Giftedness and Academic Success: How Are Parent–Child and Teacher–Student Relations Related to Gifted Children’s Underachievement?

Abstract

Gifted children may underachieve in various subjects, putting them at risk of dropping out of school. Several factors can influence both achievement and underachievement. In the understanding of these children’s success or difficulties at school, teacher–student and parent–child relationships should be considered. The objective of this article is to document the level of performance and underachievement of 71 gifted children ages 6 to 12 and to assess the contribution of both type of relationships. Results indicate that gifted children demonstrate overall good academic results, yet an appreciable proportion exhibit underachievement. Autonomy in school tasks is a significant factor enhancing children performance. Therefore, educators are encouraged to facilitate their autonomy within the classroom and during learning activities. Although the parent–child relationship is not linked to performance or underachievement, it is nevertheless important to pursue the study of this variable, given its influence on learning and academic success.

Keywords

academic achievement gifted children underachievement K–8

People commonly expect gifted students to excel academically, identifying them based on intellectual abilities that surpass those of their peers (Gauvrit, 2021). Although this expectation is often accurate, it is not always the case (Gauvrit, 2021; Hately & Townend, 2020). Despite mastering a significant portion of classroom content before instruction—sometimes up to 50% of the material presented (Neihart & Yeo, 2018)—many gifted students struggle to achieve academic success commensurate with their potential (Reis & McCoach, 2000; Siegle & McCoach, 2021). This disparity between gifted students’ cognitive abilities and their academic performance, known as underachievement, raises short- and long-term concerns (Renzulli & Park, 2002; Siegle & McCoach, 2018). These challenges underscore the importance of addressing both achievement and underachievement among gifted students to ensure that their educational needs are effectively met (Rimm et al., 1993). However, empirical studies assessing these factors remain limited (White et al., 2018). Prior research has examined individual factors, such as self-esteem and self-regulation (White et al., 2018), but has often omitted important environmental influences, including the quality of the students’ relationships with the adults in their lives. This has been frequently overlooked in understanding underachievement, despite being widely examined in studies of typically developing students and those with academic adjustment difficulties (Magro et al., 2023; Martins et al., 2022). It is therefore possible that gifted students’ underachievement may be associated with the quality of their relationships with teachers and caregivers. This article seeks to document the academic achievement and underachievement of gifted youth using Siegle and McCoach’s (2005) model of underachievement while examining the quality of their parent–child and teacher–student relationships. By documenting both ongoing performance and underachievement, the study aims to determine whether specific variables related to these relationships better predict one or the other, with the ultimate goal of identifying strategies to improve school outcomes and reduce underachievement among gifted students.

Giftedness

In the absence of a universal definition of giftedness, this study adopts the thresholds outlined in Gagné’s (2015) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT), which is widely used in Australia, North America, and Quebec—the Canadian French-speaking province where the present study was conducted. According to this model, an individual is recognized as gifted if their natural abilities place them in the top 10% of peers. In educational contexts, intellectual ability is typically the primary identification criterion; in many places, this is often defined as a total score of 120 or higher on a standardized intelligence measure, such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-V, Weschler, 2014), where 100 represents the mean score (Gagné, 2020), although this score varies depending on the educational system. Giftedness can also occur with a neurodevelopmental disorder, such as attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorders, or autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This co-occurrence, known as twice-exceptionality (Trail, 2022), may lead to unique challenges that can negatively affect academic performance (Hately & Townend, 2020).

Academic Achievement and Underachievement

The tendency for gifted students to demonstrate higher academic performance due to high cognitive abilities such as advanced problem-solving skills, rapid learning, and strong memory has been well documented in the literature (Bergold et al., 2020; Best et al., 2011; Roth et al., 2015). Age and gender are also important variables to consider when examining giftedness and academic performance, as both have consistently been shown to relate to academic performance (Freeman & Garces-Bacsal, 2021; Price, 2017; Siegle et al., 2017).

Although some gifted students exceed the class average, others fall below it. Underachieving students are typically those who face challenges in meeting class norms. Although there is no single definition of underachievement in gifted education, researchers commonly describe it as the gap between a student’s intellectual potential and their current academic performance (Siegle et al., 2021; Snyder et al., 2019). From this perspective, underachievement occurs when students of similar age, intelligence quotient (IQ), and family background demonstrate differing levels of academic performance (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Teachers often use classroom assessments to measure these criteria.

According to Reis and McCoach (2000), a gifted student is considered underachieving if they meet certain established conditions. First, the student should score significantly above average on standardized IQ assessments (i.e., at or above 120 on standardized scales) while performing at or below the class average on classroom assessments. This classification may also include students who score in the middle third of school achievement scores (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Significant underachievement occurs when a student scores in the bottom third of academic achievement. The underperforming subject should be a core area of the curriculum, such as reading, writing, or mathematics (Green et al., 1988). In addition, there must be a consistent gap between the student’s ability and classroom performance for at least 3 months. For instance, a student who scores 81% on a mathematics midterm—slightly below the class average of 83%—would not be classified as underachieving if this discrepancy is isolated. Although some scholars suggest that underachievement should not be identified in twice-exceptional students (e.g., Siegle & McCoach, 2021), others view twice-exceptionality as a key factor in understanding patters of achievement and underachievement (e.g., White et al., 2018).

The reported prevalence of underachievement among gifted students varies across studies and countries. For example, Veas et al. (2018) found that 28% of gifted students in Spain experience underachievement, compared with 12% in China and 10% in the United States. Reis (2000) recommended evaluating students’ entire academic trajectories rather than focusing on a single point in time to obtain a more accurate representation of the issue. She emphasized that many at-risk students remain unidentified, estimating that underachievement may affect up to 50% of gifted individuals (Reis, 2020). In Canada, few studies have examined this topic. Cornejo-Araya et al. (2021) identified only five Canadian articles on underachievement of the 203 studies reviewed, making it difficult to accurately depict the phenomenon in Quebec.

To better understand the phenomenon of underachievement, particularly within gifted education where a persistent bias exists toward viewing gifted students as consistently high achievers, researchers have developed models that encompass multiple factors contributing to this challenge among specific groups of gifted learners. Understanding these variables is critical for a comprehensive analysis of underachievement.

Achievement-Orientation Model

Siegle and McCoach (2005) introduced an explanatory model to improve understanding of underachievement among gifted students. The Achievement-Orientation Model has been validated with gifted students across primary, secondary, and university levels (Ritchotte et al., 2014; Siegle et al., 2021). The model suggests that various variables such as task value, self-efficacy, social relationships, and school environment influence individual achievement and performance levels. These variables and their complex interactions have a substantial impact on academic outcomes; however, other important factors related to students’ optimal development, such as teacher–student and parent–child relationships, remain understudied.

Teacher–Student Relationships

The quality of teacher–student relationships is important for students’ overall functioning, largely due to the significant amount of time they spend with teachers each week. Teachers can positively influence students’ attitudes, behaviors, and academic habits through their relations (Camp, 2011; Haider & Asif, 2024). A positive teacher–student relationship, characterized by warmth, closeness, and minimal conflict, empowers students to regulate their emotions effectively, inspires their pursuit of knowledge, and increases their levels of engagement and academic achievement (Croft, 2003; Johnston et al., 2022; Ma et al., 2022; Martins et al., 2022; Pianta & Stuhlman, 2004; Roorda et al., 2017; Sabol & Pianta, 2012; Vancraeyveldt et al., 2015). Conversely, interactions characterized by conflicts may lead students to view others as unavailable, untrustworthy, or even hostile (e.g., Verschueren & Koomen, 2012).

