Terman’s study was the first to systematically document the lives of the intellectually gifted. This cross-sectional study replicates and extends some of Terman’s findings on characteristics of the gifted in childhood, comparing largely unselected samples of gifted (n = 50) and average-ability (n = 50) adolescents matched by means of propensity score matching. Students were compared on their school performance (standardized math and reading tests and grades), motivation (math ability self-concept, intrinsic motivation, vocational interests, and educational aspirations), parental educational expectations, students’ evaluation of school instruction (perceived quality and pressure), and subjective well-being. The gifted scored higher on math performance (rank-biserial r = .66/.81), math ability self-concept (.71), intrinsic motivation (.62), and investigative vocational interests (.65). Some smaller differences were found for realistic (.42) and social interests (–.37) and for pressure in math lessons (–.52). Results support Terman’s findings on gifted individuals’ psychological functioning and contradict negative stereotypes about the gifted.
AshC.HuebnerE. S. (1998).
Life satisfaction reports of gifted middle-school children. School Psychology Quarterly,
13(4), 310–321. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0088987
2.
AustinP. C. (2009).
Some methods of propensity-score matching had superior performance to others: results of an empirical investigation and Monte Carlo simulations. Biometrical Journal,
51(1), 171–184. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.200810488
3.
AustinP. C.GrootendorstP.AndersonG. M. (2007).
A comparison of the ability of different propensity score models to balance measured variables between treated and untreated subjects: A Monte Carlo study. Statistics in Medicine,
26(4), 734–753. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.2580
BeckerG. (1978). The mad genius controversy: A study in the sociology of deviance.
Sage.
6.
BennerA. D.BoyleA. E.SadlerS. (2016).
Parental involvement and adolescents’ educational success: The roles of prior achievement and socioeconomic status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
45(6), 1053–1064. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-016-0431-4
7.
BergmannC.EderF. (1999). Allgemeiner Interessen-Struktur-Test [General Structure of Interests Tests]. Beltz.
8.
BergoldS.WirthweinL.RostD. H.SteinmayrR. (2015).
Are gifted adolescents more satisfied with their lives than their non-gifted peers?Frontiers in Psychology,
6, Article 1623. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01623
9.
BergoldS.WirthweinL.SteinmayrR. (2018). Subjective well-being of intellectually gifted children and adolescents. In Gonzáles-BurgosI. (Ed.), Psychobiological, clinical, and educational aspects of giftedness (pp. 143–165).
Nova.
10.
BerlinJ. E. (2009).
It’s all a matter of perspective: Student perceptions on the impact of being labeled gifted and talented. Roeper Review,
31(4), 217–223. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190903177580
11.
BurksB. S.JensenD. W.TermanL. M. (1930). The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children.
Stanford University Press.
12.
CampbellJ. R.MandelF. (1990).
Connecting math achievement to parental influences. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
15(1), 64–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/0361-476X(90)90006-M
13.
CattellR. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action.
North-Holland.
14.
ChaeY.GentryM. (2011).
Gifted and general high school students’ perceptions of learning and motivational constructs in Korea and the United States. High Ability Studies,
22(1), 103–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2011.577275
ColemanL. J.MickoK. J.CrossT. L. (2015).
Twenty-five years of research on the lived experience of being gifted in school: Capturing the students’ voices. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
38(4), 358–376. 10.1177/0162353215607322
17.
DalbertC. (2003). Habituelle Subjektive Wohlbefindensskala (HSWBS) [Scale of habitual subjective well-being]. In SchumacherJ.KlaibergA.BrählerE. (Eds.), Diagnostische Verfahren zu Lebensqualität und Wohlbefinden (pp. 319–323).00Hogrefe.
DienerE. (2012).
New findings and future directions for subjective well-being research. American Psychologist,
67(8), 590–597. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0029541
20.
DienerE.FujitaF. (1995).
Resources, personal strivings, and subjective well-being: A nomothetic and idiographic approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
68(5), 926–935. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.5.926
21.
DittonH.KrüskenJ.SchauenbergM. (2005).
Bildungsungleichheit—der Beitrag von Familie und Schule [Educational disparities and the contribution of family and school]. Zeitschrift für Erziehungswissenschaft,
8(2), 285–304. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11618-005-0138-x
22.
EderF. (1998). Linzer Fragebogen zum Schul- und Klassenklima für die 8. bis 13. Klasse [Linz Questionnaire for school and class climate for Grades 8 to 13]. Hogrefe.
