The idea that one individual could have outstanding gifts with a coexisting disability is less than one century old. In 1923, Hollingworth argued for recognizing students’ individual differences and described students who were gifted and demonstrated learning deficiencies. Maker’s (1977) book about gifted handicapped students was the first to highlight the dual diagnosis of gifted individuals with disabilities. However, legislation and the fields of gifted education and learning disabilities remained mutually exclusive for decades (Baldwin, Baum, Pereles, & Hughes, 2015). Neither the No Child Left Behind Act (2002) nor the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2004) contain a definition for a twice-exceptional (2e) child—one who is gifted and has a disability. Recently, the Twice-Exceptional Community of Practice (2eCoP) proposed this definition (Baldwin et al., 2015):
Twice exceptional individuals evidence exceptional ability and disability, which results in a unique set of circumstances. Their exceptional ability may dominate, hiding their disability; their disability may dominate, hiding their exceptional ability; each may mask the other so that neither is recognized or addressed. (p. 212)
The definition also included the importance of using specialized methods of identification, enriched/advanced educational opportunities, and simultaneous supports to ensure success.
As mentioned in the 2eCoP definition, twice-exceptional youth are difficult to identify. Underidentification may be due to the lack of universally accepted assessment(s) to identify 2e individuals (Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, & Stinson, 2011), and an individual’s giftedness can mask his or her disabilities, which often results in average performance—too low for traditional gifted education programs and too high for special education services (Berninger & Abbott, 2013). Even if 2e students are identified, educators tend to focus on remediating students’ weaknesses and practically ignore their talents and strengths (Dole, 2000).
To identify potential articles related to 2e students, five gifted education journals were searched: Gifted Child Quarterly, Gifted Child Today, Journal of Advanced Academics, Journal for the Education of the Gifted, and Roeper Review. To be considered for inclusion, articles must have been empirical studies (i.e., have methods, results, and discussion sections), be published within the past 10 years (2008–2018), and examine a topic related to 2e students. Empirical studies were excluded if they were conducted outside of the United States or if the research did not primarily focus on 2e students. Using these criteria, 22 articles were identified and summarized. Twelve articles used quantitative research methods, nine articles reported on qualitative research, and the remaining article summarized a 20-year empirical review of the literature relating to 2e students with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD), Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), and Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD; Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011). Research participants included 2e students, their parents, teachers, administrators, school counselors, and other G/T educators.
Twice-Exceptional Incidence
To date, it is not clear how many students are twice-exceptional. Researchers provide conservative estimates of 2e students ranging from 2% to 5% of children with disabilities (Nielsen, 2002) or up to 7% of students with disabilities (Trail, 2010). Barnard-Brak, Johnsen, Pond Hannig, and Wei (2015) examined the incidence of giftedness using a nationally representative dataset and estimated that 9.1% of children with identified disabilities scored above the 90th percentile on standardized achievement assessments. The researchers indicated this percentage underestimates the population because disabilities often lower achievement scores and, therefore, conclude that 2e students are “definitely underidentified” (p. 78).
Twice-Exceptional Characteristics
Five studies examined characteristics of 2e students or differences between gifted students compared to 2e individuals. For example, the use of metacognitive skills in reading comprehension was assessed using a think-aloud task with 2e students with a learning disability (Hannah & Shore, 2008). Results indicated that high school students used more metacognitive strategies than late-elementary students, yet the older students were less confident in their abilities. In a comparison study, G/T students with ADHD symptoms had poorer working memory but demonstrated higher creativity than G/T students without ADHD symptoms (Fugate, Zentall, & Gentry, 2013). Bell, Taylor, McCallum, Coles, and Hays (2015) also found differences in performance. They compared students whose achievement was at the 84th percentile or above on end-of-year standardized state assessments. Students who had a discrepancy demonstrating deficits in reading were more likely to score lower on both the end-of-year reading and math assessments than students who had math strengths without a reading weakness. On the other hand, Berninger and Abbott (2013) compared the performance of verbally-gifted students with dyslexia to students with dyslexia with average verbal reasoning and found that the 2e students performed significantly better on spelling individual words, reading skills, and two measures of working memory, suggesting that high verbal reasoning abilities may mask dyslexia. Gilger and Olulade (2013) suggested that comparing assessment outcomes is only partially illuminating because underlying neurological processes may result in similar outcomes. Although gifted students with reading disabilities performed similarly to gifted students on an intelligence test, their fMRI functional profiles suggested they process spatial and written stimuli differently.
Characteristics of 2e Students From Diverse Backgrounds
Given that Black students are underrepresented in gifted education (Ford, 2013), it is not surprising that little research had previously considered the experiences of 2e minority children. Mayes and Moore (2016) provided an opportunity for artistically gifted 2e Black high school students and their parents to tell their stories of how they perceive their gifted and disability identities and experiences. Mayes and Moore’s findings suggested that students perceived their disability identity more strongly than their gifted identity, with students reporting internalized feelings of isolation, disengagement, and concern about their ability to be successful. In his autoethnography, Robinson (2017) described his experience as a gifted Black male with dyslexia. He reported on his school experience as an outsider due to his learning disability (LD) and race, but became motivated by giftedness and his ability to learn to read. He concludes that studying 2e students from underrepresented minorities is important for helping these students reach their potential.
Twice-Exceptional Identification
One study provided a method to potentially identify 2e students. McCallum et al. (2013) used Response to Intervention (RtI) initial math and reading screeners. A student who scored above the 84th percentile on a reading screener, but had a significant discrepancy in his or her math score (or vice versa), was potentially twice-exceptional. Using these criteria, approximately 10% of the third-grade sample would have been referred for further 2e evaluation.