The impact of teacher–student relationships on students with developmental and learning disabilities is well documented (McGrath & Van Bergen, 2015; Sabol & Pianta, 2012); however, research on this topic remains limited for gifted students (Dever, 2016; Weyns et al., 2021). Prior studies have primarily used qualitative data (Desmet et al., 2019; Manabayeva & Hermandez-Torrano, 2023), which provides valuable insights and deepens understanding of the phenomenon, encouraging further exploration in this area. Although limited, existing studies involving gifted youth suggest the presence of relationship challenges. For example, Weyns et al. (2021) found that teachers often hold more pessimistic views of gifted students, leading to more fraught relationships. Teachers perceived gifted students as more emotionally demanding, introverted, less cooperative, and less capable of emotional regulation (Weyns et al., 2021). In addition, teachers may find gifted students challenging because they tend to ask frequent questions and occasionally challenge authority (Kaya, 2015). As a result, the teacher’s self-efficacy may decrease, which can negatively affect their interactions with gifted learners (Zee & Koomen, 2016). When conflict and controlling dynamics are present in teacher–student relationships, the likelihood of behavioral problems, disengagement, academic struggles, and underachievement among gifted youth increases (Ladd & Burgess, 2001; Pianta et al., 1995).

Recently, Magro et al. (2023) examined the relationship between teacher–student interactions measured in elementary school and parent–child relationships measured in early childhood in relation to later academic achievement among typically developing adolescents. Both types of relationships were associated with academic achievement in adolescence, underscoring the importance of considering these relational contexts as potential influences on gifted students’ academic performance.

Parent–Child Relationships

The daily and reciprocal interactions between parent and children characterize the quality of the parent–child relationship (Madigan et al., 2024). From the parental perspective, quality interactions are reflected in prompt, sensitive, and consistent responses to a child’s needs (van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2019). These responses should be predictable, reliable, and conveyed with warmth (Chen et al., 2017). From the child’s perspective, attachment refers to the sense of security and trust developed with a caregiver who provides consistent support and appropriate responses to daily needs. This sense of security enables children to explore their environment with confidence and develop autonomy and competence. The quality of this bond remains essential across infancy, childhood, and adolescence (Markiewicz et al., 2006). A child’s sense of security and autonomy with respect to their parents represents a key determinant of relationship quality throughout development. This relationship is closely linked to multiple domains of a child’s emotional, social, behavioral, and cognitive development (Malekpour, 2007; Moss et al., 2011; Ronksley-Pavia et al., 2019; Tus, 2021). More specifically, high-quality parent–child relationships are associated with positive cognitive development as well as positive academic outcomes (Carmona-Halty et al., 2022; Clingenpeel & Pianta, 2007; Martins et al., 2022; Stams et al., 2002; Vorria et al., 2006). In a recent study conducted with 2,590 children, Kim and Kim (2021) found that positive parenting interactions and attitudes significantly improved children’s school performance.

When parents respond insensitively to a child’s needs—demonstrating intrusive, threatening, rejecting, or hostile behaviors or showing neglect—they inhibit the child’s ability to develop a sense of security and trust in others (Koehn & Kerns, 2018). As a result, the child may develop an insecure attachment style, which is associated with difficulties such as low self-confidence, reduced trust in others, challenges in emotional regulation (Fearon et al., 2010; Fuentes-Balderrama et al., 2023; Malekpour, 2007), and school-related problems (Holt, 2014; Moss & St-Laurent, 2001). Although such difficulties have been documented among gifted youth (Yildirim & Dong, 2022), they have rarely been examined through a developmental lens.

Although these two relational concepts (teacher–student and parent–child relationships) are clearly identified and integrated into Siegle and McCoach’s (2005) model for understanding giftedness, they are rarely examined in empirical studies (Jung & Jihyun, 2024; Weyns et al., 2021) and even less so from the perspective of understanding the phenomenon of underachievement. When these relationships are studied, the often-qualitative, interview-based designs with gifted youth may limit the ability to draw clear conclusions about the phenomenon (Wellisch et al., 2011). Furthermore, giftedness is frequently underidentified in such studies, as teachers are often asked to nominate students they perceive as potentially gifted (Wellisch & Brown, 2012). With little or no training in giftedness and difficulty conceptualizing the underachievement of gifted young people, it is reasonable to assume that the children identified in these studies are not necessarily representative of all gifted children.

The first purpose of this study is to document achievement and underachievement using a sample of gifted children identified using a standardized measure. The second goal is to examine the contribution of parent–child and teacher–student relationships to the academic performance of gifted students. The third goal is to examine the influence of these same relational variables on underachievement. By analyzing both continuous measures of school performance and categorical measures of underachievement, the study seeks to determine whether the effects of parent–child and teacher–student relationships differ depending on whether the focus is overall achievement or underachievement. The potential influence of additional variables including age, gender, and twice-exceptionality is also considered.

Method

Sample and Procedure

The total sample consisted of 71 French-speaking children (see Table 1). Participants were between 6 and 12 years of age (M = 9.21, SD = 1.70), and 58.8% were boys. All children were enrolled in primary school in the province of Quebec, Canada.

Table 1.

Descriptive Statistics for Sociodemographic Characteristics of Children, Parents, and Teachers

Sociodemographic variables	n (%)	M (SD)	Range
Children (n = 71)
Gender
Girls	28 (39.4)
Boys	43 (60.6)
Age		9.21 (1.7)	(6–12)
Grade level
Grade 1	7 (9.9)
Grade 2	8 (11.3)
Grade 3	15 (21.1)
Grade 4	13 (18.3)
Grade 5	13 (18.3)
Grade 6	15 (21.1)
IQ		130.54 (8)	(120–157)
Twice-exceptionality	20 (28.2)
Parents (n = 70)
Questionnaires completed by
Mothers	52 (73.2)
Fathers	4 (5.6)
Both parents	14 (19.7)
Age
Mother		40.15 (4.4)	(32–51)
Father		42.33 (5.5)	(33–59)
Marital status
Single parent	8 (11.3)
Married	53 (74.6)
Stepfamily	7 (9.9)
Other	2 (2.8)
Annual family income
0–$49,999	7 (9.8)
$50,000–$99,999$	8 (11.2)
$100,000–$149,999$	25 (35.2)
$150,000–$199,999$	16 (22.5)
$200,000 and above	14 (19.7)
Teachers (n = 71)
Gender
Female	65 (91.5)
Male	6 (8.5)
Age
20–29 years	9 (12.7)
30–39 years	22 (31.0)
40–49 years	14 (19.7)
50 years and above	18 (25.3)
Prefer not to reply	8 (11.3)
Years of teaching experience		17.5 (9.5)	(1–35)

Recruitment occurred through local school boards after the project was presented to school principals. Additional participants were recruited through social media and nonprofit organizations that support gifted education. Parents provided teachers’ contact information, allowing the research team to invite them to participate in the study.

To be eligible for the study, children were required to be identified as gifted based on their overall IQ score on a standardized intelligence test (General IQ Scale, GIQS; Weschler, 2014). In accordance with Gagné’s (2020) definition, children were considered intellectually gifted if they obtained an overall IQ or General Aptitude Index (GIA) score of 120 or higher, corresponding to the 91st percentile or above.

For children already identified as gifted at recruitment, the raw score summary page of the Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence (WPPSI-III) or Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC-IV or WISC-V) was collected, with parental permission, from the psychologists/neuropsychologists who conducted their assessment. For children who were not previously identified as gifted but referred by teachers, the WISC-V was administered by trained research assistants (graduate students in psychology), as this type of assessment was not routinely provided through the school system.

In the province of Québec, school-based services are typically determined by a child’s specific needs rather than by formal identification or diagnosis, largely due to the high financial cost of professional evaluations. The mean IQ score of the sample was 130.54 (SD = 8.00).

