Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Little is known about the academic motivation of twice-exceptional students, although it represents a protective factor for academic success. Guided by Self-Determination Theory, this study investigated academic motivation among gifted-only and twice-exceptional students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) or a specific learning disorder (SLD), considering parent and student perspectives as well as student gender. Participants were 214 Canadian parents (M_age = 41.09; 93.50% mothers) of gifted-only and twice-exceptional elementary school students, and 103 of those students (M_age = 9.50; 62.10% boys) who completed online questionnaires. Twice-exceptional students reported lower levels of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and self-efficacy than gifted-only students. Twice-exceptional girls showed higher levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation and lower levels of amotivation than twice-exceptional boys. These findings highlight the presence of a gender-masking effect on academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD, emphasizing the necessity of examining academic motivation through a gender-specific perspective within this population.

Keywords

giftedness attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder academic motivation gender specific learning disorder

Although the academic motivation of gifted students has attracted considerable interest in the scientific literature in recent years, few studies have examined the academic motivation among twice-exceptional students. Twice-exceptionality is broadly defined as the co-occurrence of giftedness and disability (Foley-Nicpon & Kim, 2018). Although no universal definition exists, the term generally refers to individuals who exhibit giftedness while concurrently meeting diagnostic criteria for a neurodevelopmental, mental health, physical, or psychological disability (Cheek et al., 2023). When twice-exceptionality co-occurs with a neurodevelopmental disorder, it may include, but is not limited to, conditions such as Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), specific learning disorder (SLD), or autism spectrum disorder (ASD; Assouline & Whiteman, 2011; Reis et al., 2014). It is estimated that between 3% and 9% of gifted children have ADHD or a SLD (Antshel, 2008; Foley‐Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Lovecky, 2018; Mullet & Rinn, 2015). Given their relatively high prevalence among gifted students, these two neurodevelopmental disorders were selected as the primary focus of the present study. Despite their giftedness—defined as the potential for high levels of performance or creativity in one or more domains relative to peers of the same age, experience, and environment (National Association for Gifted Children [NAGC], 2019)—twice-exceptional students are at risk of underachievement, failing at school, and anxiety and depression when they do not receive adequate support (Foley-Nicpon, 2021; Foley‐Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Lamanna et al., 2020; Tasca et al., 2024). In this context, examining protective factors for academic success and well-being, such as academic motivation, is essential for developing interventions that support students’ academic trajectories (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011).

Motivation According to Self-Determination Theory

Motivation, an important prerequisite for learning, refers to the reasons why an individual takes action (Brault-Labbé, 2011). Academic motivation, therefore, refers to the reasons why an individual takes action within an academic context. This study applies the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) to the academic context, as it has been shown to be useful in explaining school-related behaviors, including performance and effort (Hornstra et al., 2020; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).

According to SDT, a student’s motivation is based on three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2020). Thus, the more a student perceives these needs as being met, the more self-determined the student will be, which in turn increases motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Within this framework, motivation follows a continuum from its least self-determined form, amotivation, to its most self-determined form, intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Amotivation, defined as a student’s lack of commitment to achieving goals, is associated with superficial learning, poor academic performance, boredom, and procrastination (e.g., a student who rarely completes homework and frequently expresses disinterest in class; Aelterman et al., 2012; Bureau et al., 2021; Howard et al., 2021; Ntoumanis, 2001; Shen et al., 2010; Sierens et al., 2009). Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to when a student experiences pleasure and satisfaction from the activity itself (e.g., a student who enjoys the process of learning and engages with a topic out of interest, regardless of outcomes or rewards). This type of motivation is associated with in-depth learning, good academic performance, psychological adjustment, and well-being (Bureau et al., 2021; Froiland & Worrell, 2016; Guay et al., 2010; Howard et al., 2021; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005). On the continuum between amotivation and intrinsic motivation lies extrinsic motivation, which occurs when an individual engages in an activity to obtain an external reward. Extrinsic motivation can be divided into four types of regulation—external, introjected, identified, and integrated—with the latter reflecting the highest level of self-determination within extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

External regulation refers to motivation that is controlled by external rewards or the avoidance of punishment (e.g., a student completes homework to avoid detention or because they were promised dessert after completing it; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Introjected regulation refers to motivation that arises from the internalization of external pressures (e.g., a student completes homework because they feel they should and would feel guilty if they did not; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Identified regulation occurs when an individual consciously endorses the values underlying their behavior (e.g., a student completes homework not necessarily because they enjoy it, but because they value understanding what they are learning). Integrated regulation similarly involves identification with underlying values; however, in this case, those values are fully integrated into the individual’s self-concept (e.g., a student values learning and engages in topics that feel like an integral part of who they are; Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Academic Motivation in Twice-Exceptional Students With ADHD or SLD

Few studies have examined academic motivation in twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD in recent years. In their systematic review, Beckmann and Minnaert (2018) noted that twice-exceptional students with SLD generally demonstrate high levels of intrinsic academic motivation despite the presence of challenges. They suggested that these students may remain focused on their goals, believe in their abilities, and strive to reach their full potential (Beckmann & Minnaert, 2018; Hua, 2002; Reis et al., 2000). Beckmann and Minnaert further noted that these findings may have been influenced by sampling bias in studies targeting student with strong academic performance.

