Scholars do not dispute that Lewis Terman is an influential figure in the field of gifted education. What is less well understood is the extent of that influence within the field and outside the field of gifted education. Citation analysis provides one method to quantify and analyze a scholar’s influence. In our analysis, we use citation analysis to categorize and analyze a sample (n= 213) of scholarly works which cite one of Lewis Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius or successive works produced by his students. Our analysis provided evidence that nearly half of all citations of Terman’s work are considered incidental and do not directly reference his work or legacy. Furthermore, we found that negative citations of Terman’s work were in the minority compared with positive and neutral citations.
BernsteinM. D.RussoN. F. (1974). The history of psychology revisited: Or, up with our foremothers. American Psychologist, 29(2), 130–134. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035837
BoakeC. (2002). From the Binet–Simon to the Wechsler–Bellevue: Tracing the history of intelligence testing. Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology, 24(3), 383–405. https://doi.org/10.1076/jcen.24.3.383.981
4.
BorlandJ. H. (1990). Leta Hollingworth’s contributions to the psychology and education of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12(3), 162–166. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199009553263
5.
BorlandJ. H. (2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover, giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude: Spinal tap psychometrics in gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53(4), 236–238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346825
6.
BrackenB. A. (2012). The use of intelligence tests in gifted identification. In CrossT. L.CrossJ. R. (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts & talents (pp. 75–88). Prufrock Press.
7.
BrodyL. E.BenbowC. P. (1986). Social and emotional adjustment of adolescents extremely talented in verbal or mathematical reasoning. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 15(1), 1–18.
8.
BrownM.WaiJ.ChabrisC. (2020). Can you ever be too smart for your own good? Comparing linear and nonlinear effects of cognitive ability on life outcomes. PsyArXiv. https://psyarxiv.com/rpgea/
9.
BulloughV.BulloughB.MauroM. (1981). History and creativity: Research problems and some possible solutions. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15(2), 102–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1981.tb00283.x
10.
BurchinalL. G.HawkesG. R.GardinerB. (1957). Adjustment characteristics of rural and urban children. American Sociological Review, 22(1), 81–87. https://doi.org/10.2307/2088769
11.
BurksB. S.JensenD. W.TermanL. M. (1930). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. III. The promise of youth: Follow-up studies of a thousand gifted children. Stanford University Press.
12.
ChubinD. E.MoitraS. D. (1975). Content analysis of references: Adjunct or alternative to citation counting?Social Studies of Science, 5(4), 423–441. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500403
ClineS.SchwartzD. (1999). Diverse populations of gifted children: Meeting their needs in the regular classroom and beyond. Merrill.
15.
CoxC. M. (1926). The early mental traits of three hundred geniuses. Stanford University Press.
16.
CrosbyJ. R.HastorfA. H. (2000). Lewis Terman: Scientist of mental measurement and product of his time. In KimbleG. A.WertheimerM. (Eds.), Portraits of pioneers in psychology (4th ed., pp. 131–147). American Psychological Association.
17.
CrossJ. R.CrossT. L.FinchH. (2010). Maximizing student potential versus building community: An exploration of right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and preferred practice among supporters of gifted education. Roeper Review, 32(4), 235–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2010.508155
18.
CrossT. L.CrossJ. R. (2021). An ecological model of suicidal behavior among students with gifts and talents. High Ability Studies, 32(1), 105–123. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2020.1733391
19.
CrowleyB. P.DelficoJ. F. (1996). Content analysis: A methodology for structuring and analyzing written material. U.S. General Accounting Office.
20.
DaiD. Y. (2018). A history of giftedness: A century of quest for identity. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 3–24). American Psychological Association.
21.
DaiD. Y. (2020). Rethinking human potential from a talent development perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(1), 19–37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353219897850
22.
DearyI. J. (2014). The stability of intelligence from childhood to old age. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23(4), 239–245. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414536905
23.
DearyI. J.PattieA.StarrJ. M. (2013). The stability of intelligence from age 11 to age 90 years: The Lothian birth cohort of 1921. Psychological Science, 24(12), 2361–2368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797613486487
24.
De BellisN. (2009). Bibliometrics and citation analysis: From the science citation index to cybermetrics. Scarecrow Press.
25.
