2012-benbow.pdf: “Identifying and Nurturing Future Innovators in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics: A Review of Findings From the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth”, (2021-02-01; ):
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.
2020-schuur.pdf: “Social–Emotional Characteristics and Adjustment of Accelerated University Students: A Systematic Review”, (2020-11-09; ):
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.
2020-henshon.pdf: “In Search of Excellence: An Interview With Linda Brody”, (2020-07-30; ):
[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.]
2020-lubinski-2.pdf: “Intellectual Precocity: What Have We Learned Since Terman?”, (2020-07-28; ):
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]
Is there an ability threshold, beyond which more ability doesn’t matter? No.
Does the pattern of specific abilities matter? Yes.
Is there evidence for multipotentiality? No.
Is ability pattern important for students with especially profound intellectual gifts? Yes.
occupational interests add value to ability assessments of intellectually precocious youth?Yes.
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.
Can educational interventions enhance learning and ultimate levels of creative expression? Yes.
Beyond ability, interest, and opportunity, are conative attributes important? Yes.
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.
2020-bernstein.pdf: “Academic Acceleration in Gifted Youth and Fruitless Concerns Regarding Psychological Well-Being: A 35–Year Longitudinal Study”, (2020-07-02; ):
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.
2020-cardador.pdf: “Does More Mean Less? Interest Surplus and the Gender Gap in STEM Careers”, (2020-06-08; ):
The persistent gender gap in STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math) career choice represents a perplexing problem for researchers and policy makers alike. We contribute to the body of research on the gender gap in STEM careers by testing a “surplus model” of vocational interests as a predictor of STEM career choice. The model suggests that, controlling for ability, female adolescents with strong STEM-related interest should be less likely to pursue STEM careers when they also have strong interests in other areas, due to wider career options. We tested the surplus model in a large national longitudinal data set and translated the results into differences in annual wages. Our findings illuminate the predictive validity of a surplus model of interests on STEM career choice across gender, provide insight into the gender gap in STEM, and suggest opportunities for future research.
[Keywords: vocational interests, surplus model, stem gender gap, stem career choice]
2020-lubinski.pdf: “Understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes requires assessing intraindividual differences in abilities and interests”, (2020-01-01):
Stoet and Geary (1) report important cross-cultural findings on how the advantage of females in reading proficiencies relative to males combined with more equitable educational opportunities have contributed to the recent overrepresentation of women in tertiary education. Developed nations vary in the extent to which males are underrepresented as a function of these two determinants, yet that they jointly contribute to a clear cross-cultural trend is undeniable. Hence, it is critical to assess personal proficiencies and the environmental contexts within which they operate to understand individual and gender differences in educational outcomes.
Further refinements in how far students progress in educational systems, why group disparities exit, and which specific disciplines students pursue are provided by examining other aspects of their individuality more holistically and simultaneously. This commentary places the assessment of human individuality into a broader (multidimensional) context. Major reviews of psychological research show that individual differences in both level and pattern of cognitive abilities and educational/
occupational interests are critical for understanding educational, occupational, and creative outcomes across the lifespan (2⇓–4). Incorporating cognitive abilities and interests into longitudinal research demonstrates how these two categories of psychological attributes give rise to different real-world accomplishments. That information allows us to understand each student’s individuality, their learning needs, and develop policies for best practices. This commentary is to give readers a better understanding of why both interindividual and intraindividual differences in abilities and interests must be considered when conceptualizing individual and group differences in real-life learning and work outcomes.
2019-wirthwein.pdf: “Personality and school functioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents_ Self-perceptions and parents' assessments”, Linda Wirthwein, Sebastian Bergold, Franzis Preckel, Ricarda Steinmayr
2019-mccabe.pdf: “Who shines most among the brightest?: A 25-year longitudinal study of elite STEM graduate students”, Kira O. McCabe, David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow ( )
2019-bernstein.pdf: “Psychological Constellations Assessed at Age 13 Predict Distinct Forms of Eminence 35 Years Later”, (2019-01-01; ):
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.
2018-lubinski.pdf: “Individual Differences at the Top: Mapping the Outer Envelope of Intelligence”, David Lubinski ( )
2017-wai.pdf: “What Innovations Have We Already Lost?: The Importance of Identifying and Developing Spatial Talent”, Jonathan Wai, Harrison J. Kell ( )
2016-makel.pdf: “When Lightning Strikes Twice”, (2016-07-01; ):
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: Thirty-seven percent 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.
[Keywords: intelligence, creativity, giftedness, replication, blink comparator]
2013-stumpf.pdf: “Expanding Talent Search Procedures by Including Measures of Spatial Ability: CTY's Spatial Test Battery”, (2013-10-10; ):
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.
