness in and of itself. Aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion (i.e., enjoy­ment of school learn­ing) is the domain focused upon in this con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion inas­much as it has inher­ent ties to cog­ni­tion, gifted intel­lect, and achieve­ment. Research sup­ports the fol­low­ing cri­te­ria, advanced as a begin­ning effort toward the devel­op­ment of a con­cep­tu­al­iza­tion of a gifted moti­va­tion con­struct: (a) sig­nifi­cantly higher aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion is evi­denced by intel­lec­tu­ally gifted com­pared to their com­par­i­son cohort; (b) aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion is sig­nifi­cant­ly, pos­i­tive­ly, and uniquely related to aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment above and beyond IQ; (c) aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion evi­dences sub­stan­tial con­ti­nu­ity from child­hood through ado­les­cence; and (d) envi­ron­ment is sig­nifi­cantly related to aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion. The con­struct of gifted moti­va­tion serves heuris­tic pur­poses to advance fur­ther inquiry and also has impli­ca­tions regard­ing the devel­op­ment and imple­men­ta­tion of gift­ed­ness pro­grams. Sug­ges­tions are made regard­ing research needed for fur­ther devel­op­ment of a gifted moti­va­tion con­struct.

  • “Edu­ca­tional char­ac­ter­is­tics of ado­les­cents with gifted moti­va­tion: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal inves­ti­ga­tion from school entry through early adult­hood”, Got­tfried et al 2005:

    The con­struct of gifted moti­va­tion was exam­ined in a con­tem­po­rary, long-term, lon­gi­tu­di­nal inves­ti­ga­tion. Ado­les­cents with extremely high aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion (i.e., gifted moti­va­tion) were com­pared to their cohort peer com­par­i­son on a vari­ety of edu­ca­tion­ally rel­e­vant mea­sures from ele­men­tary school through the early adult­hood years. Assess­ment of aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion was based on the Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic Intrin­sic Moti­va­tion Inven­to­ry. Cross-time, per­va­sive differ­ences resulted favor­ing the gifted moti­va­tion com­pared to the cohort com­par­i­son group on moti­va­tion, achieve­ment, class­room func­tion­ing, intel­lec­tual per­for­mance, self­-con­cept, and post-sec­ondary edu­ca­tional progress. Mean­ing­ful effect sizes were obtained and cor­rob­o­rated by teach­ers’ obser­va­tions. Gifted moti­va­tion proved to be dis­tinct from gifted intel­li­gence. This research serves to expand the defi­n­i­tion of gift­ed­ness to include the con­struct of gifted moti­va­tion in its own right. These find­ings have impli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fy­ing stu­dents with gifted moti­va­tion for entry into pro­grams for the gift­ed.

  • “The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study: A long-term inves­ti­ga­tion of intel­lec­tual and moti­va­tional gift­ed­ness”, Got­tfried et al 2006:

    The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study is a con­tem­po­rary prospec­tive inves­ti­ga­tion that spans approx­i­mately a quar­ter of a cen­tu­ry. Com­menc­ing at age 1, [n = 130] chil­dren and their fam­i­lies were sys­tem­at­i­cally fol­lowed every 6 months from infancy through preschool and annu­ally at ages 5 through 17. They were again assessed at age 24. The course of devel­op­ment for intel­lec­tu­ally [IQ>130, n = 20] and moti­va­tion­ally gifted [“Chil­dren’s Aca­d­e­mic Intrin­sic Moti­va­tion Inven­tory” (CAIMI); n = 21] chil­dren was stud­ied across a breadth of devel­op­men­tal domains includ­ing aca­d­e­mic, cog­ni­tive, self­-per­cep­tions, tem­pera­ment, behav­ioral, social, family/environmental process­es, and adult edu­ca­tional achieve­ment. Pre­sented are the method­ol­ogy and unique aspects of this research that con­tribute to the study of gift­ed­ness. Major find­ings regard­ing these two dis­tinct dimen­sions of gift­ed­ness are pre­sent­ed, with some impli­ca­tions for prac­tice and direc­tions for future research.

