Performance on tests of specific abilities commonly associated with intelligence was contrasted between 13-year-olds identified as extremely precocious (top 1 in 10,000) in either verbal or mathematical reasoning ability. Such students differ cognitively. Verbally precocious students scored higher on verbal and gerieral knowledge types of tests, and mathematically precocious students scored higher on tests of nonverbal reasoning, spatial ability, and memory. Results from the factor analysis of test scores (excluding memory test scores) yielded three factors: spatial/speed, verbal, and nonverbal. Mathematically talented students had higher scores on the nonverbal and speed factors; verbally talented students had higher scores on the verbal factor. Thus, at least two distinct forms of giftedness seem to exist (i.e., verbal and nonverbal). Their evolution, moreover, appeared to follow different developmental paths, consistent with Gagne (1985).
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing. New York: MacMillan.
2.
Applebaum, M.L., & Cramer, E.M. (1974). Some problems in the nonorthogonal analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin,92, 335-343.
3.
Atp. (1984). College-bound seniors, 1984-1985. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
4.
Becker, B.J. (1989). Item characteristics and gender differences on SAT-M for mathematically able youth. Under review.
5.
Benbow, C.P. (1989). The role of the family environment in the development of extreme intellectual precocity. Under review.
6.
Benbow, C.P. (in preparation). Factors associated with performance in fast-paced mathematics classes.
7.
Benbow, C.P., & Arjmand, O. (in press). Predictors of high academic achievement in mathematics and science by mathematically talented students: A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology.
8.
Benbow, C.P., & Minor, L.L. (1986). Mathematically talented students and achievement in the high school sciences. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 425-436.
9.
Benbow, C.P., & Stanley, J.C. (1982). Consequences in high school and college of sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: A longitudinal study. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 598-622.
10.
Benbow, C.P., Stanley, J.C., Zonderman, A.B., & Kirk, M.K. (1983). Structure of intelligence of intellectually precocious children and of their parents. Intelligence, 7, 129-152.
11.
Bennett, G.K. (1940). Manual for Test of Mechanical Comprehension, Form AA. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
12.
Bennett, G.K., Seashore, H.G., & Wesman, A.G. (1974). Manual for the Differential Aptitude Tests, Forms S and T. New York: The Psychological Corporation.
13.
Brody, L.E., & Benbow, C.P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal and mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15, 1-18.
14.
Burnett, S.A., Lane, D.M., & Dratt, L.M. (1979). Spatial visualization and sex differences in quantitative ability. Intelligence, 3, 345-354.
15.
Cohen, J. (1977). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press .
16.
Cohn, S.J. (1977). Cognitive characteristics of the top-scoring participants in SMPY's 1976 talent search. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 416-421.
17.
Dark, V.J., & Benbow, C.P. (in press). Enhanced problem-translation and short-term memory: Components of mathematical talent. Journal of Educational Psychology.
18.
Dark, V.J. & Benbow, C.P. (submitted for publication). Differential enhancement of working memory with mathematical and verbal precocity.
19.
Dauber, S., & Benbow, C.P. (in press). Aspects of personality and social behavior in extremely talented young adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly.
20.
Donlon, T. (1984). The College Board technical handbook for the Scholastic Aptitude Test and Achievement Tests. New York: College Board.
21.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1986). A conception of giftedness. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.,), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 112-127). New York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
Feldhusen, J.F. (1989). Synthesis of research on gifted youth. Educational Leadership, 46(3), 6-11.
23.
Feldhusen, J.F., Asher, J.W., & Hoover, S.M. (1984). Problems in the identification of giftedness, talent, or ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 149-156.
24.
Gagne, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103-112.
25.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of Mind. New York: Basic Books.
26.
Guilford, J.P., & Zimmerman, W.C. (1981). The Guilford-Zimmerman Aptitude Survey: Manual of instructions and interpretations. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services, Inc.
27.
Guskin, S.L., Okolo, C., Zimmerman, E., & Ping, C.Y.J. (1986). Being labeled gifted or talented: Meanings and effects perceived by students in special programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 61-65.
28.
Hagan, E. (1980). Identification of the gifted. New York: Teachers College Press.
29.
Hoge, R.D. (1988). Issues in the definition and measurement of the giftedness construct. Educational Researcher, 17(7), 12-16.
30.
Horn, J.C., & Cattell, R.B. (1966). Refinement and test of the theory of fluid and crystallized ability intelligences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 58, 120-136.
31.
Parke, B.N. (1989). Educating the gifted and talented: An agenda for the future. Educational Leadership, 46 (3), 4-5.
32.
Pollins, L.D. (1984). The construct validity of the Scholastic Aptitude Test for young gifted students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Duke University.
33.
Raven, J.C., Court, J.H., & Raven, J. (1977). Manual for Raven's Progressive Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. London: H.K. Lewis & Co., Ltd.
34.
Renzulli, J.S. (1984). The triad/revolving door system: A research-based approach to identification and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 163-171.
35.
Richert, E.S. (1987). Rampant problems and promising practices in the identification of disadvantaged gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 149-154.
36.
Richert, E.S., Alvino, J.J., & McDonnel, R.C. (1982). National report on identification: Assessment and recommendations for comprehensive identification of gifted and talented youth. Sewell, NJ: Educational Improvement Center-South.
37.
Stanley, J.C. (1984a). The exceptionally talented. Roeper Review, 6, 160.
38.
Stanley, J.C. (1984b). Use of general and specific aptitude measures in identification: Some principles and certain cautions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 177-180.
39.
Stanley, J.C., & Benbow, C.P. (1986). Youths who reason exceptionally well mathematically . In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of Giftedness (pp. 361-387). New York: Cambridge University Press.
40.
Sternberg, R.J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual giftedness . Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 86-93.