[Keywords: block rotation test, CTY Spatial Test Battery, spatial ability, spatial test, STEM, surface development test, talent search, visual memory test]
2013-kell.pdf: “Who Rises to the Top?: Early Indicators”, (2013-03-26; ):
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.
[Keywords: cognitive abilities, creativity, human capital, intelligence, profoundly gifted, STEM]
2013-kell-3.pdf: “Spatial Ability: A Neglected Talent in Educational and Occupational Settings”, Harrison J. Kell, David Lubinski ( )
2012-warne.pdf: “History and Development of Above-Level Testing of the Gifted”, Russell T. Warne
2011-touron.pdf: “The Center for Talented Youth Identification Model: A Review of the Literature”, Javier Tourón, Marta Tourón ( )
2011-hunt-ch10-whatuseisintelligence.pdf: “_Human Intelligence_: chapter 10, What Use Is Intelligence?”, Earl Hunt ( )
1993-thomas.pdf: “A theory explaining sex differences in high mathematical ability has been around for some time”, Hoben Thomas ( )
1988-benbow.pdf: “Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability in intellectually talented preadolescents: Their nature, effects, and possible causes”, Camilla Persson Benbow ( )
2010-lubinski.pdf: “Spatial ability and STEM: A sleeping giant for talent identification and development”, David Lubinski ( )
2010-henshon.pdf: “Talent Sleuth Extraordinaire: An Interview With Camilla P. Benbow”, Suzanna E. Henshon, Camilla P. Benbow ( )
2009-steenbergenhu.pdf: “Microsoft Word - Graduate School ETD Form 9.doc”, markj ( )
2009-lubinski.pdf: “Cognitive epidemiology: With emphasis on untangling cognitive ability and socioeconomic status”, David Lubinski ( )
2009-brody.pdf: “The Johns Hopkins Talent Search Model for Identifying and Developing Exceptional Mathematical and Verbal Abilities”, Linda E. Brody ( )
2009-benbow.pdf: “Extending Sandra Scarr's Ideas about Development to the Longitudinal Study of Intellectually Precocious Youth”, Camilla P. Benbow, David Lubinski ( )
2008-leder.pdf: “MERGAVolume1.pdf”, yeh ( )
2007-swiatek.pdf: “GCQ306318.qxd” ( )
2005-benbow.pdf: “A Great Man Standing With Terman and Hollingworth: Julian C. Stanley (1918-2005)”, Camilla P. Benbow ( )
2005-putallaz.pdf: “The Duke University Talent Identification Program”, (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.
2004-lubinski-2.pdf: “Long-term Effects of Educational Acceleration”, David Lubinski ( )
2003-gross.pdf: “Nowicka, R”, Carmen Robinson ( )
2002-moore.pdf: “The progress and problems of an incredibly talented sister and brother”, Nancy Delano Moore ( )
2002-hill.pdf: “PSCI13124”, Frame Management ( )
2002-clark.pdf: “Tending the special spark: Accelerated and enriched curricula for highly talented art students”, Gilbert Clark, Enid Zimmerman ( )
2001-shea.pdf: “Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study”, Daniel L. Shea, David Lubinski, Camilla P. Benbow ( )
2001-plomin.pdf: “BG3106_364265”, WorkStation 2 ( )
2001-lubinski.pdf: “1247” ( )
1999-norman.pdf: “Relationship between levels of giftedness and psychosocial adjustment”, (1999; ):
This study compares 2 groups of gifted students, highly (n = 74) and moderately (n = 163) gifted, 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.
1998-chorney.pdf: “A Quantitative Trait Locus Associated With Cognitive Ability in Children”, (1998-05-01; ):
A DNA marker in the gene for insulin-like growth factor-2 receptor (IGF2R) on Chromosome 6 yielded a statistically-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 statistically-significant (p = 0.06 and 0.08, respectively).
[Warning: despite the replication, these candidate-gene hits were all false positives.]
1996-plotinck.pdf: “My Education”, Alexander Plotinck ( )
1996-cargain.pdf: “Entering a Women's College Two Years Early”, Michele J. Cargain ( )
1995-lubinski-2.pdf: “Optimal Development Of Talent: Respond Educationally To Individual Differences In Personality”, (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 & 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 & Lubinski 1994; in press; Lubinski & Benbow 1994; Lubinski, Benbow, and Sanders 1993; Stanley 1977). This approach, which is advocated by the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) (Benbow & 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 & Dawis 1991)…
1994-heller-competenceandresponsibility3rdconference.pdf: “Competence and Responsibility: The Third European Conference of The European Council for High Ability held in Munich (Germany), October 11-14, 1992; Volume 2: Proceedings of the Conference”, Kurt A., Heller und Ernst A., Hany ( )
1994-subotnik-beyondterman.pdf: “Beyond Terman: contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent”, (1994; ):
Beyond: Contemporary Longitudinal Studies of Giftedness and Talent is an important contribution to the literature in two fields—those of gifted education and educational research. It is important for the former in terms of the insights and understandings it provides about giftedness and its nurture. It is important for the latter for its elucidations of the methodology associated with longitudinal research. The editors point out that “[the] volume presents recent collected works that demonstrate the fit between longitudinal methodology and the central issues of gifted education. Collectively, the studies investigate the early determinants of later academic and career achievement and creativity while employing varied identification practices, perspectives, theoretical orientations, and populations.”