  • “Issues in early pre­dic­tion and iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of intel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness”, Got­tfried et al 2009:

    This chap­ter com­prises three sec­tions: (a) com­men­tary on the Colom­bo, Shad­dy, Bla­ga, Ander­son, and Kan­nass chap­ter titled “High Cog­ni­tive Abil­ity in Infancy and Early Child­hood” (chap. 2, this vol­ume); (b) con­sid­er­a­tion of issues con­cern­ing early pre­dic­tion of gifted intel­li­gence [espe­cially reliability/test-retest sta­bil­i­ty]; and (c) dis­cus­sion of impli­ca­tions regard­ing early iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of intel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness.

  • “Devel­op­ment of gifted moti­va­tion: Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Research and Appli­ca­tions”, Got­tfried & Got­tfried 2009:

    Gifted moti­va­tion was pro­posed by Got­tfried & Got­tfried (2004) as an area of gift­ed­ness in and of itself dis­tinct from intel­lec­tual gift­ed­ness. Gifted moti­va­tion applies to those indi­vid­u­als who are supe­rior in their striv­ings and deter­mi­na­tion per­tain­ing to an endeav­or. The foun­da­tion for the­o­riz­ing about and pro­vid­ing empir­i­cal val­i­da­tion for this con­struct is based on the authors’ lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of gift­ed­ness in the realm of aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion. Aca­d­e­mic intrin­sic moti­va­tion is defined as enjoy­ment of school learn­ing char­ac­ter­ized by an ori­en­ta­tion toward mas­tery, curios­i­ty, per­sis­tence, task-en­dogeny, and the learn­ing of chal­leng­ing, diffi­cult, and novel tasks. The present chap­ter will present the­ory and con­tem­po­rary find­ings regard­ing gifted moti­va­tion, and how this relate to con­cur­rent and long-term out­comes from child­hood through early adult­hood. Impli­ca­tions for iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of gifted moti­va­tion, pro­gram selec­tion, and pro­gram devel­op­ment and eval­u­a­tion will be advanced.

  • “Devel­op­ing tal­ents: A lon­gi­tu­di­nal inves­ti­ga­tion of intel­lec­tual abil­ity and aca­d­e­mic achieve­ment”, McCoach et al 2017:

    The Fuller­ton Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study offers a unique oppor­tu­nity to model the sta­bil­ity of intel­li­gence and achieve­ment and their rela­tions from ele­men­tary through sec­ondary school. Using latent vari­able mod­el­ing, we fit a cross-lagged panel model to exam­ine the rela­tions between intel­li­gence and achieve­ment in two aca­d­e­mic domains: math­e­mat­ics and read­ing. Find­ings revealed that stu­dents’ achieve­ment is highly sta­ble across the school years. Child­hood intel­li­gence is a strong pre­dic­tor of ini­tial math­e­mat­ics and read­ing achieve­ment. After age 7-years, intel­li­gence is not pre­dic­tive of either math­e­mat­ics or read­ing achieve­ment after account­ing for prior achieve­ment. Stu­dents who enter school with strong aca­d­e­mic skills tend to main­tain their aca­d­e­mic advan­tage through­out their ele­men­tary and sec­ondary edu­ca­tion. We dis­cuss the impli­ca­tions of these results for tal­ent devel­op­ment.


Munich 1990

Munich 2000

  • “Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of Gifted and Tal­ented Stu­dents”, Heller 2004:

    After a brief intro­duc­tion with four main ques­tions related to iden­ti­fy­ing gifted and tal­ented stu­dents, this arti­cle cen­tres on the fol­low­ing top­ics: (1) mul­ti­di­men­sional con­cep­tions of gift­ed­ness as pre­con­di­tions of suit­able iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures, (2) func­tions and ben­e­fits vs. dan­gers of iden­ti­fi­ca­tion mea­sures, (3) method­olog­i­cal prob­lems and (4) prac­ti­cal rec­om­men­da­tions for the iden­ti­fi­ca­tion of var­i­ous groups of gifted and tal­ented stu­dents.