Many more articles examined barriers to identifying and serving 2e students. Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, and Colangelo’s (2013) survey results indicated that psychologists, special educators, and classroom teachers were less familiar with twice-exceptionality than gifted specialists, implying that more professional development is needed. Educator misconceptions or overlapping characteristics might also prevent 2e students from being correctly identified. Similarly, Wood (2012) suggested that gifted students might be at risk for overidentification of ADHD with tests that are not sensitive to 2e students. Given the similarities between a highly gifted girl with ASD and a highly gifted girl without ASD, Assouline, Nicpon, and Doobay (2009) also highlighted the potential for misidentification. Moreover, services are limited when students are not identified. The Belin-Blank Center identified 14 gifted students with SLD; however, one was receiving special education services only, and eight were receiving gifted services only (Assouline, Nicpon, & Whiteman, 2010).
Twice-Exceptional Students’ Self-Perceptions
Three studies examined the self-concept or self-perceptions of 2e youth. Barber and Mueller (2011) compared self-perceptions of 2e students to nonidentified students, gifted students, and students with learning disabilities. Compared to nonidentified and gifted students, 2e students had less favorable self-concepts and viewed their relationships with their mothers less positively, suggesting that twice-exceptionality potentially impacts family relationships. Similarly, another study found that gifted students with ADHD were 2 times more likely to report a lower self-esteem than their gifted peers (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, Rickels, & Richards, 2012). On the other hand, in the Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, and Fosenburg (2015) study, self-concept ratings for gifted students with ASD and gifted students with SLD fell within normal ranges. Given that nonidentified students with ASD or SLD have reported lower self-esteem in prior research, the researchers suggested that the presence of giftedness might have positively moderated how these 2e students felt about themselves.
Educational Services for Twice-Exceptional Learners
Two qualitative studies considered 2e students’ educational experiences through the lens of parents, educators, and parents. Schultz’s (2012) study identified obstacles and factors that facilitated 2e high school students’ enrollment in Advanced Placement (AP) and dual-credit classes. He reported that open enrollment and a supportive school culture are more likely to support 2e students in advanced classes than schools that view advanced classes as being for gifted or honors students only. Baum, Schader, and Hébert’s (2014) case study reported on the experiences of 17 students who had entered a private school for 2e students in middle school and subsequently completed graduation requirements. A thematic evaluation of data resulted in benefits of school talent development participation and five factors that facilitated students’ development—a psychologically safe school environment, individual pacing, patience with asynchronous behaviors, positive relationships, and using student strengths to develop talents.
Parents’ Experiences With Twice Exceptional Students
Three studies used qualitative research to describe the experiences of parents/caregivers. Parents of gifted children with ASD reported difficulties in obtaining appropriate educational services for their 2e children (Rubenstein, Schelling, Wilczynski, & Hooks, 2015). Expressing disappointment and frustration with perceived school system barriers, parents become advocates for their 2e children (Besnoy et al., 2015). Mothers of academically successful 2e children assisted their children to maximize their potential by seeking educational support, teaching the child to self-advocate, and maintaining expectations for achievement (Neumeister, Yssel, & Burney, 2013). Researchers pointed out the need for trustworthy resources that all stakeholders can access in learning more about 2e students.
Conclusion
Clearly, there is much room for a broader and deeper understanding of twice-exceptionality. These researchers have contributed toward advancing knowledge related to identifying, understanding, and serving 2e students, their families, and educators. Keeping abreast of research and best practices related to 2e youth will help us understand and serve these often underidentified and misunderstood students.
Literature Review
Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Doobay, A. (2009). Profoundly gifted girls and autism spectrum disorder. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 89–105.
In order to examine nuances in social difficulties between a highly gifted girl with ASD and a highly gifted peer without ASD, researchers used a case study to examine the students’ performance differences on various assessments. The researchers concluded that many socially impaired students often are misdiagnosed, either as having ASD or as gifted, when, in fact, they are highly intelligent but lack intellectually similar peers in reality or their profiles are clinically consistent with ASD. Both preadolescent girls in this study demonstrated superior cognitive abilities and achievement, scoring above the 98th percentile on aptitude and achievement measures. The female diagnosed with ASD scored markedly lower on measures of processing speed, selective attention, inhibition, facial recognition, and the ability to correctly identify the emotions portrayed by facial expressions. Although the girl with ASD perceived her adaptive and psychosocial functioning within normal levels, her mother perceived her daughter’s coping, interpersonal communication, hyperactivity, atypicality, attention, social proficiency, daily living skills, and functional communication abilities as below age-level expectations. With respect to teacher evaluations, both girls exhibited depression and withdrawal, but the scales for the female with ASD were also elevated for problems with attention, aggression, adaptability, social skills, and leadership. The results highlight the importance of obtaining a comprehensive evaluation in obtaining an accurate diagnosis because the diagnosis is crucial for addressing a student’s strengths and vulnerabilities.