Data collection for the study took place during visits to the participants’ homes. Two research assistants administered questionnaires separately to children and families. They also collected children’s school reports and teacher questionnaires, which had been distributed to teachers in advance. Informed consent was obtained from all participating children, parents, and teachers. All procedures were approved by the research ethics board of the principal investigator’s university (Université of Quebec at Trois-Rivières, CER-18-251-07-27).

Instruments

Sociodemographic Questionnaires

Parents and teachers completed a sociodemographic questionnaire that included items on age, gender, family income, and number of siblings. For teachers, additional questions addressed their personal and professional experience with giftedness, such as years of experience working with gifted students.

Giftedness

The WISC-V (Wechsler, 2014) measures the cognitive skills of children aged 6 to 16 years and 11 months. In addition to the WISC-V, an earlier version of the assessment, the WISC-IV (n = 5), and a version for younger children, the WPPSI-III (n = 7), were used for some children identified prior to the project. These standardized instruments assess children’s intellectual functioning through comprehensive evaluation across five primary indices: verbal comprehension, visual-spatial reasoning, fluid reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. The scores on these indices are combined to produce an overall IQ, which is compared against age-based norms (M = 100, SD = 15; Wechsler, 2014). Consistent with Gagné’s (2020) criteria, giftedness was defined as a global IQ score of 120 or higher.

School Performance and Achievement/Underachievement

Each student’s level of school performance was determined using their school report cards, which documented average grades in mathematics, French, and other subjects (e.g., English as a second language) over a 4-month period. For the purposes of this study, average grades in French and mathematics were used to assess school performance.

To identify underachievement in these subjects, each gifted student’s results were compared with the mean grades of their respective class. A student was classified as underachieving in a subject when their average score was at or below the class mean. For example, if a gifted student’s semester average in mathematics was 75% and the class mean was 79%, the student was considered underachieving in mathematics. For both subjects, students were coded as either underachieving or not underachieving.

Student-Teacher Relationship, Child’s Perception

The Young Children’s Appraisals of Teacher Support scale (YCATS, Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003) was completed by children to assess their perceptions of their relationship with their teacher. This 28-item scale measures the warmth, conflict, and autonomy that children experience in their interactions with their teacher. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree; e.g., “My teacher tells me I’m doing well”; “My teacher gets angry with me”). The YCATS demonstrates good psychometric properties, such as fidelity and predictive validity for school adjustment (Mantzicopoulos & Neuharth-Pritchett, 2003). The internal consistency of each dimension ranges from .61 to .72 (Spilt et al., 2010).

Teacher–Student Relationship, Teacher’s Perception

The Student-Teacher Relationship Scale-Short Form (STRS-S; Pianta, 2001) consists of 15 self-reported items that assess the teacher’s perception of the relationship with the student. The scale measures four dimensions: conflict, closeness, dependence/autonomy, and overall relationship quality. Each item is rated on a five-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (does not apply) to 5 (really applies). Example items include “I share a warm, affectionate relationship with this child” and “This child gets angry with me easily.” The STR-S demonstrates good psychometric properties, such as validity and reliability (Ogelman & Seven, 2014). The internal consistency of each dimension ranges from .86 to .89 (Hamre & Pianta, 2001; Pianta et al., 1995).

Parent–Child Attachment, Child’s Perception

The 15-item Kerns Security Scale (KERNS; Kerns et al., 1996) was used to assess the attachment security and autonomy the child perceives in their relationship with their mother. During administration, the child, assisted by the assessor, is presented with statements consisting of two contrasting options. First, the child selects the option that most closely resembles them and then indicates whether the statement is “a little like me” or “a lot like me.” For example, “Some children worry about whether their mother really loves them, but other children are quite sure that their mother does.”

Higher scores on the security subscale indicate greater perceived attachment security, whereas higher scores on the autonomy subscale reflect greater perceived autonomy within the attachment relationship. The instrument demonstrates good psychometric properties, such as construct validity and predictive validity (Bacro, 2011; Van Ryzin & Leve, 2012). The French-language adaptation of the KSS also shows satisfactory reliability, with Cronbach’s α = .76 for the mother subscale and a one-week test–retest reliability coefficient of α = .73 (Kerns et al., 1996).

Analyses

All statistical analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS Statistics (Version 28; IBM Corp., 2021). Preliminary analyses were conducted to verify the normality of distributions and the presence of extreme or missing data. In the sample, there were no extreme values (exceeding three standard deviations above or below the mean), nor any missing data (absence of values). Additional analyses examined associations and multicollinearity between the different variables under study.

For the first objective of the study—accurately assessing the performance of gifted children in mathematics and French and to identifying those who are underperforming—descriptive analyses were conducted. Correlational analyses (bivariate and biserial) were performed to meet the second objective, which examined the association between children’s performance in mathematics or French and their relationships with parents and teacher. Correlations to determine significant associations between variables were followed by two multiple linear regressions to assess the relative contribution of relational variables such as parent–child relationships and teacher–child relationships on academic performance (in mathematics and French, respectively).

To meet the third objective and to consider the phenomenon of underachievement in accordance with the definition of the concept, the presence of twice-exceptionality was considered and controlled in analyses related to underachievement. After looking for significant correlations between underachievement in mathematics or French and the relational variables, two binary logistic regressions were carried out. Both regressions were used to determine whether the studied relational variables predicted underachievement in mathematics or French. Only variables significantly associated with the presence or absence of underperformance in mathematics and French were included in the regression models performed on each dependent variable. The Wald ascendant method was used to retain only significative variables in both regressions. This statistical method can be used with small sample sizes to detect significant effects (Hosmer & Lemeshow, 2000).

Results

Descriptive statistics for school performance in mathematics and French, as well as comparisons between achievers and underachievers and between twice-exceptional and non-twice-exceptional gifted children, are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Descriptive Statistics on Results in Mathematics and French (VD) for the Whole Sample and According to the Presence of Underachievement or Twice-Exceptionality

Variables	N	Mean score in mathematics (SD) (range)	t	Mean score in French (SD) (range)	t
All sample	71	90.4 (7.28) (62–100)		87.27 (6.70) (66–99)
Achievement			5.80**		6.05**
Achievers	50	92.57 (4.23) (79–100)		89.05 (5.47) (79–99)
Underachievers	21	77.20 (8.20) (62–93)		78.60 (5.38) (66–93)
Giftedness			−1.42		−1.81
Not twice-exceptional	51	91.16 (6.07) (74–100)		88.16 (6.59) (76–99)
Twice-exceptional	20	88.45 (9.62) (62–96)		85.00 (6.62) (66–85)

*p < .05. **p < .001.

Overall, gifted students demonstrated high levels of academic performance, with higher mean scores in mathematics (M = 90.4; SD = 7.28) than in French (M = 87.27; SD = 6.70). Significant discrepancies between mathematics and French performance were observed, with 38% of students below the class mean in mathematics and 30% below the class mean in French (see Table 2). In total, 19.7% of gifted children in the sample performed below average in at least one subject.

Independent-samples t-tests revealed that achievers scored significantly higher than underachievers in both mathematics, t(69) = 5.80, p < .001, and French, t(69) = 6.05, p < .001. Comparisons between twice-exceptional (n = 20) and non-twice-exceptional (n = 51) students indicated no significant differences in academic achievement for either mathematics, t(69) = −1.42, p = .08, or French, t(69) = −1.81, p = .07. Twice-exceptional gifted children performed as well as the others. To account for potential Type 1 errors associated with multiple comparisons, Tukey’s Honest Significant Difference (HSD) test was conducted. Results confirmed that differences between groups remained significant under this more stringent correction.