Zentall et al. (2001) noted that although giftedness may act as a protective factor in academic contexts, it does not necessarily prevent the negative effects of disability. Several studies have shown that learning difficulties associated with a disability can negatively affect students’ academic motivation and self-efficacy due to repeated failure and poor academic outcomes (Seyed et al., 2017; Teimouri et al., 2020). Nevertheless, Zentall et al. (2001) observed that academic motivation among twice-exceptional boys with ADHD increases when teachers or parents provide structure, offer individualized attention that recognizes and respects their needs, and use external reinforcement, such as encouragement or support. Similarly, Wang and Neihart (2015) emphasized the importance of supporting twice-exceptional students’ strengths and self-confidence to foster motivation and engagement in learning.

Twice-exceptional girls with ADHD tend to demonstrate heightened self-awareness and reflect on their strengths and difficulties (Fugate & Gentry, 2016). This heightened self-awareness may foster greater academic motivation, potentially enabling them to overcome ADHD-related challenges. However, it may also lower self-esteem, thereby negatively affecting academic motivation. Fugate and Gentry (2016) further observed that twice-exceptional girls with ADHD may become easily bored or unmotivated by repetitive tasks and that engagement in physical or creative activities may serve as compensatory self-regulatory strategies that support motivation.

Overall, the qualitative nature of these studies and the lack of a clear conceptualization of motivation limit the ability to establish a differentiated portrait of academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD compared to gifted-only students. Such a portrait, grounded in Self-Determination Theory, would help identify key components to target in the development of school-based interventions that support twice-exceptional students’ academic motivation while accounting for their strengths and challenges. Smith et al. (2020) emphasized the importance of incorporating both student and parent perspectives when assessing academic motivation to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of the child’s motivational profile.

Moreover, gender differences in academic motivation have rarely been examined among twice-exceptional and gifted-only students, even though research suggests that such differences may be more pronounced among the gifted than their nongifted peers (e.g., mathematical motivation tends to be lower in girls than in boys; Preckel et al., 2008). Considering gender-based differences, particularly those related to stereotypes and socialization processes, appears essential for designing interventions that promote well-being and support all students in reaching their full potential (Freeman & Garces-Bacsal, 2021; Kerr & Huffman, 2018). In line with this perspective, the present study not only examines differences in academic motivation between gifted and twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD but also explores how gender may interact with student group membership to shape academic motivation, thereby addressing an often-overlooked dimension in the existing literature.

The Current Study

This study examined academic motivation, as conceptualized by Self-Determination Theory, among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and gifted-only students from both parent and student perspectives. The first research question examined how academic motivation differs between twice-exceptional and gifted students. It was hypothesized that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD would demonstrate higher levels of motivation associated with the extrinsic end of the SDT continuum, as well as higher levels of amotivation and lower levels of intrinsic motivation, compared to gifted peers.

The second research question examined whether the effect of student group membership (twice-exceptional or gifted-only) on academic motivation differs as a function of gender. An interaction effect between group membership and gender was hypothesized. It was expected that gifted-only girls would demonstrate higher levels of motivation associated with the intrinsic end of the SDT continuum, lower levels of extrinsic motivation, and lower levels of amotivation than twice-exceptional boys with ADHD or SLD. The findings were expected to provide a deeper understanding of academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD by integrating both student and parent perspectives within the SDT framework.

Method

Participants

The study’s sample consisted of 214 French-Canadian parents (M_age = 41.09; SD = 5.84; n = 200 mothers) of children aged 8 to 12 (M_age = 9.50; SD = 1.38; n = 133 boys). Most parents resided in Quebec, Canada (n = 199; 93.00%). The majority were partnered (n = 169; 79.10%), with 43 (20.00%) separated or divorced and two (0.90%) singles. Most families had two children (n = 162; 75.70%), with 33 (15.40%) having one child and 19 (8.90%) having three or more. Most parents held a university degree (n = 162; 75.70%), and 174 (81.30%) were employed full-time. The median family income of the surveyed parents was CAD 125,000 (interquartile range = CAD 88,750), indicating that the middle 50% of reported incomes ranged from CAD 81,250 to CAD 170,000.

Among the children, 84 (39.25%; 54.76% boys) were identified as gifted-only, whereas 130 (60.75%; 66.92% boys) were identified as twice-exceptional, defined as giftedness in combination with either SLD (n = 37; 28.50%) or ADHD (n = 93; 71.50%). Among the 93 participants classified in the ADHD subgroup, 19 also had a co-occurring SLD (i.e., reading and written expression or written expression only); therefore, the ADHD subgroup should be interpreted as ADHD with or without co-occurring SLD. Notably, no child presented with isolated SLD in reading; all reading diagnoses were accompanied by written-expression impairment. Table 1 presents the number and proportion of twice-exceptional students by ADHD subtype (i.e., combined type or inattentive presentation) and each SLD subtype (combined impairment in reading and in written expression, written expression only, or mathematics). Table 1 also displays the distribution of comorbid conditions according to group classification (gifted, twice-exceptional with ADHD, or twice-exceptional with SLD).

Table 1.