Assouline, S. G., Nicpon, M. F., & Whiteman, C. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 102–115. doi:10.1177/0016986209355974
With the purpose of describing academic, cognitive, and affective characteristics of 2e students, students with learning problems or severe social impairments were recruited. Of the 77 students assessed, 14 students met the criteria for giftedness and for an SLD of written expression. Participants, on average, demonstrated superior verbal comprehension compared to significantly lower achievement in written language and visual-motor integration. Interestingly, slightly more than half (57%, n = 8) received G/T services, only one (7%) received special education services, and 36% (n = 5) did not receive either service. This evidence supports the authors’ assertion that many 2e students are overlooked and/or underserved because their disability is often masked by their intellectual giftedness, resulting in performance in the average range—too high to be noticed for disability screening, but too low to be referred for G/T assessment. With respect to psychosocial functioning, most of the students scored within the normal range, but some children had co-occurring problems with externalization (e.g., atypical behaviors). Whereas teachers’ rating scale scores indicated at-risk for attention problems, atypicality, and behavioral symptoms, parents indicated hyperactivity, withdrawal, adaptability, and behavioral symptoms. The authors suggested that a discrepancy model (where ability is compared to achievement) is crucial for examining if a student’s academic struggles are a result of a disability. An individual comprehensive evaluation that includes psychosocial measures completed by various individuals (e.g., parent, teacher, and self-report) is also helpful in developing appropriate educational and potential psychosocial recommendations.
Barber, C., & Mueller, C. T. (2011). Social and self-perceptions of adolescents identified as gifted, learning disabled, and twice-exceptional. Roeper Review, 33, 109–120. doi:10.1080/02783193.2011.554158
This research examined differences between gifted, LD, 2e, and nonidentified students on self-concept and social measures. The authors used 90 2e students identified from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health dataset and matched this sample with other same-sex students who were similar in ethnicity, age, and maternal education. The authors created three other groups of 90 adolescents who were identified as gifted only, LD only, or were not identified (a control group). Adolescent perceptions of belonging at school did not differ based on the presence or absence of an exceptionality. On self-concept measures, 2e students and students with LD reported lower self-concepts compared to gifted or nonidentified peers. Twice-exceptional students, however, perceived less positive relationships with their mothers than gifted students, those with learning disabilities only, or nonidentified adolescents. Increasing levels of maternal support was more beneficial to gifted students than to 2e students’ self-concept. This research demonstrated how the presence of exceptionalities may potentially impact family relationships, leading the researchers to suggest that the failure of a 2e student to rise to parental expectations may change the way mothers interact with their children and negatively impact 2e students’ perceived quality of the maternal relationship. Study results implied that 2e students who may need the most support from their mothers are the least likely to obtain it. Given possible grim consequences of a 2e student’s perceived lack of familial support, parents need to be educated about the unique needs of 2e children. Teachers and counselors are also urged to consider ways to provide additional encouragement to 2e students who may not perceive emotional support at home. The authors indicated the need for continued research examining 2e students’ out-of-school social relationships.
Barnard-Brak, L., Johnsen, S. K., Pond Hannig, A., & Wei, T. (2015). The incidence of potentially gifted students within a special education population. Roeper Review, 37, 74–83. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1008661
The study examined the incidence of twice-exceptionality in the population. With a criterion score at the 90th percentile or higher on a measure of achievement (e.g., Woodcock-Johnson III), 330 students were identified as 2e using a nationally representative dataset of special education students, indicating approximately 9.1% of American students with an identified disability could be considered 2e using these criteria. Of the students who could be considered 2e, only 11% of the children received G/T services. Students with hearing, visual, orthopedic, and speech impairments were more likely to receive G/T services than students with other impairments. Hispanic, Black, and female 2e students were significantly less likely to receive gifted and talented services than male, Asian, and/or Caucasian students. Furthermore, students who had more than one disability, a learning disability, or an intellectual disability were significantly less likely to be involved in G/T programming. This research supports the assertion that 2e students are underidentified and underserved in gifted programs. Possible reasons for this include masked giftedness resulting from the disability or masked disability because of the student’s intellectual giftedness. Given the use of an achievement assessment in this study for G/T classification (rather than an aptitude test), the percentage of 2e students who had specific learning disabilities were likely underestimated.
Baum, S. M., Schader, R. M., & Hébert, T. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 311–327. doi:10.1177/0016986214547632
The goal of this qualitative case study was to understand the experiences of individuals who attended a strengths-based private school for 2e students. During the students’ (n = 10) senior year, researchers analyzed student files as well as conducted focus groups and semi-structured interviews with parents, teachers, and students. Students had superior intelligence, were from middle to high-socioeconomic status families, were predominantly Caucasian (n = 9) and male (n = 8), and most students had multiple disabilities. None had thrived in their previous educational environments, typically arriving at the school experiencing high stress levels. Educators stayed focused on a collaborative, student-centered framework, the Multiperspectives Process Model (MPPM), to guide individualized planning for each student. The MPPM highlighted the student’s interests and talents while considering the interactions of the student’s disabilities, learning differences, social/emotional readiness, and family context. All of the students experienced cognitive, emotional, and social growth, but the growth was sporadic and not necessarily a linear trajectory. For example, student gains were most significant when students’ disabilities did not interfere with their interests and talents (e.g., if a budding thespian’s low working memory did not prohibit learning the script) and when school and family philosophy/goals were congruent. Allowing students to develop at their own pace and not rushing to meet grade-level expectations, open-
mindedness, and patience with asynchronous behaviors, a psychologically safe school atmosphere and an encouraging environment using student strengths promoted growth. Many positive student outcomes were associated with the program including feelings of social belonging; providing a way to develop coping skills for cognitive, emotional, and/or social difficulties; developing relationships with adults in talent areas; and a growing expertise in areas of student interest and talent. Findings support the use of a collaborative strengths- and interest-based framework for developing the talents of 2e students.