Associations Between Sociodemographic Variables, Teacher–Student and Parent–Child Relationships, and School Performance in Mathematics and French

Correlational analyses (see Table 3) indicated that certain individual variables (age) and relational variables (dimensions of the teacher–child relationship as perceived by the child and the teacher) were significantly associated with academic performance in mathematics and French. Family variables (parent–child relationship as perceived by the child) were not significantly associated with academic achievement.

Table 3.

Correlations Between Performance (Academic Results in Mathematics and French) and Individual Sociodemographic and Relational Factors (Parent–Child and Teacher–Student)

Sociodemographic and relational variables	Mathematics performance	French performance
Children (n = 71)
Gender^a	.01	.09
Age	−.25*	−.28*
IQ	.06	.05
Twice-exceptionality	.21	−.03
Parent–child relationship (KERNS)
Security/insecurity	.18	.10
Dependance/autonomy	−.07	−.03
Teacher–child relationship (YCATS; Child’s perception)
Warm behaviors	.33**	.27*
Conflicts	−.46**	−.45**
Autonomy	.42**	.37**
Teacher–child relationship (STRS; teacher’s perception)
Proximity	.16	.31**
Conflicts	−.27*	−.42**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

^aGender coded as boys = 1, girls = 2.

To examine how relational variables predicted performance in mathematics and French, two hierarchical linear regressions were conducted (see Table 4). In each regression model, age was entered in the first block as a control variable, followed by relational variables that were significantly correlated with performance in mathematics and French in the second block.

Table 4.

Associations Between Achievement and Teacher–Child Relationship, Controlling for Child Age

	Model 1 – mathematics (df = 1, 69)			Model 2 – mathematics (df = 4, 65)			Model 1 – French (df = 1, 69)			Model 2 – French (df = 4, 65)
	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β	B	SE B	β
Children’s age	−1.05	.49	−.25*	−.77	0.45	−.18*	−1.10	.45	−.28*	−.82	.40	−.21*
Teacher–child relationship (YCATS; child’s perception)
Warm behaviors				−.12	1.65	−.01				−1.28	1.54	−.12
Conflicts				−2.88	1.63	−.25				−2.39	1.47	−.22
Autonomy				3.46	1.44	.30*				2.84	1.29	.27*
Teacher–child relationship (STRS; teacher’s perception)
Proximity										−1.92	1.02	−.23
Conflicts				−.91	1.04	−.10				1.02	1.19	.11
R² ^(ADJUSTED)	.05			.26			.07			.29
F for change in R²	4.54*			5.80***			5.94*			5.84 ***

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Regarding performance in mathematics, both overall models were significant. Among the relational variables, only the autonomy dimension of the teacher–student relationship, as perceived by the child, significantly predicted mathematics achievement. Greater perceived autonomy in the classroom was associated with higher mathematics performance. This model accounted for 26% of the variance in students’ mathematics scores, suggesting a contribution of the teacher–child relationships. There were no significant associations between mathematics performance and the other relationship dimensions as perceived by either the child or the teacher. Proximity was not included in the second model as it was not correlated to the results in mathematics.

For French performance, the results indicate that children’s age is significantly associated with French performance in both models. Among the relational variables, only the autonomy dimension of the teacher–student relationship, as perceived by the child, was significantly related to French performance. Greater perceived autonomy in the classroom was associated with higher French achievement. The model accounted for 29% of the variance in students’ French performance, underscoring the role of teacher–student relationships. No significant associations were observed between performance in French and the other dimensions of the relationship as perceived by either the child or the teacher.

Predicting Underachievement in Mathematics and in French

To identify variables for inclusion in the binary logistic regressions, Spearman correlational analyses were conducted (see Table 5). Certain factors (autonomy and conflicts) of the teacher–child relationship as perceived by the child and by the teacher were associated with whether students underperformed in mathematics or French.

Table 5.

Correlations Between the Presence of Underachievement (Academic Results in Mathematics and French) and Relational Factors (Parent–Child and Teacher–Student)

Relational variables	Presence of mathematics underachievement	Presence of French underachievement
Parent–child relationship (KERNS)
Security/insecurity	−.14	−.10
Dependance/autonomy	.09	−.08
Teacher–child relationship (YCATS; child’s perception)
Warm behaviors	−.31**	−.35**
Conflicts	.35**	.32**
Autonomy	−.37**	−.45**
Teacher–child relationship (STRS; teacher’s perception)
Proximity	−.07	−.12
Conflicts	.23	.32**

*p < .05. **p < .01.

Two binary logistic regression analyses were conducted to examine the predictive role of teacher–student relationship factors in underachievement in mathematics and French, while controlling for age and twice-exceptionality.

Risk of Underachievement in Mathematics

The results presented in Table 6 indicate that conflict, as perceived by the child, significantly predicts the risk of underachievement in mathematics (OR = 4.90*, p = .03). Specifically, the more conflict children perceived in their relationship with their teacher, the greater their likelihood of underperforming in mathematics. Autonomy, as perceived by the child, was a significant negative predictor of underachievement in mathematics, OR = 0.08, p = .014. Greater perceived autonomy from the teacher was associated with a reduced risk of underachievement in mathematics.

Table 6.

Prediction of Underachievement in Mathematics by Teacher–Student Relationship, Controlling for the Child’s Age and Twice-Exceptionality

Variables	B	SE B	Wald	df	p	OR	IC 95%
Intercept	2.31	3.35	.48	1	.490	10.04*
YCATS conflict	1.59	.74	4.56	1	.033	4.90*	[1.14, 21.07]
YCATS autonomy	−2.59	1.05	6.08	1	.014	.08*	[.01, .59]

*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Risk of Underachievement in French

Results presented in Table 7 show that conflict perceived by children in the relationship with the teacher significantly predicts risk of French underachievement (OR = 6.16*, p = .002). Thus, the more conflicts a child perceives in their relationship with their teacher, the more likely they are to underperform in French.

Table 7.

Prediction of French Underachievement by the Conflict in the Teacher–Student Relationship, Controlling for the Child’s Age and Twice-Exceptionality

Variables	B	SE B	Wald	df	p	OR	IC 95%
Intercept	−4.93	1.18	17.47	1	.001	.007***
YCATS conflict	1.82	0.59	9.45	1	.002	6.16*	[1.93, 19.62]

*p < .005. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Discussion

In alignment with prior findings (Roth et al., 2015; Vialle et al., 2007), the school performance of gifted students in this sample was generally superior to the class averages in both mathematics and French. Overall, 19.7% of gifted children demonstrated underachievement in mathematics and French. These findings are consistent with those of previous studies that have documented a conservative prevalence of 10% to 20% (Veas et al., 2018). However, several researchers have postulated that this figure may in fact be an underestimation, with a prevalence potentially reaching up to 50% among gifted children (Reis, 2000; Siegle, 2018). This discrepancy may be attributed to the fact that instances of underachievement are often not recognized by teachers, particularly in cases where the underlying causes are not readily apparent (Hsieh et al., 2007; Rimm, 2003; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2020; White et al., 2018).