  • “The Munich model of gift­ed­ness designed to iden­tify and pro­mote gifted stu­dents”, Heller et al 2005:

    A deci­sive fac­tor in the deter­mi­na­tion of effec­tive gifted edu­ca­tion is the fit between the indi­vid­ual cog­ni­tive and noncog­ni­tive (e.g., moti­va­tional and other per­son­al­i­ty) fac­tors of the devel­op­men­tal and learn­ing processes on the one hand and the envi­ron­men­tal influ­ences that are mainly from the social set­tings of fam­i­ly, school, and peers on the other hand. This chap­ter is based on mul­ti­di­men­sional con­cep­tions of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent, such as the Munich Model of Gift­ed­ness (MMG), as well as on inter­ac­tion mod­els, such as the Apti­tude-Treat­ment Inter­ac­tion (ATI) by Cron­bach and Snow (1977) and Corno and Snow (1986).

    When con­sid­er­ing the MMG as an exam­ple of a mul­ti­fac­to­r­ial con­cep­tion of gift­ed­ness, along with the recently devel­oped dynamic process approach to this model (Mu­nich Dynamic Abil­i­ty-Achieve­ment Model of Gift­ed­ness [MDAAM]), the fol­low­ing ques­tions arise: How should gifted indi­vid­u­als be iden­ti­fied and instruct­ed? And how should their learn­ing out­comes or excel­lent per­for­mance be assessed? These and other ques­tions will be answered accord­ing to the MMG and the MDAAM, respec­tive­ly.

  • “The Munich High Abil­ity Test Bat­tery (MHBT): A mul­ti­di­men­sion­al, mul­ti­method approach”, Heller & Per­leth 2008:

    After a brief intro­duc­tion the the­o­ret­i­cal basis of the Munich High Abil­ity Test-Bat­tery (MHBT) will be out­lined in the first part of the arti­cle. The MHBT has been devel­oped in the frame­work of the Munich lon­gi­tu­di­nal study of gift­ed­ness and tal­ent. The MHBT includes not only cog­ni­tive pre­dic­tors mea­sur­ing sev­eral dimen­sions and types of gift­ed­ness con­cern­ing intel­lec­tu­al, cre­ative or social abil­i­ties etc., but also gift­ed­ness-rel­e­vant non-cog­ni­tive per­son­al­ity and social mod­er­a­tors mea­sur­ing inter­ests, moti­va­tions, learn­ing emo­tions, self­-con­cepts or fam­ily and school cli­mate, edu­ca­tional style, qual­ity of instruc­tion, etc. The MHBT-instruments (differ­ent scales and dimen­sions) are described in greater detail.

    In the sec­ond part of the arti­cle, after deal­ing with the objec­tiv­i­ty, the reli­a­bil­i­ty, and the valid­ity of the MHBT, the authors dis­cuss the stan­dard­iza­tion pro­ce­dure includ­ing the devel­op­ment of grade-based T-norms respec­tively as well as sev­eral tal­en­t-pro­files, e.g. of gifted achiev­ers vs. under­achiev­ers, intel­lec­tu­al, cre­ative, social tal­ents or lin­guis­tic, math, sci­ence tal­ent pro­files etc. Final­ly, exam­ples of tal­ent search for gifted pro­grams and case stud­ies on the basis of MHBT should illus­trate mul­ti­di­men­sional iden­ti­fi­ca­tion pro­ce­dures.