23.
FanX.NowellD. L. (2011).
Using propensity score matching in educational research. Gifted Child Quarterly,
55(1), 74–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210390635
24.
FlanaganJ. C.DaileyJ. T.ShaycoftM. F.GorhamW. A.OrrD. B.GoldbergI. (1962). Design for a study of American youth.
Houghton Mifflin.
Freund-BraierI. (2009). Persönlichkeitsmerkmale [Personality traits]. In RostD. H. (Ed.), Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche (2nd ed., pp. 161-210).Waxmann.
27.
FreyM. C.DettermanD. K. (2004).
Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the Scholastic Assessment Test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science,
15(6), 373–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x
28.
GallagherJ. J. (1990).
The public and professional perception of the social and emotional status of gifted children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
13(3), 202–211. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300302
29.
GentryM.RizzaM. G.OwenS. V. (2002).
Examining perceptions of challenge and choice in classrooms: The relationship between teachers and their students and comparisons among gifted students and other students. Gifted Child Quarterly,
46(2), 145–155. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620204600207
30.
GottfredsonL. S. (1997).
Mainstream science on intelligence: An editorial with 52 signatories, history, and bibliography. Intelligence,
24(1), 13–23. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(97)90011-8
31.
GottfriedA. E.GottfriedA. W. (1996).
A longitudinal study of academic intrinsic motivation in intellectually gifted children: Childhood through early adolescence. Gifted Child Quarterly,
40(4), 179–183. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629604000402
32.
GrahamS. E.KurlaenderM. (2011).
Using propensity scores in educational research: General principles and practical applications. Journal of Educational Research,
104(5), 340–353. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2010.486082
33.
HansenB. B.BowersJ. (2008).
Covariate balance in simple, stratified and clustered comparative studies. Statistical Science,
23(2), 219–236. https://doi.org/10.1214/08-STS254
34.
HerrmannJ.SchmidtI.KesselsU.PreckelF. (2016).
Big fish in big ponds: Contrast and assimilation effects on math and verbal self‐concepts of students in within‐school gifted tracks. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
86(2), 222–240. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12100
35.
HockettJ. A. (2009).
Curriculum for highly able learners that conforms to general education and gifted education quality indicators. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
32(3), 394–440. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2009-857
36.
HodgesJ.MunR.OverossM.OttweinJ. (2020).
Assessing the scholarly reach of Terman’s work. Gifted Child Quarterly.
37.
HogeR. D.RenzulliJ. S. (1993).
Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research,
63(4), 449–465. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543063004449
38.
HollandJ. L. (1997). Making vocational choices: A theory of vocational personalities and work environments (3rd ed.).
Psychological Assessment Resources.
39.
HolmesW. M. (2013). Using propensity scores in quasi-experimental designs.
Sage.
40.
HuebnerE. S.DienerC. (2008). Research on life satisfaction of children and youth. In EidM.LarsenR. J. (Eds.), The science of subjective well-being (pp. 376–392).
Guilford Press.
41.
IacusS. M.KingG.PorroG. (2012).
Causal inference without balance checking: Coarsened exact matching. Political Analysis,
20(1), 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr013
42.
JohnsonW.CarothersA.DearyI. J. (2008).
Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
3(6), 518–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x
JollyJ. L. (2008b).
Lewis Terman: Genetic study of genius: Elementary school students. Gifted Child Today,
31(2), 27–33. https://doi.org/10.4219/gct-2008-689
45.
KaufmanS. B.ReynoldsM. R.LiuX.KaufmanA. S.McGrewK. S. (2012).
Are cognitive g and academic achievement g one and the same g? An exploration on the Woodcock–Johnson and Kaufman tests. Intelligence,
40(2), 123–138. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2012.01.009
46.
KerbyD. S. (2014).
The simple difference formula: An approach to teaching nonparametric correlation.Comprehensive Psychology, 3, Article 1. https://doi.org/10.2466/11.IT.3.1
47.
KitsantasA.BlandL.ChirinosD. S. (2017).
Gifted students’ perceptions of gifted programs: An inquiry into their academic and social-emotional functioning. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
40(3), 266–288. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353217717033
48.
LazaridesR.ViljarantaJ.AunolaK.PesuL.NurmiJ.-E. (2016).
The role of parental expectations and students’ motivational profiles for educational aspirations. Learning and Individual Differences,
51(October), 29–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.08.024
49.