DeCuirJ. T.DixsonA. D. (2004). “So when it comes out, they aren’t that surprised that it is there”: Using critical race theory as a tool of analysis of race and racism in education. Educational Researcher, 33(5), 26–31. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X033005026
26.
DelisleJ. R. (1990). The gifted adolescent at risk: Strategies and resources for suicide prevention among gifted youth. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13(3), 212–228. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329001300303
FordD. Y.HarrisJ. J.III. (1990). Gifted and talented black children identifying diamonds in the rough. Gifted Child Today, 13(3), 17–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621759001300306
31.
FreemanK. A.WalbergH. J. (1999). Childhood traits and conditions of eminent African American women. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 22(4), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329902200405
32.
GaltonF. (1869). Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its law and consequences. Macmillan.
33.
GoingsR. B.FordD. Y. (2018). Investigating the intersection of poverty and race in gifted education journals: A 15-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217737618
34.
GrossM. U.van VlietH. E. (2005). Radical acceleration and early entry to college: A review of the research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 154–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900205
35.
HamiltonR.McCoachD. B.TutwilerS. M.SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.MunR. U. (2018). Disentangling the roles of institutional and individual poverty in the identification of gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 6–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738053
HarzingA. W. (2019). Two new kids on the block: How do crossref and dimensions compare with Google Scholar, Microsoft Academic, Scopus and the Web of Science?Scientometrics, 120, 341–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03114-y
38.
HodgesJ.GentryM. (2021). Underrepresentation in gifted education in the context of rurality and socioeconomic status. Journal of Advanced Academics, 32(2), 135–159.
39.
HodgesJ.MohanS. (2019). Machine learning in gifted education: A demonstration using neural networks. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 243–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219867483
40.
HodgesJ.MunR. U. E.OverossM. K.OttweinJ. (2021). Assessing the scholarly reach of Terman’s work. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 95–109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220928322
41.
HodgesJ.TayJ.LeeH.PereiraN. (2019). The influence of the Great Recession on the identification of students from non-White populations in the State of Texas. Journal of Advanced Academics, 30(2), 124–143. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X19825802
42.
HodgesJ.TayJ.MaedaY.GentryM. (2018). A meta-analysis of gifted and talented identification practices. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 147–174. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752107
43.
HolahanC. K.SearsR. R.CronbachL. J. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford University Press.
44.
JessonJ.MathesonL.LaceyF. M. (2011). Doing your literature review: Traditional and systematic techniques. SAGE.
LeibowitzA. (1974). Years and intensity of schooling investing (No. w0049). National Bureau of Economic Research.
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. (2021). Intellectual precocity: What have we learned since Terman?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(1), 3–28. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220925447
53.
MansfieldK. C. (2015). Giftedness as property: Troubling whiteness, wealth, and gifted education in the US. International Journal of Multicultural Education, 17(1), 121–142. https://doi.org/10.18251/ijme.v17i1.841
54.
Martín-MartínA.Orduna-MaleaE.ThelwallM.López-CózarE. D. (2018). Google Scholar, Web of Science, andScopus: A systematic comparison of citations in 252 subjectcategories. Journal of Informetrics, 12(4), 1160–1177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2018.09.002
55.
Martín-MartínA.Orduna-MaleaE.HarzingA. W.López-CózarE. D. (2018). Can we use Google Scholar to identify highly-cited documents?Journal of Informetrics, 11(1), 152–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2016.11.008
56.
MontourK. (1978). The marvelous boys: Thomas Chatterton, Evariste Galois and their modern counterparts. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(1), 68–78.
57.
MoravcsikM. J.MurugesanP. (1975). Some results on the function and quality of citations. Social Studies of Science, 5(1), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/030631277500500106
58.
MunR. U.EzzaniM. D.LeeL. E. (2020). Culturally responsive leadership in gifted education: A systematic literature review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(2), 108–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220912009
59.
MunR. U.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.HamiltonR. (2016). Effective practices for identifying and serving English Learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature. National Center for Research on Gifted Education.
60.
OdenM. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-year follow-up of the Terman group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77, 3–93.
61.
OffirB.BarthI.LevY.ShteinbokA. (2003). Teacher–student interactions and learning outcomes in a distance learning environment. The Internet and Higher Education, 6(1), 65–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1096-7516(02)00162-8
62.