    The MHBT ful­fills the most rel­e­vant assess­ment tasks belong­ing to the gifted edu­ca­tional and coun­sel­ing prac­tice. The use­ful­ness of the MHBT in the frame­work of gift­ed­ness research as well as of gifted pro­gram eval­u­a­tion stud­ies has also been proven in the last decade. Hence the MHBT offers many oppor­tu­ni­ties to assess­ing gift­ed­ness and tal­ent.

Munich 2010

  • Munich Stud­ies of Gift­ed­ness, ed Heller 2010 (ISBN: 3643107285). Anthol­o­gy.

  • “Find­ings from the Munich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study of Gift­ed­ness and Their Impact on Iden­ti­fi­ca­tion, Gifted Edu­ca­tion and Coun­sel­ing”, Heller 2013:

    The Munich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Gift­ed­ness Study (MLGS), orig­i­nally car­ried out from 1985 to 1989 and com­pleted by two fol­low-ups in the nineties, focused on three aims in the first project phase and on five aims in the sec­ond phase. From the mid-nineties to the end of 2010, many con­sec­u­tive stud­ies based on the the­o­ret­i­cal and empir­i­cal results of the MLGS have been imple­mented at the Cen­ter for the Study of Gift­ed­ness at Lud­wig Max­i­m­il­ians Uni­ver­sity (LMU) of Munich. First of all, the “Munich Model of Gift­ed­ness” (MMG) and the extended ver­sion “Munich Dynamic Abil­ity Achieve­ment Model” (MDAAM) will be explained as the the­o­ret­i­cal frame of the MLGS and the fol­low­ing inves­ti­ga­tions. After method­olog­i­cal remarks, selected find­ings of the MLGS are pre­sented in greater detail. Prac­ti­cal appli­ca­tions to iden­ti­fy­ing gifted indi­vid­u­als and tal­ent search for gifted pro­grams are in the cen­ter of the fol­low­ing sec­tion. Of spe­cial inter­est should be MMG- and MDAAM-based sci­en­tifi­cally eval­u­ated inter­ven­tion strate­gies and mea­sures for enhanc­ing indi­vid­ual poten­tials ver­sus mea­sures for reduc­ing ineffec­tive or dys­func­tional moti­va­tion vari­ables and self­-con­cept pat­terns, e.g. with regard to STEM- and at-risk-groups. Final­ly, some con­clu­sions will be dis­cussed.

  1. An exam­ple of the ‘Mensa fal­lacy’—us­ing a patho­log­i­cally self­-s­e­lected self­-di­ag­nosed sam­ple—­would be Karpin­ski et al 2018, “High intel­li­gence: A risk fac­tor for psy­cho­log­i­cal and phys­i­o­log­i­cal overex­citabil­i­ties”, which takes Mensa sur­vey results at face-value while ignor­ing the fact that Mensa has attracted losers since its found­ing (a fact that I know was pointed out to the authors well before pub­li­ca­tion, and which they defend merely by say­ing that self­-re­port data is com­mon in many other areas while ignor­ing all con­tra­dic­tory evi­dence).

    The results are a pri­ori unlikely as all pop­u­la­tion sam­ples show that dys­func­tion­al­ity and men­tal ill­ness rates drop steeply with increas­ing IQ up to top per­centile and defi­nitely at least the top decile; these results are so large and well known that Karpin­ski et al can­not doubt them, and so they attempt to ‘save the appear­ances’ with ad hoc invo­ca­tions of non­lin­ear thresh­olds at high intel­li­gence, while still rely­ing on the rel­a­tively low IQ thresh­old of Mensa mem­ber­ship. Their results are so absurd as to dis­credit any attempt to claim that a Mensa sam­ple can tell us any­thing at all about high intel­li­gence, as (with the excep­tion of the mod­est aller­gies find­ing) they are com­pletely incon­sis­tent with & phe­no­typic cor­re­la­tions, almost impos­si­ble to rec­on­cile with the uni­ver­sal life-expectancy/SES/education/IQ/wealth/mental-health cor­re­la­tions observed every­where in psychology/sociology/medicine, and non-self-s­e­lected high­-IQ sam­ples (whether , SMPY, FLS, Munich Lon­gi­tu­di­nal Study, SET, HCES, Scot­tish sur­vey, Scan­di­na­vian pop­u­la­tion reg­istry-based etc)—in­clud­ing a self­-re­ported Asperg­er’s rel­a­tive risk of 223!