Upon examination of the academic achievement of twice-exceptional children, it becomes evident that their abilities are on par with those of other gifted children. Nevertheless, the existing literature suggests that these children may potentially face academic challenges (Carpenter, 2021; Lim, 2021). It is plausible that these children possess the cognitive capacity to effectively navigate the current challenges, thereby achieving a performance level comparable to that of their similarly gifted counterparts. Moreover, the specific type of twice-exceptionality may be a contributing factor to the observed similarity between the two groups. Notably, a considerable proportion of the twice-exceptional children in the sample (n = 20) have been diagnosed with ADHD or inattentive ADHD (n = 17). Even though this condition can impact school achievement (Zendarski et al., 2022), it is possible that in this study, these twice-exceptional children were able to reach the performance level of their classmates more easily than other twice-exceptional children with more complex neurodevelopmental profiles. Furthermore, it is possible that the adaptive measures (e.g., academic support) offered by the school environment in elementary school enabled them to overcome the challenges they faced and achieve better academic results. Another possibility is that school challenges (e.g., falling grades and dropping out) may appear later, when gifted young people enter high school (Lan & Lanthier, 2003) and they have less support and guidance with assignments and homework. Because the individuals in this sample are still in primary school, they would not yet be affected.

School Performance and the Teacher–Student Relationship

Findings document a clear relationship between the autonomy perceived in the teacher–student relationship and the performance of gifted children in mathematics and French. In fact, the more gifted children perceive that they have autonomy in their schoolwork and that they can choose certain tasks and diversify them (e.g., choosing a task or the way to complete it, choosing their seat in class), the more they perform up to their potential in both subjects. Already documented in other populations (Roth et al., 2007), the autonomy offered by the teacher allows children to deeply explore their interests, develop their knowledge at their pace, and cultivate their intrinsic motivation (Baudry et al., 2021; Garn & Jolly, 2014; Winner, 2000). According to self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2002), this autonomy is a key psychological component that fosters motivation and well-being. The concept of autonomy is also linked to academic performance in gifted children, who can develop positive attitudes toward learning opportunities offered to them or that they can choose themselves (Baudry et al., 2024; Miserandino, 1996). The desire for opportunities to use creativity and their own working methods is also highlighted by gifted children when discussing autonomy (Baudry et al., 2024; Baudry et al., 2019; Baudry et al., 2021; Massé et al., 2021). Consequently, autonomy provides them with the opportunity to reach their full potential by allowing them to learn in a manner that aligns with their individual skills and interests, at a pace that suits them, and in a way that is effective, creative, and satisfying. The presence of autonomy has been found to lower the risk of underachievement, especially in mathematics, in addition to increasing continuous performance (e.g., Cimon-Paquet et al., 2020). This conclusion is in line with the results set out above.

Academic Underachievement and the Teacher–Student Relationship

Although the relationship between a gifted child and their teacher, along with the support provided by the latter, are crucial factors in the academic success of gifted students (Baudry et al., 2019; Baudry et al., 2021), the presence of conflict in the relationship between the child and their teacher as perceived by the child has been identified as an important predictor of underachievement in both mathematics and French. It has been observed that the more a gifted child perceives that their teacher displays anger, lacks attention towards them, and remarks about their lack of effort in class, the more likely they are to underachieve. This result aligns with the findings of several studies in samples of normative children (Burchinal et al., 2002; Hamre & Pianta, 2001). It is documented that the presence of conflict and negative exchanges in the student-teacher relationship is a significant predictor of negative school performance and problematic academic trajectory in the longer term (Hamre & Pianta, 2001). The perception of conflict in the relationship with an authority figure, such as a teacher, can instill feelings of insecurity in gifted children, leading to the development of anxiety and stress (Zee & Roorda, 2018). Such feelings may subsequently affect their ability and readiness to learn. Furthermore, their capacity to concentrate and memorize may also be affected, which in turn impacts their performance on assessments at a primary school level and beyond (Akanpaadgi et al., 2023; Goodman et al., 2012). The perception of conflict with one’s teacher can also result in a cascade of negative effects on the child, beginning with a loss of motivation and subsequently leading to disinterest in the subject being taught. This, in turn, can cause disengagement and difficulties in performing (Patrick et al., 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2002). In instances where the relationship is characterized by conflict and negativity, it is also plausible that gifted children may be reluctant to ask questions or seek help when needed. By avoiding the relationship and foregoing the opportunity to seek help from the teacher, the gifted child may spare themself from negative reprimands from the teacher. A positive and conflict-free relationship is necessary to cultivate autonomy and may help prevent the underachievement of gifted students.

School Performance and the Parent–Child Relationship

Although the quality of the parent–child relationship is a key factor in understanding academic performance and success (Carmona-Halty et al., 2022) and is typically linked to cognitive development across infancy, childhood, and adolescence (Bronfenbrenner, 2005; Carmona-Halty et al., 2022; Li et al., 2022), it was not associated with the academic achievement of the gifted children in this sample. In fact, contrary to expectations (Magro et al., 2023; Oh-Hwan, 1993), no significant association was found between children’s perceived attachment security and autonomy and their academic performance. On one hand, this finding suggests that the relationships within the school environment play a particularly important role in the functioning of gifted students. Although parent–child relationships can promote confidence, self-esteem, and academic support at home, these influences appear secondary to the relational context experienced in the classroom. However, the measures used in this study may not have been optimal for capturing the nuances of this relationship. The use of observational measures could provide an alternative means of assessing the parent–child relationship more objectively.

It is possible that self-reported measures by gifted children reflect their heightened needs for autonomy and security, which may differ from those of typically developing peers aged 6 to 12 (Baudry et al., 2024). It will therefore be important to conduct future research comparing self-reported and observational measures to ensure that these constructs are accurately assessed and to gain a more complete understanding of gifted children’s attachment and parent–child relationships.

It is also possible to consider that the relationship of gifted children with their parents may be expressed differently than that of other children, such as those born prematurely (Spinelli et al., 2013), those with ASD (Rutgers et al., 2004), or those with developmental disabilities (Goagoses et al., 2021), for which the association between parent–child relationship and school performance has been documented. Additional research is needed to explore whether similar or distinct patterns emerge among gifted populations.

Limitations

Several factors may limit the interpretation of the results of this study. Although the sample size is noteworthy for a study involving a population of gifted children, the number of participants may limit the generalizability of the results. Only 71 children, their parents, and teachers ultimately enrolled in the study, despite a concerted recruitment effort. The advent of the global pandemic significantly impeded this recruitment effort, particularly at the school level, making it challenging to reach teachers and consequently excluding several families from the project.

The limited sample size restricts the ability to draw broad conclusions about the population of gifted children. Additionally, the composition of the sample could have been more diverse. Including a comparison group of children from various backgrounds would have enabled a more nuanced understanding of the differences between gifted children and their nongifted peers, extending beyond school performance and underachievement. It would also have allowed for a more thorough study of relational variables, like the teacher and parent involvement, in the gifted children’s lives. The self-reported tools used with children, teachers, and parents also restrict the ability to draw conclusions, particularly about the parent–child relationship and its potential, although unproven in the present study, to correlate with school performance. Future studies may wish to consider the use of observational measures as a means of investigation. Finally, as studies have connected high parental expectations with student achievement, particularly in the context of immigrant families (see, e.g., Chan, 2021), this concept may be another avenue for further investigation, as it relates to underachievement.

Conclusion

The teacher–student relationship plays an essential role in the academic success of gifted children that should not be underestimated. Providing gifted children with autonomy in school tasks and offering them choices can foster engagement and academic success. It is essential to make teachers aware of this dimension, which can be addressed through minor pedagogical adjustments rather than major curriculum changes.

When conflicts arise in the teacher–student relationship, even minor ones, they should be addressed directly with the student to minimize potential negative effects on academic performance and to preserve the quality of the relationship. Although the parent–child relationship does not appear to be significantly associated with the academic achievement of gifted students in this study, a warm, consistent, and predictable relationship remains essential for the child’s overall adjustment and development.