Primary and Additional Diagnoses of Gifted and Twice-Exceptional (ADHD/SLD) Students

Additional diagnoses	Gifted (n = 84)	Twice-exceptional (n = 130)
		ADHD (n = 93)		SLD (n = 37)
		Combined type^a (n = 67)	Inattentive type^b (n = 26)	Reading and written expression (n = 21)	Written expression only (n = 14)	Mathematics (n = 2)
Developmental coordination disorder	0 (0.0%)	9 (13.4%)	4 (15.4%)	5 (23.8%)	3 (21.4%)	0 (0.0%)
Language disorder	0 (0.0%)	3 (4.5%)	0 (0.0%)	1 (4.8%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Anxiety disorder	13 (15.5%)	9 (13.4%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)
Oppositional defiant disorder	6 (7.1%)	13 (19.4%)	1 (3.8%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)	0 (0.0%)

Note. ADHD = attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder; SLD = specific learning disorder. The ADHD subgroup includes students with ADHD with or without a co-occurring SLD. In this sample, no child presented an isolated SLD in reading (i.e., reading-only SLD); all reading diagnoses co-occurred with written-expression impairment.

^aFive twice-exceptional students with ADHD, combined presentation (7.5%), also had co-occurring reading and written expression diagnoses; seven (10.4%) had a diagnosis of written expression only.

^bSix twice-exceptional students with ADHD, inattentive presentation (23.1%), also had co-occurring reading and written-expression diagnoses; one (3.8%) had a diagnosis of written-expression impairment only.

All children underwent a formal assessment prior to participation at a mean age of M = 7.53 years (SD = 2.17). Assessments were conducted primarily by a neuropsychologist (n = 159; 74.3%), a psychologist (n = 30; 14.00%), or by a combination of a neuropsychologist/psychologist with another health professional (e.g., speech therapist, occupational therapist, child psychiatrist; n = 25; 11.7%). These evaluations resulted in the identification of giftedness or twice-exceptionality. A subset of children also underwent a second evaluation (n = 15; M_age = 8.47; SD = 1.51). The most frequently reported reasons for seeking an assessment included behavioral difficulties (n = 83; 38.80%), boredom or lack of stimulation at school (n = 71; 33.20%), psychological or emotional difficulties (n = 54; 25.20%), and learning difficulties (n = 31; 14.50%).

Most children (n = 182; 85.00%) attended public school, with 142 (78.38%) enrolled in regular programs and 40 (21.62%) in enriched programs. Additionally, 30 (13.80%) of children had experienced grade acceleration. Eighty-three children (38.80%) were taking medication daily, primarily for ADHD (n = 76; 91.57%).

A total of 103 children completed the study questionnaire. Of these, 44 (42.72%; M_age = 9.43; SD = 1.56; 54.55% boys) were identified as gifted-only, and 59 (57.28%; (M_age = 9.93; SD = 1.94; 59.32% boys) were classified as twice-exceptional with ADHD or SLD.

Procedure

A nonprobability sampling strategy was used, and data were collected in 2022 and 2023 through SimpleSurvey, an online survey platform that met the ethical and methodological criteria of the Human Research Ethics Committee. The survey link was distributed through advertisements posted on social media, community-based organizations’ webpages, and family gathering locations such as stores and malls. In addition, emails were sent to school boards across Quebec to invite them to share the study poster on their platforms. Parents who accessed the survey link were directed to the study description and electronic consent form, and children provided assent prior to participation.

Eligible participants were children aged 8 to 12 years who had been formally identified as gifted-only or twice-exceptional with ADHD or SLD by a neuropsychologist or a psychologist. In Quebec, these professionals are qualified to assess giftedness due to their specialized training in cognitive evaluation and diagnosis (Marleau, 2021). The neurodevelopmental disabilities included for twice-exceptionality were ADHD and SLD, and children with additional comorbid conditions (e.g., developmental coordination disorder or language disorder) were also included. Children whose identification of giftedness was made by a professional other than a psychologist or neuropsychologist (e.g., a family physician) were excluded to ensure adherence to the inclusion criteria. In addition, children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorders were excluded to minimize potential confounding effects associated with this condition (Koegel et al., 2010). No additional exclusion criteria were applied to the gifted-only group, provided that a psychologist or neuropsychologist established the identification.

The questionnaire was administered anonymously and confidentially in French. Participants could take breaks without restarting the survey. Completion of all the measures required approximately 30 minutes for parents and 15 minutes for children. The online questionnaire was pilot-tested for length and usability prior to official administration. The study procedures were approved by the Research Ethics Committee for the Humanities and Social Sciences at the University of Sherbrooke.

Materials

Parents completed a custom-designed questionnaire to collect sociodemographic information and document their child’s developmental history. The questionnaire was divided into seven sections: (a) general information on the parent (e.g., age, occupation, education level, and income); (b) general information on the child (e.g., biological sex, gender, age, grade level, and type of school attended); (c) questions on the child’s family environment (e.g., marital status, and the number of children in the household); (d) questions on the child’s psychological or neuropsychological assessment (e.g., neurodevelopmental conditions identified, age of evaluation, and reason for consultation); (e) questions on the child’s development (e.g., age of first words, age of first steps); (f) questions on the characteristics of the child’s school environment, including a measure of academic performance; and (g) school motivation. For academic performance, parents rated their child’s performance relative to classmates using three categories: above average, average, or below average.