LekwaA. J.ReddyL. A.DudekC. M.HuaA. N. (2019).
Assessment of teaching to predict gains in student achievement in urban schools. School Psychology,
34(3), 271–280. https://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000293
50.
LitsterK.RobertsJ. (2011).
The self-concepts and perceived competencies of gifted and non-gifted students: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Special Education Needs,
11(2), 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-3802.2010.01166.x
51.
LubinskiD. (2016).
From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research,
86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
52.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006).
Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
53.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2020). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman? Gifted Child Quarterly.
54.
MarshH. W.PekrunR.MurayamaK.ArensA. K.ParkerP. D.GuoJ.DickeT. (2018).
An integrated model of academic self-concept development: Academic self-concept, grades, test scores, and tracking over 6 years. Developmental Psychology,
54(2), 263–280. http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/71299/3/Marsh%20et%20al_inpress_DP.pdf
55.
MarshH. W.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.KöllerO.BaumertJ. (2005).
Academic self-concept, interest, grades, and standardized test scores: Reciprocal effects models of causal ordering. Child Development,
76(2), 397–416. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00853.x
56.
MatheisS.KronborgL.SchmittM.PreckelF. (2017).
Threat or challenge? Teacher beliefs about gifted students and their relationship to teacher motivation.Gifted and Talented International,
32(2), 134–160. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2018.1537685
57.
MendezL. M. R.CrawfordK. M. (2002).
Gender-role stereotyping and career aspirations: A comparison of gifted early adolescent boys and girls. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
13(3), 96–107. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2002-375
58.
MoonT. R.BrightonC. M. (2008).
Primary teachers’ conceptions of giftedness. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
31(4), 447–480. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2008-793
59.
MorganS. L.WinshipC. (2015). Counterfactuals and causal inference: Methods and principles for social research.
Cambridge University Press.
60.
MoultonP.MoultonM.HousewrightM.BaileyK. (1998).
Gifted & talented: Exploring the positive and negative aspects of labeling. Roeper Review,
21(2), 153–154. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199809553950
61.
NeihartM. (1999).
The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say?Roeper Review,
22(1), 10–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199909553991
NeitzkeC.Röhr-SendlmeierU. M. (1992).
Achievement motivation of intellectually gifted students when confronted with challenging and unchallenging tasks. European Journal of High Ability,
3(2), 197–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/0937445920030208
Olszewski-KubiliusP. M.KuliekeM. J.KrasneyN. (1988).
Personality dimensions of gifted adolescents: A review of the empirical literature. Gifted Child Quarterly,
32(4), 347–352. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200403
66.
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. (2016). PISA 2015 results: Excellence and equity in education (Vol.
1).
Author.
67.
PaulusW.BlossfeldH.-P. (2007).
Schichtspezifische Präferenzen oder sozioökonomisches Entscheidungskalkül? Zur Rolle elterlicher Bildungsaspirationen im Entscheidungsprozess beim Übergang von der Grundschule in die Sekundarstufe [Class-specific preferences or socio-economic calculations in decision-making? On the role of parents’ educational aspirations in decision-finding at the point of transition from elementary to secondary school]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogik,
53(4), 491–508.
68.
PetersonJ. S. (2009).
Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly,
53(4), 280–282. 10.1177/0016986209346946
69.
PirracchioR.Resche-RigonM.ChevretS. (2012).
Evaluation of the propensity score methods for estimating marginal odds ratios in case of small sample size. BMC Medical Research Methodology,
12, Article 70. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-12-70
70.
PreckelF.GötzT.FrenzelA. (2010).
Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self‐concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 451–472. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
71.
Preckel, F., Götz, T., Pekrun, R., & Kleine, M. (2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls' and boys' achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 146-159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315834
72.
PreckelF.RachH.ScherrerV. (2016).
Self-concept changes in multiple self-concept domains of gifted students participating in a summer residential school.Gifted and Talented International,
31(2), 88–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2017.1304781
73.
PrenzelM.SälzerC.KliemeE.KöllerO. (Eds.). (2013). PISA 2012: Fortschritte und Herausforderungen in Deutschland [PISA 2012: Progress and challenges in Germany]. Waxmann.
RinnA. N.BishopJ. (2015).
Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly,
59(4), 213–235. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795
76.
RitaR. D.Martin-DunlopC. S. (2011).