    It’s unclear how these are even numer­i­cally rec­on­cil­able with the pop­u­la­tion esti­mates, as such unbe­liev­ably large risk increases ought to push the aver­ages way up at the top end. Fur­ther, if any of the rel­a­tive risks were true, higher intel­li­gence would be one of the strongest risk fac­tors ever dis­cov­ered for men­tal ill­ness, far exceed­ing the effects of minor things like smok­ing. If such rel­a­tive risks were true of Men­sans, who are merely ~+2.3SD (be­ing gen­er­ous & tak­ing their 1% cri­te­rion at face-val­ue), then the RRs of groups like SMPY, MIT, Nobelists, or Fields Medal­ists, who are 3–6SD, would be off the charts, and it would be diffi­cult to so much as run a SMPY sum­mer-camp with­out deal­ing with mul­ti­ple sui­cide attempts or psy­chotic breaks, or find a sin­gle child who seemed at all social­ly-well-ad­just­ed, or an emi­nent sci­en­tist who had not been insti­tu­tion­al­ized, or… Of course, this is not the case. No reported sta­tis­tics from SMPY or other high­-IQ sam­ples not suffer­ing from self­-s­e­lec­tion into exag­ger­ated self­-di­ag­noses agree with this, and researchers & jour­nal­ists who inter­act with SMPYers and sim­i­lar high­-IQ cohorts fail to men­tion that the entire cohort is nut­tier than a Snick­ers bar, and often men­tion that the mem­bers defy stereo­type by seem­ing quite healthy, well-ad­just­ed, and hap­py. (The impli­ca­tions con­tinue to go beyond that—­con­sid­er­ing just genet­ics, such pathol­ogy would force sta­bi­liz­ing selec­tion, which we do not observe.)

    So all Karpin­ski et al 2018 has to offer is a cau­tion­ary warn­ing about GIGO: Mensa mem­bers are either remark­ably selected for patholo­gies, or are not respond­ing hon­estly (per­haps due to the trendi­ness of self­-di­ag­nos­ing autism as an excuse for fail­ure).↩︎

  2. An exam­ple would be Gross’s Aus­tralian study, often cited as evi­dence that gifted children/adults are deeply trou­bled and often fail­ures; how­ev­er, to quote Gross 2006, the study “adver­tised 1986–1987 in the Bul­letin of the Aus­tralian Psy­cho­log­i­cal Soci­ety, in the newslet­ters of the national and state gifted chil­dren’s asso­ci­a­tions, through let­ters to Col­leges of Edu­ca­tion in Aus­tralian uni­ver­si­ties, through let­ters to psy­chol­o­gists in pri­vate prac­tice, and through infor­mal con­tact with col­leagues across the coun­try who had a spe­cial inter­est in gifted edu­ca­tion.” It takes lit­tle imag­i­na­tion to won­der how much this method of recruit­ing selected for unusu­ally trou­bled or oth­er­wise unhealthy chil­dren. (Nev­er­the­less, even within Gross’s sam­ple, accel­er­a­tion of edu­ca­tion strongly cor­re­lates with bet­ter out­comes, sup­port­ing SMPY’s results and an inter­pre­ta­tion that much of Gross’s sam­ple’s pathol­ogy was due to deeply inap­pro­pri­ate envi­ron­ments.)↩︎

  3. Sub­se­quently renamed “SMPY”.↩︎

  4. Also of inter­est in this vol­ume is John­son & Bouchard 2014, .↩︎