Footnotes

ORCID iDs

Claire Baudry

Jessica Pearson

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Conseil de recherches en sciences humaines du Canada - sshrc crsh.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Author Biographies

Claire Baudry, Ph.D., is a full professor in the psychoeducation department at Québec University of Trois-Rivières, Canada, and a clinical psychologist.

Line Massé, Ph.D., is a full professor in the psychoeducation department at Québec University of Trois-Rivières, Canada.

Jessica Pearson, Ph.D., is a full professor in the psychoeducation department at Québec University of Trois-Rivières, Canada.

Marjorie Simard is a Ph.D. candidate in psychology at Laval University, Canada.

References

Akanpaadgi

Binpimbu

Kuuyelleh

E. N.

(2023). The impact of stress on students’ academic performance. Eureka Journal of Educational Research, 2(1), 60–67. https://doi.org/10.56773/ejer.v2i1.17

Bacro

(2011). Validation francophone de l’échelle de sécurité des perceptions d’attachement au père et à la mère (Kerns, Klepac & Cole, 1996). European Review of Applied Psychology, 61(4), 213–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.erap.2011.09.003

Baudry, C., Massé, L., Verret, C., Couture, C., Nadeau, M-F., Bégin, J.-Y., Primeau, V., Martineau-Crête, I., & Lagacé-Leblanc, J. (2019). Conditions qui favorisent ou nuisent à l'inclusion scolaire des élèves à haut potentiel au Québec (Conditions which promote or harm the educational inclusion of high-potential students in Québec) (communication orale). In 12e colloque du Réseau Interuniversitaire de Psychologie du Développement et de l'Éducation, Bordeaux, France, 2019 .

Baudry

Massé

Verret

Lagacé-Leblanc

Primeau

Martineau-Crête

Couture

Nadeau

M.-F.

Bégin

J.-Y.

(2021). Regards croisés sur les pratiques de différenciation pédagogique favorisant l’inclusion scolaire des élèves doués au primaire [Crossed perspectives on educational differentiation practices promoting the educational inclusion of gifted students in primary school]. McGill Journal of Education/Revue des sciences de l’éducation de McGill, 56(2/3), 179–200. https://mje.mcgill.ca/article/view/9898.

Baudry

Pearson

Massé

Dubois-Comtois

Ouellet

(2024). Attachment in gifted children aged 6 to 12, links with school performance and social-emotional child adjustment: Preliminary results [Flash talk]. In: International Attachment Conference, Rouen, France, 2024.

Bergold

Wirthwein

Steinmayr

(2020). Similarities and differences between intellectually gifted and average-ability students in school performance, motivation, and subjective well-being. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(4), 285–303. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220932533

Best

J. R.

Miller

P. H.

Naglieri

J. A.

(2011). Relations between executive function and academic achievement from ages 5 to 17 in a large, representative national sample. Learning and Individual Differences, 21(4), 327–336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.01.007

Bronfenbrenner

(2005). Ecological systems theory (1992). In Bronfenbrenner

(Ed.), Making human beings human: Bioecological perspectives on human development (pp. 106–173). Sage.

Burchinal

M. R.

Peisner-Feinberg

Pianta

Howes

(2002). Development of academic skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental trajectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40(5), 415–436. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00107-3

10.

Camp

M. D.

(2011). The power of teacher-student relationships in determining student success. University of Missouri-Kansas City. https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/62770657.pdf

11.

Carmona-Halty

Salanova

Schaufeli

W. B.

(2022). The strengthening starts at home: Parent-child relationships, psychological capital, and academic performance-a longitudinal mediation analysis. Current Psychology, 41(6), 3788–3796. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00898-8

12.

Carpenter

A. Y.

(2021). Twice-exceptional students. In Cross

T. L.

Cross

J. R.

(Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (2nd ed., pp. 305–323). Prufrock Academic Press.

13.

Chan

E. W.

(2021). Heterogenous parental responses to education quality. Education Economics, 30(3), 225–250. https://doi.org/10.1080/09645292.2021.1974345

14.

Chen

Brody

G. H.

Miller

G. E.

(2017). Childhood close family relationships and health. American Psychologist, 72(6), 555–566. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000067

15.

Cimon-Paquet

Bernier

Matte-Gagné

Mageau

G. A.

(2020). Early maternal autonomy support and mathematical achievement trajectories during elementary school. Learning and Individual Differences, 79, Article 101855. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101855

16.

Clingenpeel

B. T.

Pianta

R. C.

(2007). Mothers’ sensitivity and book-reading interactions with first graders. Early Education and Development, 18(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701274345

17.

Cornejo-Araya

C. A.

Gómez-Araya

C. A.

Muñoz-Huerta

Y. P.

Reyes-Vergara

C. P.

(2021). What do we know about giftedness and underachievement? A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Research in Education and Science, 7(2), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1481

18.

Croft

L. J.

(2003). Teachers of the gifted: Gifted teachers. In Colangelo

Davis

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 558–571). Allyn and Bacon.

19.

Desmet

O. A.

Pereira

Peterson

J. S.

(2019). Telling a tale: How underachievement develops in gifted girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 85–99. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219888633

20.

Dever

(2016). The impact of teacher-student relationships on the development of talent: Connections with Gagné’s DMGT 2.0. Journal of Student Engagement: Education Matters, 6(1), 2–12. https://ro.uow.edu.au/jseem/vol6/iss1/2

21.

Fearon

R. P.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Lapsley

A. M.

Roisman

G. I.

(2010). The significance of insecure attachment and disorganization in the development of children’s externalizing behavior: A meta‐analytic study. Child Development, 81(2), 435–456. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01405.x

22.

Freeman

Garces-Bacsal

R. M.

(2021). Gender differences in gifted children. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children. (2nd ed., pp. 17–28). Routledge.

23.

Fuentes-Balderrama

Turnbull-Plaza

Ojeda-García

Parra-Cardona

J. R.

Cruz del Castillo

Díaz-Loving

Von Mohr

(2023). Insecure attachment to parents as a contributor to internalizing and externalizing problem behaviors in Mexican preadolescents. Trends in Psychology, 31(1), 105–122. https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-021-00125-8

24.

Gagné

(2015). From genes to talent: The DMGT/CMTD perspective. Revista de Educacion, 369(Article 1), 12–37. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-289

25.

Gagné

(2020). Understanding the complex choreography of talent development through DMGT-based analysis. In Heller

K. A.

Mönks

F. J.

Sternberg

R. J.

Subotnik

R. F.

(Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed., pp. 67–79). Elsevier.

26.

Garn

A. C.

Jolly

J. L.

(2014). High ability students’ voice on learning motivation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 25(1), 7–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X13513262

27.

Gauvrit

(2021). Performances scolaires et académiques [School and academic performance]. In Clobert

Gauvrit

(Eds.), Psychologie du haut potentiel: Comprendre, identifier, accompagner [Psychology of high potential: Understand, identify, support] (pp. 165–173). Deboeck.

28.

Goagoses

Bolz

Vesterling

Koglin

(2021). Maternal attachment and behaviour problems: Comparison between children in regular and special education schools. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 38(1), 16–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/08856257.2021.2017145

29.

Goodman

R. D.

Miller

M. D.

West-Olatunji

C. A.

(2012). Traumatic stress, socioeconomic status, and academic achievement among primary school students. Psychological Trauma: Theory, Research, Practice, and Policy, 4(3), 252–259. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024912

30.

Green

Fine

M. J.

Tollefson

(1988). Family systems characteristics and underachieving gifted adolescent males. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 267–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698628803200205

31.

Haider

S. A.

Asif

Aminullah (2024). To analyze the effects of teacher’s attitude and behaviors on the academic achievement of secondary school students. Voyage Journal of Educational Studies, 4(2), 16–27. https://doi.org/10.58622/vjes.v4i2.144

32.