Perceptions of the learning environment and associations with cognitive achievement among gifted biology students. Learning Environments Research,
14(1), 25–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10984-011-9080-4
77.
RobinsonA. (1990).
Does that describe me? Adolescents’ acceptance of the gifted label. Journal for the Education of the Gifted,
13(3), 245–255. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300305
78.
RobinsonN. M. (2005). In defense of a psychometric approach to the definition of academic giftedness: A conservative view from a die-hard liberal. In SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 280–294).
Cambridge University Press.
79.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983).
The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika,
70(1), 41–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/70.1.41
80.
RostD. H. (Ed.). (1993). Lebensumweltanalyse hochbegabter Kinder [Life-environmental analysis of gifted children]. Hogrefe.
81.
RostD. H. (Ed.). (2009). Hochbegabte und hochleistende Jugendliche. Befunde aus dem Marburger Hochbegabtenprojekt [Gifted and high achieving youths: Findings from the Marburg Giftedness Project]. Waxmann.
82.
RostD. H. (2013). Handbuch intelligenz [Handbook of intelligence]. Beltz.
83.
RothB.BeckerN.RomeykeS.SchäferS.DomnickF.SpinathF. M. (2015).
Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence,
53(November-December), 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002
RoznowskiM.ReithJ.HongS. (2000).
A further look at youth intellectual giftedness and its correlates: Values, interests, performance, and behavior. Intelligence,
28(2), 87–113. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(99)00032-X
86.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L. (2000).
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
SchererR.NilsenT.JansenM. (2016).
Evaluating individual students’ perceptions of instructional quality: An investigation of their factor structure, measurement invariance, and relations to educational outcomes. Frontiers in Psychology,
7, Article 110. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00110
89.
SchickH.PhillipsonS. N. (2009).
Learning motivation and performance excellence in adolescents with high intellectual potential: What really matters?High Ability Studies,
20(1), 15–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598130902879366
SchmidtS.EnnemoserM.KrajewskiK. (2012). Deutscher Mathematiktest für neunte Klassen [German mathematics test for ninth grade].
Hogrefe.
92.
SchneiderW.SchlagmüllerM.EnnemoserM. (2007). Lesegeschwindigkeits- und Verständnistest für die Klassen 6 bis 12 [Reading speed and comprehension test for Grades 6 to 12].
Hogrefe.
93.
SchöneC.DickhäuserO.SpinathB.Stiensmeier-PelsterJ. (2012). Skalen zur Erfassung des schulischen Selbstkonzepts [Scales for the assessment of academic self-concept].
Hogrefe.
ShaunessyE.SuldoS. M.HardestyR. B.ShafferE. J. (2006).
School functioning and psychological well-being of international baccalaureate and general education students: A preliminary examination. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education,
17(2), 76–89. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2006-683
96.
SirinS. R. (2005).
Socioeconomic status and academic achievement: A meta-analytic review of research. Review of Educational Research,
75(3), 417–453. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00346543075003417
StanatP.SegeritzM.ChristensenG. (2010). Schulbezogene Motivation und Aspiration von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit Migrationshintergrund [School-related motivation and aspiration of students with immigration background]. In BosW.KliemeE.KöllerO. (Eds.), Schulische Lerngelegenheiten und Kompetenzentwicklung: Festschrift für Jürgen Baumert (pp. 31–57).
Waxmann.
99.
StanleyJ. C. (1996). SMPY in the beginning. In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225–235).
Johns Hopkins University Press.
100.
SteinmayrR.DingerF. C.SpinathB. (2012).
Motivation as a mediator of social disparities in academic achievement. European Journal of Personality,
26(3), 335–349. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.842
101.
Steinmayr, R., Michels, J., & Weidinger, A. F. (2017). FA(IR)BULOUS: Faire Beurteilung des Leistungspotenzials von Schülerinnen und Schülern [FA(IR)BULOUS: Fair evaluation of students' academic potential]. Technische Universität Dortmund.
102.
SteinmayrR.SpinathB. (2008).
Sex differences in school achievement: What are the roles of personality and achievement motivation?European Journal of Personality,
22(3), 185–209. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.676
103.
SteinmayrR.SpinathB. (2010).
Konstruktion und erste Validierung einer Skala zur Erfassung subjektiver schulischer Werte (SESSW) [Construction and first validation of a scale assessing subjective educational task values]. Diagnostica,
56, 195–211. https://doi.org/10.1026/0012-1924/a000023
104.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.).