Bell, S. M., Taylor, E. P., McCallum, R. S., Coles, J. T., & Hays, E. (2015). Comparing prospective twice-exceptional students with high-performing peers on high-stakes tests of achievement. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38, 294–317. doi:10.1177/0162353215592500
The performance of prospective 2e students was compared to potentially gifted learners in this study. Of 1,242 students, participants were considered as potentially 2e if they performed above the 84th percentile on an RtI screener in either math or reading and scored significantly lower than expected on the other subject. The potentially gifted students scored above the 84th percentile in one subject and did not demonstrate a significant weakness in the other subject. Of the high-performing math students, 16% demonstrated math strengths accompanied by a reading weakness (potential 2e). Approximately 25% of the high-performing reading students also had math weakness. Not surprisingly, subject-specific scores on the screener were positively correlated with end-of-year performance on the state assessment in the same subject area. However, the potentially 2e students (with math strengths) scored significantly lower than the gifted math students on both the state reading and the math assessments. By implication, reading deficits may mask the potential math giftedness for 2e students, possibly due to language requirements necessary to accurately understand and respond to math questions on state assessments. Educators and decision makers must be aware that math assessments that require reading will likely yield lower math scores for those with potential reading disabilities. Teachers should keep in mind that 2e students might be identified by evidence of talent accompanied by demonstrations of learned helplessness, frustration in the lack of ability to master a certain academic skill, depression, hypersensitivity, and/or low self-esteem. Strength-based interventions that capitalize the gifts of a 2e learner while remediating deficits are most effective.
Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2013). Differences between children with dyslexia who are and are not gifted in verbal reasoning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 223–233. doi:10.1177/0016986213500342
In order to examine differences in presentation of dyslexia associated with differences in verbal reasoning abilities, a group of multigenerational students with dyslexia and with superior verbal reasoning scores (i.e., 120 or higher, n = 33) were compared to a group of multigenerational students with dyslexia who scored in the average range just below the mean (i.e., 90 to 99, n = 33). The groups were fairly similar with respect to hallmark-dyslexia indicators and demographic composition; slightly more than 60% of participants were male and, on average, were 11 years old. Students with dyslexia and with superior verbal reasoning performed much better on two measures of working memory (oral morphological coding and syntactic coding), reading individual words, and spelling. Because students with dyslexia and with superior verbal reasoning may be able to perform within the average range on measures of oral and written skills, these findings suggest the diagnosis or impact of dyslexia could easily be missed if only the students who have the lowest spelling and word reading achievement are screened. This masked disability will typically result in underachievement relative to the students’ skills. Yet all students with dyslexia have core impairment deficits in verbal processing components and working memory, invisible to others, which require the exertion of more cognitive effort to complete reading and writing tasks. Suggested tailored instructional strategies for 2e students in grades 4 to 9 were provided, such as clapping to identify the number of syllables in words, writing the alphabet letters that come before and after a given letter, focusing attention on specific parts of words, using all of the allotted time to respond to teacher writing prompts, using self-checking strategies, and using feedback to set goals.
Besnoy, K. D., Swoszowski, N. C., Newman, J. L., Floyd, A., Jones, P., & Byrne, C. (2015). The advocacy experiences of parents of elementary age, twice-
exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 108–123. doi:10.1177/0016986215569275
Researchers used grounded theory methodology in order to understand the advocacy experiences of parents (n = 8) of 2e children (n = 6). All participating parents had earned, at a minimum, a bachelor’s degree. Their 2e Caucasian children were in grades 4 to 6, not eligible for free/reduced lunch, and were identified with ASD, OCD, or a visual perceptive LD. Parents typically indicated noticing their child’s advanced academic abilities at least 2 years before realizing the child’s disabilities. Realizing the potential lifelong implications for their child’s well-being, parents were naturally concerned about limitations resulting from their child’s disability and desirous of protecting their child’s giftedness. Although these parents eagerly chose public schools because they believed that school educators would act in their child’s best interests, over time they lost confidence that the school professionals were, in fact, acting in that manner. Many parents sought an official diagnosis outside the school system and were troubled when the school refused to accept these reports and frustrated by the bureaucratic steps to obtain appropriate interventions. Parents perceived that their perspectives were not initially appreciated and contended that the schools were not always providing the services that were agreed upon. As a result, parents sought to educate themselves on terminology (e.g., IEP, 504, referral, etc.), and special education policies and practices by scouring the Internet for knowledge and reaching out to peers and community resources in order to engage in active and vocal advocacy for their 2e child. As parents’ lack of knowledge hindered advocacy efforts, it is important for parents of a 2e child to become informed about special education services so that they develop confidence, expertise, and the ability to effectively advocate for their child. The researchers concluded by emphasizing the necessity of school-parent collaboration, the value of establishing an online trustworthy centralized resource for all stakeholders that provides 2e resources, and encouraging professional development and teacher education programs to raise awareness of twice-exceptionality.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Allmon, A., Sieck, B., & Stinson, R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 3–17. doi:10.1177/0016986210382575