Academic Motivation Scale

Students’ academic motivation was assessed using the French version of the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1989), adapted for elementary school students by Gillet et al. (2012), which is grounded in Deci and Ryan’s (1985) Self-Determination Theory. The AMS-Elementary includes 12 self-reported items and four subscales representing types of motivation: extrinsic motivation, amotivation, introjected extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation. To our knowledge, no version of the AMS-Elementary has been adapted to assess parents’ perceptions of their children’s academic motivation. Therefore, the research team adapted the instructions and wording of the 12 original items to enable parent report. Three parents of school-aged children reviewed the adapted version to provide feedback on the format and clarity, and revisions were made accordingly.

The AMS-Elementary requires students and parents to rate four statements representing each type of motivation about three school situations (e.g., “Typically, my child completes schoolwork or homework. . . For the pleasure of doing it”) using a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = almost never for this reason to 5 = almost always for this reason). In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients for the four subscales ranged from α = .71 to α = .89 for the parent-report questionnaire and from α = .71 to α = .77 for the child-report questionnaire, indicating adequate internal consistency.

Because the AMS-Elementary does not include subscales assessing external regulation and integrated regulation within the Self-Determination Theory continuum, and no alternative instruments were identified to measure these constructs, 16 items were developed in French and included in Section 7 of the custom-designed questionnaire. Items were rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = totally disagree to 5 = totally agree). Item development was informed by a review of SDT literature and conducted by five psychology students under the supervision of a researcher with expertise in academic motivation among gifted and twice-exceptional students. Three parents reviewed the items to assess clarity and comprehensibility, and revisions were made accordingly.

A principal component analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation and an extraction method based on the eigenvalue criterion greater than 1 was conducted on the items identified four components, each comprising four items. These components encompassed integrated regulation (e.g., “My child does his homework and lessons because his academic success is very important to him”), external regulation (e.g., “My child completes homework and assignments to avoid being scolded”), general motivation not related to school (e.g., “My child enjoys getting involved in activities or projects that are meaningful to him/her such as sports activity, art or project”) and self-efficacy (e.g., “My child feels competent at school”). Together, these four components explained 76.54% of the total variance (28.72%, 16.84%, 14.89%, and 16.09%, respectively).

In the present sample, internal consistency was good to excellent for integrated regulation (α = 0.89), external regulation (α = 0.72), general motivation (α = 0.86), and self-efficacy (α = 0.84). In addition, the four components demonstrated moderate correlations with the French version of the AMS-Elementary, confirming its convergent validity.

Data Analysis

Analyses were conducted using IBM SPSS software (Version 29; IBM Corp, 2021). All postulates related to the main analyses (e.g., independence of observations, homogeneity of variances, multivariate normality, and absence of influential data) were examined and met. Preliminary Pearson correlations were conducted to examine associations between parents’ and students’ perceptions of academic motivation, as well as between students’ academic motivation and academic performance across groups.

To address the first hypothesis, two multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were conducted to compare group membership (twice-exceptional and gifted-only) across all motivational dependent variables using parent and student reports separately. To test the second hypothesis, 2 x 2 (Group x Gender) factorial analyses of variance (ANOVA) were conducted for each motivational outcome. The independent variables were group membership (twice-exceptional or gifted-only group) and gender (girl or boy). Contrast analyses were used to decompose significant interaction effects. It should be noted that all children in the sample self-identified as either boys or girls. For MANOVA and ANOVAs, effect sizes are reported as partial eta squared (η_p²; 0.14 = large; 0.06 = medium; 0.01 = small).

Results

The coefficients of the preliminary correlations between parents and student perceptions of academic motivation, as well as between academic motivation and academic performance, are presented in Table 2. These results revealed strong, positive associations between student and parent perceptions of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation, and moderate, positive associations for introjected regulation and amotivation. Thus, higher levels of self-reported motivation or regulation were associated with higher corresponding parent-reported levels.

Table 2.

Correlation Coefficient Between Parents’ and Students’ Perceptions of Academic Motivation and Between Academic Motivation and Academic Performance

Variable	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13
1. Intrinsic Motivation.S	—
2. Intrinsic Motivation.P	0.70^b	—
3. Identified Regulation.S	0.56^b	0.64^b	—
4. Identified Regulation.P	0.56^b	0.70^b	0.59^b	—
5. Introjected Regulation-S	0.17^a	0.11	0.17^a	0.07	—
6. Introjected Regulation-P	−0.03	0.25^b	0.25^b	0.18^b	0.48^b	—
7. Integrated Regulation-P	0.50^b	0.64^b	0.52^b	0.60^b	0.05	0.26^b	—
8. External Regulation-P	−0.05	−0.05	−0.01	−0.02	0.29^b	0.15^a	−0.11	—
9. Amotivation-S	−0.57^b	−0.53^b	−0.57^b	−0.51^b	−0.18^a	−0.30^b	−0.45^b	0.09	—
10. Amotivation-P	0.54^b	−0.49^b	−0.40^b	−0.45^b	0.08	−0.05	−0.55^b	0.10	0.44^b	—
11. Self-efficacy-P	0.12	0.31^b	0.27^b	0.24^b	0.04	0.20^b	0.35^b	−0.07	−0.11	−0.12	—
12. General Motivation-P	0.26^b	0.36^b	0.17^a	0.27^a	0.21^b	0.12	0.34^b	−0.08	−0.24^b	−0.34^b	0.27^b	—
13. Academic performance	0.01	0.31^b	0.15	0.21^b	0.05	0.28^b	0.29^b	−0.10	−0.03	−0.08	0.50^b	0.05	—

Note. S = Student; P = Parent.