Cambridge University Press.
105.
StubbeT. C.SchwippertK.WendtH. (2016). Soziale Disparitäten der Schülerleistungen in Mathematik und Naturwissenschaften [Social disparities in student achievement in mathematics and science]. In WendtH.BosW.SelterC.KöllerO.SchwippertK.KasperD. (Eds.), TIMSS 2015: Mathematische und naturwissenschaftliche Kompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 299–316).
Waxmann.
106.
SubotnikR. F.ArnoldK. D. (Eds.). (1994). Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent.
Ablex.
107.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011).
Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
108.
SüdkampA.MöllerJ. (2009).
Referenzgruppeneffekte im Simulierten Klassenraum. Direkte und indirekte Einschätzungen von Schülerleistungen [Reference-group-effects in a simulated classroom: Direct and indirect judgments]. Zeitschrift für Pädagogische Psychologie,
23, 161–174. https://doi.org/10.1024/1010-0652.23.34.161
109.
TermanL. M. (1925). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children.
Stanford University Press.
110.
TermanL. M. (1954).
The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist,
9(6), 221–230. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0060516
111.
TermanL. M.OdenM. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group.
Stanford University Press.
112.
TettenbornA. (1996). Familien mit hochbegabten Kindern [Families with gifted children].
Waxmann.
113.
ThoemmesF. J.KimE. S. (2011).
A systematic review of propensity score methods in the social sciences. Multivariate Behavioral Research,
46(1), 90–118. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273171.2011.540475
114.
VanTassel-BaskaJ. (2003). Curriculum planning and instructional design for gifted learners.
Love.
115.
VockM.KöllerO.NagyG. (2013).
Vocational interests of intellectually gifted and highly achieving young adults. British Journal of Educational Psychology,
83(2), 305–328. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8279.2011.02063.x
116.
von HippelP. T. (2018).
How many imputations do you need? A two-stage calculation using a quadratic rule. Sociological Methods & Research. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177/0049124117747303
WarneR. T. (2016).
Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly,
60(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215605360
119.
WarneR. T. (2019).
An evaluation (and vindication?) of Lewis Terman: What the father of gifted education can teach the 21st century. Gifted Child Quarterly,
63(1), 3–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986218799433
120.
WarneR. T.LiuJ. K. (2017).
Income differences among grade skippers and non-grade skippers across genders in the Terman sample, 1936-1976.Learning and Instruction,
47(February), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.004
121.
WeißR. H. (2006). Grundintelligenztest Skala 2–Revision [Culture Fair Intelligence Test Scale 2–revised].
Hogrefe.
122.
WeidingerA. F.SteinmayrR.SpinathB. (2018).
Changes in the relation between competence beliefs and achievement in math across elementary school years. Child Development,
89(2), e138–e156. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12806
123.
WendtH.SchwippertK. (2017). Lesekompetenzen von Schülerinnen und Schülern mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund [Reading skills of students with and without immigration background]. In HußmannA.WendtH.BosW.Bremerich-VossA.KasperD.LankesE.-M.McElvanyN.StubbeT.ValtinR. (Eds.), IGLU 2016. Lesekompetenzen von Grundschulkindern in Deutschland im internationalen Vergleich (pp. 219–234).
Waxmann. https://www.pedocs.de/volltexte/2018/15476/pdf/Hussmann_et_al_2017_IGLU_2016.pdf
124.
WirthweinL.BergoldS.PreckelF.SteinmayrR. (2019).
Personality and school functioning of intellectually gifted and nongifted adolescents: Self-perceptions and parents’ assessments. Learning and Individual Differences,
73(July), 16–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2019.04.003
125.
WirthweinL.RostD. H. (2011).
Giftedness and subjective well-being: A study with adults. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(2), 182–186. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.001
126.
Zeidner, M. (2020). “Don't worry - be happy”: The sad state of happiness research in gifted students. High Ability Studies. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1733392
127.
ZeidnerM.Shani-ZinovichI. (2011).
Do academically gifted and nongifted students differ on the Big-Five and adaptive status? Some recent data and conclusions. Personality and Individual Differences,
51(5), 566–570. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2011.05.007
128.
ZeidnerM.Shani-ZinovichI. (2015).
A comparison of multiple facets of self-concept in gifted vs. non-identified Israeli students. High Ability Studies,
26(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1095076
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