PendarvisE.HowleyA. (1996). Playing fair: The possibilities of gifted education. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19(2), 215–233. https://doi.org/10.1177/016235329601900207
63.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. T. (2019). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
64.
PfeifferS. I. (2015). Essentials of gifted assessment. John Wiley.
65.
PlominR.DeFriesJ. C.KnopikV. S.NeiderhiserJ. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(1), 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615617439
66.
PoldermanT. J.BenyaminB.De LeeuwC. A.SullivanP. F.Van BochovenA.VisscherP. M.PosthumaD. (2015). Meta-analysis of the heritability of human traits based on fifty years of twin studies. Nature Genetics, 47(7), 702–709.
67.
PriceD. D. S. (1976). A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. Journal of the American Society for Information Science, 27(5), 292–306. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.4630270505
68.
RichardsonM.BairdJ. A.RidgwayJ.RipleyM.Shorrocks-TaylorD.SwanM. (2002). Challenging minds? Students’ perceptions of computer-based World Class Tests of problem solving. Computers in Human Behavior, 18(6), 633–649. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0747-5632(02)00021-3
69.
RobinsonA.ClinkenbeardP. R. (2008). History of giftedness: Perspectives from the past presage modern scholarship. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 13–31). Springer.
70.
RogersK. B. (1999). The lifelong productivity of the female researchers in Terman’s Genetic Studies of Genius Longitudinal Study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(3), 150–169. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300303
71.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyS. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.… PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
72.
SimontonD. K. (1978). The eminent genius in history: The critical role of creative development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 22(2), 187–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627802200212
73.
SimontonD. K. (2020). Galton, Terman, Cox: The distinctive volume II in genetic studies of genius. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 275–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921360
74.
SimontonD. K.SongA. V. (2009). Eminence, IQ, physical and mental health, and achievement domain: Cox’s 282 geniuses revisited. Psychological Science, 20(4), 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02313.x
75.
SternbergR. J. (2018). Creative giftedness is not just what creativity tests test: Implications of a triangular theory of creativity for understanding creative giftedness. Roeper Review, 40(3), 158–165. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2018.1467248
76.
StokeS. M. (1931). Review of genetic studies of genius, Vol. 3. The promise of youth [Review of the book genetic studies of genius, vol iii. The promise of youth, by B. S. Burks, D. W. Jensen & L. M. Terman].Journal of Applied Psychology, 15(3), 331–332. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0069176
77.
StrenzeT. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.004
78.
TahamtanI.BornmannL. (2019). What do citation counts measure? An updated review of studies on citations in scientific documents published between 2006 and 2018. Scientometrics, 121(3), 1635–1684. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-019-03243-4
79.
TaniaJ.StockingV. B. (2002). Medication and counseling histories of gifted students in a Summer Residential Program. Journal of Advanced Academics, 14(2), 91–99. https://doi.org/10.4219/jsge-2003-423
80.
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence: An explanation of and a complete guide for the use of the Stanford Revision and Extension of the Binet-Simon Intelligence Scale. Houghton Mifflin.
81.
TermanL. M. (1926). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. I. Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford University Press.
82.
TermanL. M.OdenM. H. (1947). The gifted child grows up: Twenty-five years’ follow-up of a superior group. Stanford University Press.
83.
TermanL. M.OdenM. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius: Vol. 5. The gifted group at mid-life. Stanford University Press.
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
87.
WarneR. T.LarsenR.ClarkJ. (2019). Low base rates and a high IQ selection threshold prevented Terman from identifying future Nobelists. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/g4x6r
88.
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, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.10.004
89.
WinklerD. L.JollyJ. L. (2014). Lewis M. Terman: A misunderstood legacy (1877–1956). In RobinsonA.JollyJ. L. (Eds.), A century of contributions to gifted education: Illuminating lives (pp. 64–78). Routledge.
90.
YuH.McCoachD. B.GottfriedA. W.GottfriedA. E. (2018). Stability of intelligence from infancy through adolescence: An autoregressive latent variable model. Intelligence, 69, 8–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2018.03.011
ZhangG.DingY.MilojevićS. (2013). Citation content analysis (CCA): A framework for syntactic and semantic analysis of citation content. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 64(7), 1490–1503. https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.22850
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.