^ap < 0.05.

^bp < 0.001.

The findings also indicated significant positive associations, ranging from small to large, between parent-reported intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, integrated regulation, and self-efficacy and students’ academic performance. In other words, higher parent-reported motivation and regulation were associated with higher academic performance.

Using Wilk’s lambda, the MANOVA results for parents’ responses revealed significant differences in motivation between twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and gifted-only students (Wilks’ λ = 0.86, F [8, 205] = 2.67, p = 0.009, η_p² = 0.137). As reported in Table 3, these findings indicate that, according to parents, twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD demonstrated lower levels of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and self-efficacy than gifted students.

Table 3.

Descriptive Statistics and Between-Group Differences in Motivational Variables for Gifted and Twice-Exceptional (ADHD/SLD) Students

	Gifted	Twice-exceptional	Group comparison
Variables	M (SD)	M (SD)	F (df = 1)	p	95% C.I.	η _p ²
Intrinsic Motivation-S	2.83 (1.15)	2.70 (1.09)	0.43	0.557	−0.309; 0.571	0.00
Intrinsic Motivation-P	2.97 (0.87)	2.66 (0.95)	4.11	0.045	0.008; 0.633	0.03
Integrated Regulation-P	3.03 (1.07)	2.48 (0.92)	9.72	0.002	0.182; 0.813	0.07
Identified Regulation-S	3.46 (1.08)	3.15 (1.08)	2.06	0.155	−0.118; 0.736	0.02
Identified Regulation-P	2.98 (0.91)	2.76 (0.86)	1.57	0.212	−0.109; 0.487	0.01
Introjected Regulation-S	3.52 (1.17)	3.80 (1.17)	1.92	0.239	−0.739; 0.187	0.01
Introjected Regulation-P	3.10 (0.80)	3.76 (0.86)	2.12	0.139	−0.070; 0.493	0.02
External Regulation-P	2.39 (1.14)	2.63 (1.07)	0.82	0.368	−0.534; 0.199	0.01
Amotivation-S	2.10 (1.01)	2.07 (1.11)	0.03	0.875	−0.388; 0.456	0.00
Amotivation-P	2.74 (1.16)	2.74 (1.22)	0.00	0.997	−0.406; 0.493	0.00
Self-efficacy-P	3.73 (0.85)	3.41 (0.89)	4.54	0.035	0.022; 0.591	0.03
General Motivation-P	3.57 (1.04)	3.63 (1.02)	1.05	0.296	−0.503; 0.154	0.01

Note. S = Student; P = Parent; ADHD = Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; SLD = Specific Learning Disorder (SLD); ƞ_p²: partial eta squared.

The MANOVA conducted using student reports did not reveal a significant multivariate effect for group membership (Wilks’ λ = 0.96, F [4, 98] = 1.12, p = 0.339, η_p² = 0.045).

As reported in Table 4, 2 x 2 (Group x Gender) ANOVAs revealed significant interaction effects for amotivation (student report), identified regulation and intrinsic motivation (student and parent reports), and general motivation (parent report). Contrast analysis indicated that twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD demonstrated higher levels of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and general motivation, as well as lower levels of amotivation than twice-exceptional boys (all p < 0.05).

Table 4.

Descriptive Statistics and Two-Way (Group x Gender) ANOVA of Motivational Variables in Gifted and Twice-Exceptional (ADHD/SLD) Students

	Gifted		Twice-exceptional (ADHD or SLD)		Group		Gender		Interaction effect
	Girls	Boys	Girls	Boys	Group		Gender		Interaction effect
Variables	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	M (SD)	F (df = 1)	η_p²	F (df = 1)	η_p²	F (df = 1)	η_p²
Intrinsic motivation-S	2.73 (1.43)	2.91 (0.88)	3.24 (1.09)	2.33 (0.93)	0.03	0.00	2.87	0.03	6.23*	0.06
Intrinsic motivation-P	2.95 (0.90)	2.98 (0.87)	3.08 (1.02)	2.44 (0.85)	1.81	0.01	3.87	0.03	4.44*	0.03
Integrated regulation-P	3.07 (0.98)	3.00 (1.15)	2.83 (0.98)	2.29 (0.83)	9.96**	0.05	4.02*	0.02	2.46	0.01
Identified regulation-S	3.32 (1.14)	3.58 (1.03)	3.58 (1.08)	2.87 (0.99)	1.31	0.01	1.08	0.11	5.34*	0.05
Identified regulation-P	2.81 (0.92)	3.02 (0.91)	3.12 (0.85)	2.57 (0.82)	0.20	0.00	1.20	0.01	6.50*	0.04
Introjected regulation-S	3.33 (1.13)	3.68 (1.19)	3.68 (1.24)	3.88 (1.14)	1.34	0.01	1.34	0.01	0.11	0.00
Introjected regulation-P	4.03 (0.67)	3.93 (0.89)	3.76 (0.93)	3.75 (0.82)	2.18	0.01	0.15	0.00	0.09	0.00
External regulation-P	2.01 (0.82)	2.71 (1.28)	2.57 (1.17)	2.67 (1.03)	2.43	0.01	5.78*	0.03	3.22	0.02
Amotivation-S	2.33 (1.18)	1.91 (0.82)	1.67 (0.94)	2.33 (1.15)	0.30	0.00	0.32	0.00	6.70**	0.06
Amotivation-P	2.57 (1.22)	2.87 (1.11)	2.39 (1.21)	2.93 (1.19)	0.07	0.00	4.18*	0.04	0.36	0.00
Self-efficacy-P	3.61 (0.91)	3.84 (0.79)	3.17 (0.80)	3.54 (0.90)	7.89**	0.04	5.45*	0.03	0.29	0.00
General motivation-P	3.55 (1.04)	3.58 (1.06)	4.06 (0.93)	3.40 (1.00)	1.15	0.01	4.05*	0.02	4.92*	0.03