Although many articles have been written about gifted students with disabilities, a review of the literature from 1990–2009 only resulted in finding 43 empirical studies regarding 2e students with SLD (n = 21), ADHD (n = 17), and ASD (n = 5). Researchers used qualitative (n = 12), quantitative (n = 27), or both qualitative and quantitative research methods (n = 4). Given that the methods for diagnosing giftedness and for disability vary, making comparisons across studies is difficult. Accordingly, the researchers called for methodologically rigorous studies using quantitative methodology, with clearly specified criteria for inclusion that examine 2e identification, interventions, and treatments. Although patterns of twice-exceptionality occur, this review suggested that one unified profile of twice-exceptionality does not appear to exist. The authors suggested cross-discipline research that draws upon existing ASD, SLD, and ADHD literature and includes neuroimaging, randomized control studies, and larger samples. In the meantime, educational environments should use a strengths-based approach and build supportive networks for 2e students at school, at home, and in extracurricular activities, allowing these individuals to build upon positive experiences.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Colangelo, N. (2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 169–180. doi:10.1177/0016986213490021
In this study, survey research was conducted to examine the educators’ familiarity with policies and practices for 2e students and their experience with this population. Participants (n = 317), from 40 different states, including G/T specialists (n = 93), classroom teachers (n = 56), psychologists (n = 33), special education teachers (n = 25), and other (n = 110), completed the 14-item anonymous online questionnaire. Not surprisingly, respondents were most familiar with guidelines that were closely related to their profession. Overall, more than one-third of respondents had no knowledge about their state’s position related to the RtI model for gifted services. More than 92% of respondents had at least some experience with gifted students with ADHD or emotional difficulties. Respondents were the least familiar with 2e students diagnosed with learning disabilities or autism spectrum disorder (15% and 22% reported no experience, respectively). Participants were generally confident in their ability to make an appropriate referral for services. Specific factors considered when referring for a 2e diagnosis were ranked from most important to least important: performance on class work, classroom behavioral difficulties, parents’ concerns, cognitive ability assessment score, performances on class assessments, peer relationships, performance on Iowa Test of Basic Skills, and outside activities. With respect to the prevalence of twice-exceptionalities, 67% of respondents believed that less than 10% of gifted students were 2e. Respondents believed the primary difficulties for 2e students included social problems with peers (31%), coordinating services among professionals (23%), and academic difficulties (21%). The researchers concluded by encouraging professional development opportunities for professionals outside of gifted education.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., & Fosenburg, S. (2015). The relationship between self-concept, ability, and academic programming among twice-exceptional youth. Journal of Advanced Academics, 26, 256–273.
Researchers compared the self-concept profiles of 2e students who scored at the 90th percentile on an intelligence test and were diagnosed with either an SLD (n = 11) or ASD (n = 53). Students with SLD or ASD scored similarly and fell within the average range on all six domains of self-concept as measured by the Piers-Harris-2. Given previous research demonstrating that students with disabilities have a lower self-concept, the researchers hypothesized that either (a) the presence of giftedness served to mitigate students’ self-concept or (b) 2e participants with ASD or SLD may have a positive illusory bias. Next, the relationship between ability, self-concept, and educational services and interventions were examined. The only self-concept measure that significantly correlated to an intelligence index measure was processing speed and popularity. Although also incongruent with previous research with gifted students, participants’ self-concept had no relationship to participation in gifted programming; therefore, it appears educational interventions targeted toward participants’ strengths do not impact the self-concept of these 2e students possibly due to limited personal insight. Four of the six self-concept measures were positively correlated with the exception of behavioral difficulties that did not impact participants’ peer relationships or their perceived physical attractiveness. Students with higher verbal comprehension scores were more likely to participate in G/T programming and whole-grade acceleration, and students with higher working memory scores were more likely to participate in G/T programming and single subject acceleration. The researchers emphasized the need for ongoing research to investigate if other 2e students’ perceptions are similar.
Foley-Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., Rickels, H., & Richards, A. (2012). Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students with ADHD.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 220–240. doi:
10.1177/0162353212451735
This study was the first to examine directly the self-concept and self-esteem of gifted individuals who have ADHD compared to gifted students who do not have ADHD. All participants (n = 112), ages 6 to 18, were intellectually gifted, scoring above the 91st percentile on the WISC-IV or the WAIS-III; 48% (n = 54) were diagnosed with ADHD. Two-thirds of both the gifted/ADHD group and the gifted group were males and the majority identified as Caucasian. More than half (n = 25) of the gifted/ADHD students had a comorbid psychological diagnosis such as anxiety, depression, adjustment disorder, or a learning disorder; none of the gifted-only students had a psychological disorder. Both groups scored similarly on measures of interpersonal relationships, social stress, ability to deal with anxiety, as well as perceptions of physical appearance, intelligence, and popularity, but gifted/ADHD students were 2 times more likely to report having a low self-esteem. The gifted/ADHD group scored significantly lower on measures of overall happiness possibly because of the relationship between self-esteem and happiness. Consistent with prior research, the gifted-only students had a high self-concept related to their intelligence and behaviors. These findings suggest that being identified as gifted may serve a protective measure on some aspects of self-confidence. The researchers contended that knowing a 2e student’s self-concept profile aids in formulating appropriate educational interventions. Providing a supportive environment and teaching strategies to compensate for ADHD symptoms is important because low self-esteem could negatively influence future postsecondary decisions of 2e students in spite of their high cognitive abilities.