Hamre

B. K.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Early teacher-child relationships and the trajectory of children's school outcomes through eighth grade. Child Development, 72(2), 625–638. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00301

33.

Hately

Townend

(2020). A qualitative meta-analysis of research into the underachievement of gifted boys. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 29(1), 6–22. https://doi.org/10.3316/INFORMIT.078854752991154

34.

Holt

L. J.

(2014). Attitudes about help-seeking mediate the relation between parent attachment and academic adjustment in first-year college students. Journal of College Student Development, 55(4), 418–423. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2014.0039

35.

Hosmer

D. W.

Lemeshow

(2000). Applied logistic regression (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons.

36.

Hsieh

Sullivan

J. R.

Guerra

N. S.

(2007). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 18(3), 454–476. https://doi.org/10.4219/jaa-2007-50

37.

IBM Corp . (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 28.0. Author.

38.

Johnston

Wildy

Shand

(2022). A grounded theory about how teachers communicated high expectations to their secondary school students. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 39(1), 211–235. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-023-00689-2

39.

Jung

J. Y.

Lee

(2024). Parental attitudes toward gifted students and gifted education: Attitude profiles and predictors. Journal of Intelligence, 12(5), 48. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence12050048

40.

Kaya

(2015). Teachers’ conceptions of giftedness and special needs of gifted students. Education and Science, 40(177), 59–74. https://doi.org/10.15390/EB.2015.2885

41.

Kerns

K. A.

Klepac

Cole

(1996). Peer relationships and preadolescents’ perceptions of security in the child-mother relationship. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 457–466. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.457

42.

Kim

J. Y.

Kim

(2021). Effect of positive parenting styles as perceived by middle school students on academic achievement and the mediation effect of self-esteem and academic engagement. Sustainability, 13(23), Article 13233. https://doi.org/10.3390/su132313233

43.

Koehn

A. J.

Kerns

K. A.

(2018). Parent-child attachment: Meta-analysis of associations with parenting behaviors in middle childhood and adolescence. Attachment & Human Development, 20(4), 378–405. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2017.1408131

44.

Ladd

G. W.

Burgess

K. B.

(2001). Do relational risks and protective factors moderate the linkages between childhood aggression and early psychological and school adjustment? Child Development, 72(5), 1579–1601. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00366

45.

Lan

Lanthier

(2003). Changes in students’ academic performance and perceptions of school and self before dropping out of schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 8(3), 309–332. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327671ESPR0803_2

46.

Huang

Zhao

(2022). Parent–child relationships and academic performance of college students: Chain-mediating roles of gratitude and psychological capital. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 794201. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.794201

47.

Lim

(2021). Understanding twice-exceptionality (2E): A multi-systems perspective. International Journal of Childhood Education, 2(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.33422/ijce.v2i1.34

48.

Liu

(2022). The association between teacher‐student relationship and academic achievement: The moderating effect of parental involvement. Psychology in the Schools, 59(2), 281–296. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22608

49.

Madigan

Deneault

A. A.

Duschinsky

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

Schuengel

Van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Fearon

R. M. P.

Eirich

Verhage

M. L.

(2024). Maternal and paternal sensitivity: Key determinants of child attachment security examined through metaanalysis. Psychological Bulletin, 150(7), 839–872. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000433

50.

Magro

S. W.

Nivison

M. D.

Englund

M. M.

Roisman

G. I.

(2023). The quality of early caregiving and teacher-student relationships in grade school independently predict adolescent academic achievement. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 47(2), 158–168. https://doi.org/10.1177/01650254221137511

51.

Malekpour

(2007). Effects of attachment on early and later development. The British Journal of Development Disabilities, 53(105), 81–95. https://doi.org/10.1179/096979507799103360

52.

Manabayeva

Hermandez-Torrano

(2023). Reversing gifted underachievement in Kazakhstan: Teachers’ perceptions, factors, and strategies. In Collins

K. H.

Roberson

J. J.

Ribeiro Piske

F. H.

(Eds.), Underachievement in gifted education: Perspectives, practices and possibilities (pp. 114–125). Routledge.

53.

Mantzicopoulos

P. Y.

Neuharth-Pritchett

(2003). Development and validation of a measure to assess head start children’s appraisals of teacher support. Journal of School Psychology, 41(6), 431–451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2003.08.002

54.

Markiewicz

Lawford

Doyle

A. B.

Haggart

(2006). Developmental differences in adolescents’ and young adults’ use of mothers, fathers, best friends, and romantic partners to fulfill attachment needs. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 35(1), 121–134. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-9014-5

55.

Martins

Cunha

Lopes

Moreira

Rosário

(2022). School engagement in elementary school: A systematic review of 35 years of research. Educational Psychology Review, 34(2), 793–849. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-021-09642-5

56.

Massé

Baudry

Lagacé-Leblanc

Verret

Primeau

Martineau-Crète

Couture

Nadeau

M.-F.

Bégin

J.-Y.

(2021, November 11-14). Pedagogical differentiation practices promoting inclusion of gifted elementary students [Poster presentation]. National Association for Gifted Children 68th Annual Convention, Aurora, CO, United States. https://doi.org/10.13140/RG.2.2.36768.10249

57.

McGrath

K. F.

Van Bergen

(2015). Who, when, why, and to what end? Students at risk of negative student-teacher relationships and their outcomes. Educational Research Review, 14, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2014.12.001

58.

Miserandino

(1996). Children who do well in school individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203

59.

Moss

Dubois-Comtois

Cyr

Tarabulsy

G. M.

St-Laurent

Bernier

(2011). Efficacy of a home-visiting intervention aimed at improving maternal sensitivity, child attachment, and behavioral outcomes for maltreated children: A randomized control trial. Developmental Psychopathology, 23(1), 195–210. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579410000738

60.

Moss

St-Laurent

(2001). Attachment at school age and academic performance. Developmental Psychology, 37(6), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1037/00121649.37.6.863

61.

Neihart

Yeo

L. S.

(2018). Psychological issues unique to the gifted student. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Debrick

Foley-Nicpon

(Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 497–510). American Psychological Association.

62.

Ogelman

H. G.

Seven

(2014). The reliability-validity studies for the student-teacher relationship scale (STRS). European Journal of Research on Education, 2(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.15527/ejre.201426262

63.

Oh-Hwang

(1993). Linkage between home environments, child psychosocial maturity, and child academic achievement. Gifted International, 8(1), 32–37. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.1993.11672775

64.

Patrick

Mantzicopoulos

Samarapungavan

French

B. F.

(2008). Patterns of young children’s motivation for science and teacher-child relationships. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76(2), 121–144. https://doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.76.2.121-144

65.

Pianta

R. C.

(2001). Student-teacher relationship scale (professional manual). Psychological Assessment Resources.

66.

Pianta

R. C.

Steinberg

M. S.

Rollins

K. B.

(1995). The first two years of school: Teacher-child relationships and deflections in children’s classroom adjustment. Development and Psychopathology, 7(2), 295–312. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0954579400006519

67.

Pianta

R. C.

Stuhlman

M. W.

(2004). Teacher-child relationships and children's success in the first years of school. School Psychology Review, 33(3), 444–458. https://doi.org/10.1080/02796015.2004.12086261

68.

Price

(2017). He’s not lazy: Empowering your son to believe in himself. Union Square & Co.

69.

Reis

S. M.

(2000). Reading and writing problems of high school gifted students with learning disabilities. In Hafenstein

Rainey

Baum

(Eds.), Perspectives in gifted education: Twice-exceptional children (pp. 52–73). University of Denver. https://digitalcommons.du.edu/perspectivesingifteded/2.