Note. S = Student; P = Parent; ADHD = Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder; SLD = Specific Learning Disorder (SLD); ƞ_p²: partial eta squared. *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.

Twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD also demonstrated higher levels of general motivation and lower levels of amotivation than gifted-only girls. In contrast, twice-exceptional boys demonstrated lower levels of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation than gifted-only boys, according to students and parents (all p < 0.05). Significant main effects of group membership were observed for integrated regulation and self-efficacy (parent report), whereas significant main effects of gender were observed for integrated regulation, external regulation, amotivation, and self-efficacy (parent report).

Discussion

Although academic motivation is a prerequisite for learning (Brault-Labbé, 2011), little is known about its differential expression among twice-exceptional and gifted-only students, from both student and parent perspectives. Understanding these differences may help identify key elements to inform the development of school-based interventions that support the academic motivation and well-being of twice-exceptional and gifted students (Freeman & Garces-Bacsal, 2021; Kerr & Huffman, 2018).

The objective of this study was to examine academic, as conceptualized by Self-Determination Theory, among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD compared to gifted-only students, while considering gender and integrating both parent and student perspectives. Overall, the findings suggest the presence of a gender-masking effect in academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD.

When gender was not considered, twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD were found have lower levels of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and self-efficacy than their gifted peers, indicating greater vulnerability in these domains. These findings reiterate the importance of supporting twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD in developing their strengths and self-confidence in order to foster academic motivation, as suggested by Wang and Neihart (2015).

However, when gender was included in the analysis, twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD stood out favorably from twice-exceptional boys, indicating higher levels of intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and overall motivation, along with lower levels of amotivation. These results extend previous findings, notably those of Fugate and Gentry (2016), suggesting that twice-exceptional girls’ acute self-awareness is associated with greater academic motivation. In contrast, twice-exceptional boys with ADHD or SLD demonstrated lower levels of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation than gifted-only boys.

Together, these findings highlight the importance of understanding academic motivation through a gender-specific lens within the twice-exceptional population with ADHD or SLD, emphasizing the need for gender-responsive interventions to effectively support academic motivation.

The first hypothesis, which proposed that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD would demonstrate higher levels of extrinsic motivation and lower levels of intrinsic motivation than solely gifted peers, was partially supported. Specifically, the results revealed that according to parent reports, twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD present lower levels of intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation and self-efficacy when compared to gifted students in the sample. The observation that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD demonstrated higher levels of amotivation than their gifted-only peers aligns with prior research indicating that children who experience academic challenges related to a disability tend to report lower academic motivation (Seyed et al., 2017; Teimouri et al., 2020). The current results also suggest that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD can be highly motivated; however, their motivation seems to be more dependent on external factors, such as rewards or punishment, rather than on intrinsic factors such as personal fulfillment. It is also known that twice-exceptional students are at risk of experiencing academic struggle, depression and anxiety (Foley-Nicpon, 2021; Foley‐Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Lamanna et al., 2020; Tasca et al., 2024). These factors may affect twice-exceptional students’ ability to have their needs met in competence, autonomy, and relatedness properly fulfilled, thereby skewing their motivation towards the extrinsic tail of the SDT spectrum.

Parents’ perceptions that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD are less intrinsically motivated that their gifted peers may reflect how parents interpret their child’s disability. When parents observe their children struggling academically, they may attribute these difficulties to low motivation rather than to lower self-efficacy, anxiety, depression, or unmet psychological needs within the school environment. Consequently, parents may be more likely to rely on external rewards to address perceived low academic achievement. Consistent with this interpretation, prior research suggests that parents play an influential role in shaping their children’s perceptions of twice-exceptionality, including views related to giftedness, disability, and their expectations (Lewis, 2021; Speirs Neumeister et al., 2013).

The second hypothesis, which predicted a Group × Gender interaction effect suggesting that gifted girls would demonstrate higher levels of intrinsic motivation, lower levels of extrinsic motivation, and lower levels of amotivation than twice-exceptional boys, was not supported. Instead, the results indicated a different interaction pattern.

Twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD reported higher levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (student and parent reports), higher levels of general motivation (parent report), and lower levels of amotivation (student report) than twice-exceptional boys. Twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD had higher levels of general motivation (parent report) and lower levels of amotivation (student report) than gifted-only girls. In comparison, twice-exceptional boys with ADHD or SLD had lower levels of identified regulation and intrinsic motivation (student and parent reports) than gifted-only boys.