Fugate, C. M., Zentall, S. S., & Gentry, M. (2013). Creativity and working memory in gifted students with and without characteristics of attention deficit hyperactive disorder: Lifting the mask. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 234–246. doi:10.1177/0016986213500069
Prior research has indicated that students with ADHD have lower working memory but demonstrate greater creativity. As a greater working memory should assist in holding and manipulating information in the mind to create novel ideas, these findings seem paradoxical. To investigate this enigma further, this study compared the working memory and creativity of intellectually gifted students with ADHD characteristics (n = 17) with those without ADHD characteristics (n = 20). Both groups were similar on measures of average fluid intelligence and average age (ranging from 10–17). Congruent with prior research, the results indicated the gifted students with ADHD characteristics had lower working memory but scored significantly higher on overall creativity as measured by the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking compared to the gifted students without ADHD. In the gifted-ADHD sample, 41% scored 90th percentile or higher on the Creativity Index score. These findings suggest enhanced creativity in above-average intelligence students with ADHD characteristics, however, the researchers acknowledge the small sample size was a research limitation. The research implies that the use of creativity assessments may be helpful in identifying more 2e gifted students with ADHD. Educational environments for these students should use these creativity strengths as a learning pathway while continuing to cultivate their creativity.
Gilger, J. W., & Olulade, O. A. (2013). What happened to the “superior abilities” in adults with dyslexia and high IQs? A behavioral and neurological illustration. Roeper Review, 35, 241–253. doi:10.1080/02783193.2013.825365
Although individuals’ test scores are often the criteria used by educators for making decisions regarding grade promotion, their results do not necessarily identify any underlying cognitive or neurological processes. The researchers, therefore, sought to investigate if the underlying neurology of high-IQ reading-disabled students is similar to that of high-IQ students without a reading disability. Fourteen college students with normal verbal IQs and high-performance IQs (at or above 120) participated in the study, including five nonverbally gifted normal readers (G) and nine nonverbally gifted reading disabled(GRD). Although the GRD mean scores were within the average range, the G group performed significantly better than the GRD group on spelling, word recognition, reading comprehension, and reading fluency measures. Practically speaking, the GRD participants appeared to be satisfactory readers, when in reality, they had an ongoing struggle, attempting to use their strengths to compensate for their reading skills weakness. Not surprisingly given their disability, GRD students were significantly slower and less accurate on their fMRI word tasks. G students unexpectedly performed significantly better on the fMRI spatial relationship tasks. The fMRI results also showed different brain activation profiles between groups for both the reading and spatial tasks. Given these findings, the researchers hypothesize that the GRD adult brain processes spatial and written stimuli differently (overrelying on atypical regions) as a result of reading compensatory strategies accumulated over a lifetime. Although scoring similarly on specific IQ measures, the 2e adults had different behavior and functional profiles, implying they also had unique educational needs compared to similarly gifted peers. The authors concluded that homogeneously grouping children by standardized test scores might not be ideal because of the heterogeneous neurological and developmental differences within and between groups with and without disabilities.
Hannah, C. L., & Shore, B. M. (2008). Twice-exceptional students’ use of metacognitive skills on a comprehension monitoring task. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 3–18.
This exploratory qualitative research investigated how 2e students used metacognitive skills to understand a section of reading material that was deliberately altered to hinder comprehension (unfamiliar vocabulary, two internal inconsistencies, and two expected prior knowledge violations [e.g., automobiles in 1647]). Gifted participants (earning >128 on an intelligence assessment) also had a diagnosed LD (but not necessarily a reading disability). Six males in grades 5 or 6 who read at a third-grade level or higher and six males in grades 11 or 12 who read at a fourth-grade level or higher were selected for inclusion. After practicing the think-aloud strategy, students were asked to read a sentence for understanding and describe their thoughts before proceeding. Most students actively monitored their comprehension, evaluated their performance, and employed the use of background knowledge. The look-back strategy helped students to self-monitor comprehension of new vocabulary, to assess inferences, or to clarify surprising information. Students also used grammatical structural information, context clues, visual imagery, and skimmed or reread the text. Older students were typically more active in metacognitive attempts when confronted with comprehension difficulties. Yet when faced with an obvious inconsistency in the factual matter, the older students were more likely to attribute the comprehension problem to their lack of ability rather than a textual problem compared to the upper elementary students. Perhaps as a result of years of struggling and repeated failures with their disability, older 2e students lack confidence in their abilities. In addition to individualized programs that build upon their strengths, the authors suggested concurrently teaching 2e students specific metacognitive and critical reading strategies to improve their reading performance.
Mayes, R. D., & Moore, J. L. (2016). Adversity and pitfalls of twice-
exceptional urban learners. Journal of Advanced Academics, 27, 167–189.
Given the paucity of research related to African American 2e students, the researchers used a grounded theory analysis of interviews to examine how the experiences and perceptions of artistically gifted Black high school students with a disability (n = 8) and their mothers (n = 3). Gifted students at a large Midwestern urban district were identified and provided services specific to their identified area of giftedness: dance (n = 3), instrumental (n = 2), vocal (n = 2), or visual arts. Students reported negative self-perceptions (e.g., stupid, slow, dumb) and feelings of isolation after being identified with a disability, causing them to use coping strategies, such as social withdrawal or skipping class. Most mothers were originally in denial after special education identification and thought that trying harder would fix their child’s problems. Parents responded by getting outside support or seeking more information about their child’s special needs. Only one student was aware of his gifted identification. Upon learning of the identification, five of the seven indicated feeling increased confidence and appreciation of being recognized. Because of the disability, however, parents and most students expressed anxiety about the ability to be successful in school and in their future life. With the exception of one student, all perceived their disability as socially detrimental. Given the negative experiences participants’ associate with their disability, the authors indicated concern that students have internalized feelings of stupidity because negative self-perceptions combined with an anti-intellectual Black stereotype can lead to lower self-esteem, academic disengagement, and underachievement. As most were unaware of their gifted designation, students may not have received gifted services or the potential protective benefits from the designation by developing a gifted identity.