70.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

(2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 152–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302

71.

Renzulli

J. S.

Park

(2002). Giftedness and high school dropouts: Personal, family and school-related factors. National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

72.

Rimm

(2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 424–443). Allyn and Bacon.

73.

Rimm

Cornale

Manos

Behrend

(1993). Underachievement syndrome causes and cures. Apple Publishing Company.

74.

Ritchotte

J. A.

Matthews

M. S.

Flowers

C. P.

(2014). The validity of the achievement orientation model for gifted middle school students: An exploratory study. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 183–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534890

75.

Ronksley-Pavia

Barton

G. M.

Pendergast

(2019). Multiage education: An exploration of advantages and disadvantages through a systematic review of the literature. The Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 44(5), 24–41. https://doi.org/10.14221/AJTE.2018V44N5.2

76.

Roorda

D. L.

Jak

Zee

Oort

F. J.

Koomen

H. M.

(2017). Affective teacher-student relationships and students’ engagement and achievement: A meta-analytic update and test of the mediating role of engagement. School Psychology Review, 46(2), 239–261. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311421793

77.

Roth

Becker

Romeyke

Schafer

Domnick

Spinath

F. M.

(2015). Intelligence and school grades: A meta-analysis. Intelligence, 53, 118–137. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2015.09.002

78.

Roth

Assor

Kanat-Maymon

Kaplan

(2007). Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761

79.

Rutgers

A. H.

Bakermans‐Kranenburg

M. J.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

van Berckelaer‐Onnes

I. A.

(2004). Autism and attachment: A meta‐analytic review. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(6), 1123–1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.t01-1-00305.x

80.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2002). An overview of self-determination theory: An organismic dialectical perspective. In Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

81.

Sabol

T. J.

Pianta

R. C.

(2012). Recent trends in research on teacher-child relationships. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 213–231. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672262

82.

Siegle

(2018). Understanding underachievement. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed., pp. 285–297). Springer.

83.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

(2005). Making a difference: Motivating gifted students who are not achieving. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005990503800104

84.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

(2018). Underachievement and the gifted child. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

Shaunessy-Dedrick

Foley-Nipcon

(Eds.), APA handbook on giftedness and talent (pp. 559–573). American Psychological Association.

85.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

(2021). Underachievers. In Plucker

J. A.

Callahan

C. M.

(Eds.), Critical issues and practice in gifted education: A survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (3rd ed., pp. 521–534). Routledge.

86.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

DaVia Rubenstein

(2021). Understanding and addressing underachievement in gifted student. In Cross

T. L.

Cross

J. R.

(Eds.), Handbook for counsellors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counselling needs/interventions (pp. 605–626). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315639987-34

87.

Siegle

McCoach

D. B.

Rubenstein

L. D.

(2017). Underachieving gifted students. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (pp. 372–385). Routledge.

88.

Snyder

K. E.

Fong

C. J.

Painter

J. K.

Pittard

C. M.

Barr

S. M.

Patall

E. A.

(2019). Interventions for academically underachieving students: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Educational Research Review, 28, 100294. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2019.100294

89.

Spilt

J. L.

Koomen

H. M. Y.

Mantzicopoulos

P. Y.

(2010). Young children’s perceptions of teacher-child relationships: An evaluation of two instruments and the role of child gender in kindergarten. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31(6), 428–438. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.006

90.

Spinelli

Poehlmann

Bolt

(2013). Predictors of parenting stress trajectories in premature infant–mother dyads. Journal of Family Psychology, 27(6), 873–883. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034652

91.

Stams

G. J.

Juffer

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

(2002). Maternal sensitivity, infant attachment, and temperament in early childhood predict adjustment in middle childhood: The case of adopted children and their biologically unrelated parents. Developmental Psychology, 38(5), 806–821. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.5.806

92.

Steenbergen-Hu

Olszewski-Kubilius

Calvert

(2020). The effectiveness of current interventions to reverse the underachievement of gifted students: Findings of a meta-analysis and systematic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(2), 132–165. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220908601

93.

Trail

B. A.

(2022). Twice-exceptional gifted children: Understanding, teaching, and counseling gifted students. Routledge.

94.

Tus

(2021). Amidst the online learning in the Philippines: The parental involvement and its relationship to the student’s academic performance. International Engineering Journal for Research & Development, 6(3), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.14776347.v1

95.

Vancraeyveldt

Verschueren

Van Craeyevelt

Wouters

Colpin

(2015). Teacher-reported effects of the Playing-2-gether intervention on child externalising problem behaviour. Educational Psychology, 35(4), 466–483. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2013.860218

96.

van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Bakermans-Kranenburg

M. J.

(2019). Bridges across the intergenerational transmission of attachment gap. Current Opinion in Psychology, 25, 31–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2018.02.014

97.

Van Ryzin

M. J.

Leve

L. D.

(2012). Validity evidence for the security scale as a measure of perceived attachment security in adolescence. Journal Adolescence, 35(2), 425–431. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.014

98.

Veas

Castejón

J. L.

O’Reilly

Ziegler

(2018). Mediation analysis of the relationship between educational capital, learning capital, and underachievement among gifted secondary school students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 41(4), 369–385. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532187994

99.

Verschueren

Koomen

H. M.

(2012). Teacher-child relationships from an attachment perspective. Attachment and Human Development, 14(3), 205–211. https://doi.org/10.1080/14616734.2012.672260

100.

Vialle

Heaven

P. C.

Ciarrochi

(2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong youth study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13(6), 569–586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701786046

101.

Vorria

Papaligoura

Sarafidou

Kopakaki

Dunn

Van IJzendoorn

M. H.

Kontopoulou

(2006). The development of adopted children after institutional care: A follow-up study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 47(12), 1246–1253. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.01666.x

102.

Wechsler

(2014). Wechsler intelligence scale for children (5th ed.). NCS Pearson.

103.

Wellisch

Brown

(2012). An integrated identification and intervention model for intellectually gifted children. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23(2), 145–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12438877

104.

Wellisch

Brown

Taylor

Knight

Berresford

Campbell

Cohen

(2011). Secure attachment and high IQ: Are gifted children better adjusted? Australian Journal of Gifted Education, 20(2), 71–86.

105.

Weyns

Preckel

Verschueren

(2021). Teachers-in-training perceptions of gifted children’s characteristics and teacher-child interactions: An experimental study. Teaching and Teacher Education, 97, Article 103215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2020.103215

106.

White

S. L. J.

Graham

L. J.

Blaas

(2018). Why do we know so little about the factors associated with gifted underachievement? A systematic literature review. Educational Research Review, 24, 55–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.EDUREV.2018.03.001

107.

Winner

(2000). The origins and ends of giftedness. American Psychologist, 55(1), 159–169. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.159

108.

Yildirim

Dong

L. S.

(2022). The structural relationships of parental attachment, peer attachment, teacher support, self-control and grit of gifted students. Journal of Educational Sciences and Psychology, 12(1), 138–153. https://doi.org/10.51865/JESP.2022.1.14

109.

Zee

Koomen

H. M.

(2016). Teacher self-efficacy and its effects on classroom processes, student academic adjustment, and teacher well-being: A synthesis of 40 years of research. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 981–1015. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315626801

110.

Zee

Roorda

D. L.

(2018). Student–teacher relationships in elementary school: The unique role of shyness, anxiety, and emotional problems. Learning and Individual Differences, 67, 156–166. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.08.006

111.

Zendarski

Guo

Sciberras

Efron

Quach

Winter

Bisset

Middeldorp

C. M.

Coghill

(2022). Examining the educational gap for children with ADHD and subthreshold ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 26(2), 282–295. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054720972790