These findings suggest that gender significantly influences the academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD. The elevated levels of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation observed in twice-exceptional girls may reflect a greater tendency to engage in learning for self-determined and personal fulfillment reasons. This interpretation aligns with Fugate and Gentry (2016), who proposed that the combination of giftedness and ADHD in twice-exceptional girls may foster heightened awareness of their unique abilities and challenges, potentially motivating them to actively engage in learning to compensate for ADHD-related difficulties.

Such heightened awareness may stem from the discrepancy between their potential and academic performance associated with twice-exceptionality (Lamanna et al., 2020; Missett, 2017). This discrepancy may also interact with broader societal and cultural expectations regarding gender and academic performance (Carlana, 2019; Marcenaro-Gutierrez et al., 2018). In educational contexts, gender stereotypes that attribute girls’ academic success to effort rather than innate ability may shape how girls perceive their abilities and influence their subsequent behavior (Lohbeck et al., 2017; Siegle et al., 2010; Tirri & Nokelainen, 2010). This dynamic, often referred to as a self-fulfilling prophecy (Jussim, 1986), may help explain why twice-exceptional girls, compared to twice-exceptional boys, tend to invest more effort in their studies, thereby reinforcing intrinsic and regulated motivation.

Given the passion often observed among gifted students, twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD may derive satisfaction from their academic efforts, supporting the presence of motivation associated with the intrinsic dimension of the SDT spectrum (Hornstra et al., 2020). On a different note, because gender appears to influence academic motivation among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD, the current findings raise the hypothesis that the motivational needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) may also be expressed differently across gender.

Strengths and Limitations

This study is innovative in that it is among the first to investigate differential patterns of academic motivation, grounded in SDT, among twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and gifted-only students while accounting for gender. Additionally, this study explores academic motivation from both student and parent perspectives. Incorporating both perceptions represents a strength, as it provides a more comprehensive understanding of children’s motivational profiles.

Despite these strengths, several limitations should be acknowledged. First, requiring participants to have received a formal identification by a healthcare professional may have introduced sampling bias. As a result, the generalizability of the findings to the broader population of twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and gifted students may be limited due to the clinical nature of the sample.

Furthermore, given the frequent comorbidity and diagnostic overlap between ADHD and SLD, and because our primary analyses did not stratify the twice-exceptional group by diagnosis, the findings should be interpreted as reflecting twice-exceptional students with ADHD and/or SLD rather than distinct diagnostic subgroups.

Finally, the lack of consensus regarding definitions and identification criteria for twice-exceptionality and giftedness may have influenced the classification of neurodevelopmental conditions within the sample, representing an additional limitation of the study (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2011; Ronksley-Pavia, 2015; Smedsrud, 2020).

Practical Implications

This study has several implications for educational practices with twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and gifted-only students. First, the observed gender differences in academic motivation underscore the need for tailored interventions. Educational programs should consider these differences to better support twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD in ways that foster their autonomy, competence, and positive engagement with learning. For example, interventions for twice-exceptional boys with ADHD or SLD might focus on fostering intrinsic motivation and reducing reliance on extrinsic factors. Conversely, programs for twice-exceptional girls with ADHD or SLD could continue to support their intrinsic motivation while ensuring a supportive environment that acknowledges both their giftedness and learning-related challenges.

Second, the findings highlight academic motivation challenges experienced by twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD and underscore the practical importance of supporting their academic motivation to the same extent as students with ADHD or SLD alone. Such employ a strengths-based approach that evaluates the student’s abilities in light of both their strengths and challenges, rather than focusing exclusively on areas of difficulty (Lee & Olenchak, 2015; Lin & Foley-Nicpon, 2019).

By identifying and cultivating their strengths, educators and caregivers can help twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD build self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation, both of which are essential for promoting deeper learning (Wang & Neihart, 2015). This perspective aligns with the qualitative study by Willard-Holt and Colleagues (2013), which found that twice-exceptional students frequently experienced stigmatization when accommodations emphasized weaknesses, and expressed a preference for support that fostered self-determination in learning. Ultimately, targeted interventions tailored to the unique needs of twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD have the potential to shift motivation towards the intrinsic end of the Self-Determination Theory spectrum (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Finally, parents’ perceptions that twice-exceptional students with ADHD or SLD are less intrinsically motivated than gifted-only peers may reflect a limited understanding of the specific challenges these students face, including anxiety, depression or unmet psychological needs within the school environment (Tasca et al., 2024). Therefore, raising awareness among parents and caregivers about evidence-informed strategies to support academic motivation in their twice-exceptional children with ADHD or SLD may be beneficial. Moreover, caregivers and teachers should actively foster the types of motivation these students experience. Although intrinsic motivation is considered the highest form of motivation, supporting extrinsic motivation is also beneficial. From a motivational perspective, experiencing extrinsic motivation is preferable to amotivation.