McCallum, R. S., Bell, S. M., Coles, J. T., Miller, K. C., Hopkins, M. B., & Hilton-Prillhart, A. (2013). A model
for screening twice-exceptional students (gifted with learning disabilities) within a Response to Intervention paradigm. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 209–222. doi:10.1177/0016986213500070
Given the difficulty in identifying 2e students, this research aimed to create a model that used Response to Intervention (RtI) to screen for 2e students and to determine the incidence of twice-exceptionality using the proposed model. The researchers suggested that a performance discrepancy between two core subjects (e.g., math and reading) might tentatively indicate twice-exceptionality. Three cohorts of third-grade students (n = 1,242) from a Southeastern school district (with 59% economically disadvantaged) participated. Using students’ observed scores, 1.1% of the students demonstrated a reading academic discrepancy (i.e., performing above the 84th percentile in math but below the 25th percentile in reading) and 1.1% exhibited an academic math discrepancy (i.e., performing above the 84th percentile in reading but below the 25th percentile in math). However, if the examiners considered a discrepancy of 1.5 standard deviations × standard error of measurement, then 4.8% of the students scoring above the 84th percentile demonstrated a reading discrepancy and 5.5% exhibited a math discrepancy, meaning almost 10% of students would have been identified for further testing for twice-exceptionality. Although the authors indicated RtI screening was designed to identify students at-risk of poor academic performance, the discrepancy model might also be used to screen for potential 2e students who have low-average academic performance in one subject area compared to very high performance in another subject. The obvious advantage of this model is that schools typically collect these data using curriculum-based measurements within the RtI framework.
Neumeister, K. S., Yssel, N., & Burney, V. H. (2013). The influence of primary caregivers in fostering success in twice-
exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 263–274. doi:10.1177/0016986213500068
To understand primary caregivers influence, mothers of 10 academically successful 2e children were recruited for participation in this qualitative study. These mothers parented 2e children ranging in age from 11 to 35 years old. Their child’s evidence of success included good grades, graduation from college, and/or graduate degrees. Participants’ gifted children had one or more disabilities (SLD = 4, ADHD = 4, ASD = 2, anxiety/depression = 1). Caregivers’ comments from semi-structured interviews were analyzed using a grounded theory approach. All mothers realized their child’s intellectual giftedness by preschool and were the first to recognize a problem indicating a disability, even in spite of initial reassurance from professionals that their children were doing fine. When their child was not flourishing, mothers were willing to go “the extra mile” in advocating and seeking additional supports, including tutoring, educational programs designed for 2e students, psychologists, and specific therapies. Although simultaneously sympathizing with the child about the challenges resulting from the disability, mothers kept high academic expectations. In summary, primary caregivers play a major role in recognizing their child’s gifts and disabilities. They provide additional support, high expectations, and advocacy, while modeling for their 2e children how to advocate for themselves. Given that the level of involvement described requires educated and motivated caregivers who have financial resources, the authors urge policymakers and educators to create systems for early identification and to provide opportunities to participate in gifted programming with necessary accommodations, especially for 2e children who may not have access to similar supports.
Robinson, S. A. (2017). Phoenix rising: An autoethnographic account of a gifted Black male with dyslexia. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 40, 135–151. doi:10.1177/0162353217701021
This qualitative study described the academic journey of a high-ability male with dyslexia and provided a theoretical model for explaining the intersections of multiple identities. The author/researcher was placed in special education for his anger “which related to not knowing how to read” (p. 144), but his dyslexia diagnosis was missed. Although he entered college reading at a third-grade level, he surpassed all expectations, earning a bachelor’s degree in 6 years, a master’s degree in 4 years, and a Ph.D. in 7 years. He examined research literature, chronicled significant stories in his academic journey, and articulated his lived experience using autoethnography. He used multiple lenses to analyze his personal experiences and his identity construction: critical race theory, dyslexic, gifted, twice-exceptional, and Black male. Four themes emerged from data analysis: (a) experiencing school as an outsider because of his LD and his race, (b) limited learning potential because of incorrect diagnosis, (c) achieving critical consciousness through learning to read, and (d) motivation from giftedness. The author presented a Triple Identity Theory that provided structure for his research. At the micro level, three overlapping circles represented the intersections of various facets of identity: race, giftedness, and disability. At the macro level, societal expectations, educational policies, and his reaction to that treatment had a bidirectional influence on the micro level. Because Black males are 2–3 times more likely to be in special education and underrepresented in gifted education, this research provided insight into serving underrepresented minority 2e students.
Rubenstein, L. D., Schelling, N., Wilczynski, S. M., & Hooks, E. N. (2015). Lived experiences of parents of gifted students with Autism Spectrum Disorder. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 283–298. doi:10.1177/0016986215592193
The lived experiences of 13 parents who had a gifted child diagnosed with ASD were investigated in this phenomenological study. Given the volume of data collected, this study specifically highlighted the shared educational experiences of these parents of their gifted children with ASD (12 with a son between 8–15, one with a 15-year-old daughter). Three education-related themes emerged from data analysis. First, participants’ children shared gifted/ASD characteristics that schools and families found challenging: (a) asynchronous development (especially evident between academic and social abilities, but also between subjects as well), which made adults have higher expectations that students could not meet in areas of their weakness; (b) high intelligence coupled with intensely focused interest, which led the child to monologue-type communication without regard for listener needs; (c) social deficits, which included an inability to express appreciation and excitement; and (d) meltdowns, which were triggered when rules were not followed or when schedules were irregular. Second, parents perceived that educators’ limited professional knowledge and schools’ structural inflexibility made it difficult to adequately address their child’s unique needs. Third, parents sought information outside of school to be better advocates. Finally, parenting was difficult even with typically developing children. Adding the additional roles of researcher, advocate, and supplementing instruction at home was even more fatiguing. The authors concluded that awareness of the four common characteristics was a good starting place for equipping educators to meet needs of gifted children with ASD.