The studies described vary along many dimensions, including research problem, sample size and character, length of study, data collection procedures and sources, and longitudinal orientation (ie., emergent/
developmental or retrospective). The studies deal with a variety of talent areas, such as academic achievement, science, technical creativity, music, creative and productive thinking, and career development. The samples include gifted and talented children, youths, and adults, both males and females. Although most of the studies deal with identified gifted/ talented individuals, one is a retrospective look at the achievements of graduate students in a university-level leadership education program. Studies originating in Germany and Israel add an international flavor and, more importantly, remind us that there is good research being conducted beyond the borders of the U.S.
As the premiere longitudinal investigation of a gifted population, thestudy set a standard of comprehensiveness, large study sample, and societal influence that is difficult to supersede. In spite of the study’s large number of research associates and rich sources of funding support, the data are still being organized for more accurate statistical analysis and examined for more challenging research questions. Further, the Genetic Studies of Genius and its more current follow-ups did not address key questions of concern in today’s social, political, and historical climate, or issues of central importance in the future. The investigations in this book have established a groundwork for answering previously unanswered questions: Are we identifying the “right” people? What are the outcomes associated with various forms of identification and intervention?
Over the course of his long career, Terman’s perspective on high IQ as a source for potential genius changed to allow personality, interest, special abilities, and opportunity to play a growing role in adult achievement. In filling a vacuum left by, this collection of contemporary studies can guide policy and program development based on the conditions and interventions that contribute to the fulfillment of talent.
1994-charlton.pdf: “Follow-up insights on rapid educational acceleration”, (1994; ):
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 2 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 2 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 3 speakers agreed, however, that extremely fast educational advancement might not be the ideal curriculum path for some other equally capable boys and girls.
1993-sowell.pdf: “Programs for Mathematically Gifted Students: A Review of Empirical Research”, (1993-01-01; ):
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.
1993-benbow.pdf: “Psychological profiles of the mathematically talented: some sex differences and evidence supporting their biological basis”, Camilla Persson Benbow, David Lubinski ( )
1993-benbow-2.pdf: “Consequences of Gender Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability and Some Biological Linkages”, C. P. Benbow, D. Lubinski ( )
1993-alper.pdf: “The Pipeline is Leaking Women All the Way Along”, Joe Alper
1993-swiatek.pdf: “A Decade of Longitudinal Research On Academic Acceleration Through the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth”, (1993; ):
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.
1992-kirschenbaum.pdf: “An Interview with Julian C. Stanley”, Robert J. Kirschenbaum ( )
1991-stanley-3.pdf: “Tribute to Halbert B. Robinson (1925-1981)”, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1990-stanley.pdf: “Eight Considerations for Mathematically Talented Youth”, Julian Stanley, Ann E. Lupkowski, Susan G. Assouline ( )
1990-lupkowski.pdf: “Applying: A Mentor Model: For Young Mathematically Talented Students”, Ann E. Lupkowski, Susan G. Assouline, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1990-stanley-2.pdf: “Leta Hollingworth's contributions to above-level testing of the gifted”, (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.