Schultz, S. M. (2012). Twice-exceptional students enrolled in Advanced Placement classes. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 119–133. doi:
10.1177/0016986212444605
Because educators often focus on remediation for 2e students’ disabilities and ignore their strengths, 2e students may not have access to advanced coursework to adequately prepare them for postsecondary education. In this exploratory qualitative study, semi-structured interviews examined educators’ and parents’ perceptions regarding student enrollment in advanced placement (AP) and dual-enrollment courses. Participants included parents of a child with a disability who took an AP or dual-credit course (n = 12), teachers (n = 12), guidance counselors (n = 6), and college students who had previously enrolled in AP and/or dual-credit courses (n = 6). Six themes emerged from analysis of the interview transcripts. First, school culture impacted enrollment in advanced high school classes. For example, if educators perceived the AP classes were for the gifted/honors students or if teachers served as gatekeepers to access, students with disabilities would be less likely to take advanced classes. Similarly, educators appeared to interpret the College Board’s Equity Policy differently. Some districts eliminated barriers to participation, and other schools had strict guidelines that were perceived to limit selection bias (but resulted in few disabled students meeting the criteria). Third, educators did not explain the benefits of taking advanced classes in transitioning to college, even to those students with postsecondary plans. Fourth, parents and former students reported problems in accessing their accommodations in AP and dual-credit classes. Some teachers erroneously believed that accommodations were not permitted or were opposed to enrolling a student who required accommodations. Fifth, parents believed that their advocacy as early as elementary school was instrumental in providing an academic challenge in areas of strength that was necessary to access and prepare students for advanced high school classes. Sixth, mentors played an important role for students in providing encouragement and advising them to enroll in advanced high school classes. By implication, administrators might want to revisit policies and examine their institutional culture to assess if barriers are unduly thwarting enrollment in advanced high school classes or hampering the success of enrolled students. Teachers of advanced students might also benefit from further professional development regarding IEP and 504 plans.
Wood, S. C. (2012). Examining parent and teacher perceptions of behaviors exhibited by gifted students referred for ADHD diagnosis using the Conners 3 (An exploratory study). Roeper Review, 34, 194–204. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.686426
In order to examine parent and teacher perceptions of gifted children who displayed ADHD characteristics, this exploratory research compared parent and teacher ratings on the Conners 3rd Edition behavior rating scales. Scales were completed by 26 parents and seven teachers, providing comparisons for 21 second and third grade identified gifted students (76% male) who were “not thriving” (p. 197). Although none of the students had met school criteria for LD, five (24%) had been diagnosed with ADHD. Although the sample was purposefully selected because they were suspected of having LD that prevented them from thriving in gifted programming, average group scores on learning problems did not indicate atypical levels for inattention, hyperactive-impulsive behaviors, and executive function. The researchers suggested two explanations for these surprisingly average scores—either gifted students can mask their true disability by compensating with their intellectual giftedness (indicating that the assessment may not be valid for gifted students) or that the screening criteria used in this study to select participants overidentified learning problems. The researchers noted, however, that the generalizability of findings is limited because of the small sample size.
Additional References
Baldwin, L., Baum, S., Pereles, D., & Hughes, C. (2015). Twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Today, 38, 206–214. doi:10.1177/1076217515597277
Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23, 91–97.
Ford, D. Y. (2013). Recruiting and retaining culturally different students in gifted education. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Hollingworth, L. (1923). Special talents and defects: Their significance for education. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Library.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108-446, § 118 Stat. 2647 (2004).
Maker, C. J. (1977). Providing programs for the gifted handicapped individuals. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities: Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 92–111.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Trail, B. (2010). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Corina R. Kaul, M.A., received her B.S. degree from the University of Oregon, her master’s degree from Baylor University, and is currently a doctoral candidate in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University where she is specializing in gifted education and quantitative research. She is Assistant Director of the Center for Community and Learning and Enrichment and administers Baylor’s University for Young People, an enrichment program for gifted students, and the annual conference for K–12 educators of gifted children. She also assists in conducting program evaluations of district gifted programs. Her current research interests focus on 2e students, G/T program evaluation, gifted English language learners, low-income gifted students, first-generation gifted students, teachers of gifted students, and the affective needs of gifted learners. She may be reached at corina_kaul@baylor.edu.
Susan K. Johnsen, Ph.D., is a professor emeritus in the Department of Educational Psychology at Baylor University. She has written three tests used in identifying gifted students: Test of Mathematical Abilities for Gifted Students (TOMAGS), Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (TONI-4), and Screening Assessment for Gifted Students (SAGES-3). She is editor-in-chief of Gifted Child Today and author of more than 250 publications related to gifted education. She is past president of The Association for the Gifted (TAG) and past president of the Texas Association for the Gifted and Talented (TAGT). She has received awards for her work in the field of education, including NAGC’s President’s Award, CEC’s Leadership Award, TAG’s Leadership Award, TAGT’s President’s Award, and TAGT’s Advocacy Award.