1989-stanley-3.pdf: “Most Fare Better”, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1989-lindblad.pdf: “On Being a Misfit”, Jeanette D. Lindblad ( )
1987-wood.pdf: “Media Review: Books: Writing Instruction for Verbally Talented Youth: The Johns Hopkins Model”, Frank H. Wood, Trish Bransky ( )
1987-benbow-2.pdf: “Extreme Mathematical Talent: A Hormonally Induced Ability?”, Camilla Persson Benbow, Robert Michael Benbow ( )
1986-stanley-2.pdf: “SAT-M scores of highly selected students in Shanghai tested when less than 13 years old”, Julian C. Stanley, Jia-fen Huang, Xue-min Zu ( )
1986-renzulli-systemsandmodelsforprogramsforgiftedtalented.pdf: “Systems and Models for Developing Programs for the Gifted and Talented”, Joseph S. Renzulli ( )
1986-benbow-2.pdf: “Chapter 1: SMPY's Model for Teaching Mathematically Precocious Students”, Camilla Persson Benbow ( )
1985-stanley-2.pdf: “A baker's dozen of years applying all four aspects of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY)”, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1985-rootbernstein.pdf: “Visual Thinking: The Art of Imagining Reality”, Robert Scott Root-Bernstein ( )
1984-stanley-2.pdf: “The exceptionally talented”, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1984-reynolds-writinginstructionforverballytalentedyouthjhumodel.pdf: “Writing Instruction for Verbally Talented Youth: The Johns Hopkins Model”, Reynolds, Ben;Kopelke, Kendra;Durden, William G ( )
1983-tursman.pdf: “Fast-Paced Classes: Challenging Gifted Students”, Cindy Tursman ( )
1983-benbow-9.pdf: “Opening Doors for the Gifted: A flexible curriculum will provide valuable learning options for gifted students, according to directors of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth at the Johns Hopkins University”, Camilla Persson Benbow, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1982-sawyer.pdf: “Duke University's Talent Identification Program”, Robert N. Sawyer, Lynn M. Daggett ( )
1982-moore.pdf: “The Joys and Challenges in Raising a Gifted Child”, Nancy Delano Moore ( )
1982-benbow-2.pdf: “Consequences in High School and College of Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability: A Longitudinal Perspective”, (1982-01-01; ):
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 percent (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.
1981-benbow.pdf: “Development of Superior Mathematical Ability During Adolescence”, Lena Camilla Persson Benbow ( )
1980-albert.pdf: “Exceptionally Gifted Boys and Their Parents”, (1980-10-01; ):
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 statistically-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 statistically-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 statistically-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.
1980-mcclain.pdf: “German for Verbally Gifted Youngsters at Hopkins: The First Year”, William H. McClain, William G. Durden ( )
1980-stanley-2.pdf: “Manipulate important educational variables”, (1980; ):
For 9 years personnel of the Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY) at Johns Hopkins have found thousands of youths, chiefly 7th-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 4-D model is described, which emphasizes educational acceleration of youths who arc highly able and eager to move ahead quickly.
1979-george.pdf: “The Talent-Search Concept: an Identification Strategy for the Intellectually Gifted”, (1979-10-01; ):
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.
1979-stanley.pdf: “The Future of Education”, Julian C. Stanley, William C. George ( )
1979-george-2.pdf: “The Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth”, W. C. George, J. C. Stanley ( )
1979-eisenberg.pdf: “Early Entrance to College: The Johns Hopkins Experience; Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth (SMPY), The Johns Hopkins University”, Ann R. Eisenberg, William C. George ( )
1979-cohn-3.pdf: “Searching for Scientifically Talented Youth?”, Sanford J. Cohn ( )
1978-stanley.pdf: “Now We Are Six: The Ever-Expanding SMPY”, Julian C. Stanley, William C. George ( )
1978-stanley-educationalprogramsandintellectualprodigies.pdf: “Educational Programs and Intellectual Prodigies”, Julian C. Stanley, William C. George, Cecilia H. Solano ( )
1978-stanley-educationalprogramsandintellectualprodigies-tableofcontents.pdf: “Educational Programs and Intellectual Prodigies [Table of Contents]”, Julian C. Stanley, William C. George, Cecilia H. Solano
1978-mills.pdf: “Is Sex Role Related To Intellectual Abilities?”, Carol Mills ( )
1978-cohn.pdf: “Cognitive Characteristics of the Top-Scoring Third of the 1976 Talent Search Contestants”, Sanford J. Cohn ( )
1977-stanley-2.pdf: “Books Tell The SMPY Story”, J. C. Stanley, S. J. Cohn, W. C. George ( )
1977-george.pdf: “Parental Support - Time and Energ”, W. C. George ( )
1976-stanley.pdf: “Youths Who Reason Extremely Well Mathematically: Smpy's Accelerative Approach”, Julian C. Stanley ( )
1976-solano.pdf: “College Courses and Educational Facilitation of the Gifted”, Cecilia H. Solano, William C. George ( )
1976-smith.pdf: “My Introduction To Computing”, Daniel W. Smith ( )
1976-montour.pdf: “Merrill Kenneth Wolf: a Bachelor's Degree At 14”, Kathleen Montour ( )
1976-george.pdf: “Accelerating Mathematics Instruction for the Mathematically Talented”, William C. George ( )
1976-cohn.pdf: “Individualizing Science Curricula for the Gifted”, Sanford J. Cohn ( )
1976-solano-2.pdf: “Teacher and Pupil Stereotypes of Gifted Boys and Girls”, Cecelia H. Solano ( )