Future Directions

Given that different motivational patterns emerged when accounting for students’ gender, future research should aim to include a gender-diverse sample. Additionally, because the present study suggest that motivational needs differ between gifted-only and twice-exceptional girls and boys, future studies should explore interventions that could support the fulfillment of these needs across gender. It would also be valuable to include a broader range of neurodevelopmental disorders and to investigate the impact of co-occurring mental health disorders on academic motivation. This direction is particularly important given that twice-exceptional students are at heightened risk of underachievement, school failure, anxiety, and depression when they do not receive adequate support (Foley-Nicpon, 2021; Foley‐Nicpon & Assouline, 2020; Lamanna et al., 2020; Tasca et al., 2024).

Given the limited research specifically examining the motivational mechanisms of twice-exceptional students with SLD, future research should investigate these profiles in greater depth. Differentiating motivational patterns among twice-exceptional students with ADHD versus SLD could provide valuable insight into their distinct motivational needs and address an important gap in the literature. Such work may inform the development of more targeted interventions to support academic success.

Finally, given that teachers play a central role in shaping the classroom experiences of twice-exceptional students and, consequently, their academic motivation (Maulana et al., 2016; Wang & Neihart, 2015), future research should incorporate teacher perspectives to provide a more comprehensive understanding of students’ motivational profiles.

Footnotes

Author Note

Mathieu Pilon is the senior author and principal investigator on this study.

Acknowledgments

We thank the parents and the children who participated in this research for their time.

ORCID iD

Mathieu Pilon

Funding

The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Juliette François-Sévigny was supported by a graduate fellowship of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) and the University of Sherbrooke.

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

Anna Ba is an undergraduate student in the Department of Sport Studies at Bishop’s University. Her research interests include safe sport policies and cognitive processes such as decision making in sports.

Clémence Dumas is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology specializing with children, teenagers, and parents at the University of Sherbrooke, Department of Psychology. Her research interests include child abuse and the intergenerational transmission of violence.

Juliette François-Sévigny is a doctoral student at the University of Sherbrooke, Department of Psychology, Canada. As part of her research work, she is interested in the development and implementation of school interventions for gifted students, as well as in parental stress and the parental self-efficacy of parents of gifted and twice-exceptional children.

Océane Hui is a doctoral student in Clinical Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Sherbrooke, Canada. Her research interests include cultural diversity, trauma, and PTSD amongst first responders.

Mélianne Cloutier is a doctoral student in Industrial and Organizational Psychology in the Department of Psychology at the University of Sherbrooke, Canada. Her research focuses on the psychological health and well-being of women at work, including the hormonal cycle and menopause.

Gabrielle Lelièvre is a psychologist and holds a doctorate in psychology from the University of Sherbrooke, Canada. Her research interests include anxiety in gifted and twice-exceptional students.

Mathieu Pilon, PhD, is a psychologist and a professor at the University of Sherbrooke, Department of Psychology, Canada. His research interests include psychosocial and academic adaptation of gifted and twice-exceptional children and adolescents. He is also interested in developing and implementing school interventions for gifted and talented students.

References

Aelterman

Vansteenkiste

Van Keer

Van den Berghe

De Meyer

Haerens

(2012). Students’ objectively measured physical activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 34(4), 457–480. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.4.457

Antshel

K. M.

(2008). Attention‐Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in the context of a high intellectual quotient/giftedness. Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 14(4), 293–299. https://doi.org/10.1002/ddrr.34

Assouline

S. G.

Whiteman

C. S.

(2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.616576

Beckmann

Minnaert

(2018). Non-cognitive characteristics of gifted students with learning disabilities: An in-depth systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 504. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00504

Brault-Labbé

(2011). Introduction: L’univers de la motivation et des émotions. In Descôteaux

Brault-Labbé

(Eds.), Motivation et émotion: Fonctionnement individuel et interpersonnel (pp. 3–40). Les Éditions CEC.

Bureau

J. S.

Howard

J. L.

Chong

J. X. Y.

Guay

(2021). Pathways to student motivation: A meta-analysis of antecedents of autonomous and controlled motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426

Carlana

(2019). Implicit stereotypes: Evidence from teachers’ gender bias. Labor: Personnel Economics eJournal. https://doi.org/10.1093/QJE/QJZ008

Cheek

C. L.

Garcia

J. L.

Mehta

P. D.

Francis

D. J.

Grigorenko

E. L.

(2023). The exceptionality of twice-exceptionality: Examining combined prevalence of giftedness and disability using multivariate statistical simulation. Exceptional Children, 90(1), 001440292211509–001440292211556. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029221150929

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. Plenum Press.

10.

Foley-Nicpon

(2021). The social and emotional development of twice-exceptional children. In Neihart

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Cross

T. L.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (2nd ed., pp. 103–118). Routledge.

11.

Foley-Nicpon

Allmon

Sieck

Stinson

R. D.

(2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382575

12.

Foley‐Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

(2020). High ability students with coexisting disabilities: Implications for school psychological practice. Psychology in the Schools, 57(10), 1615–1626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22342

13.

Foley-Nicpon

Kim

J. Y. C.

(2018). Identifying and providing evidence-based services for twice-exceptional students. In Pfeiffer

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_20

14.

Freeman

Garces-Bacsal

R. M.

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

Pfeiffer

S. I.

Cross

T. L.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 17–28). Routledge.

15.

Froiland

J. M.

Worrell

F. C.

(2016). Intrinsic motivation, learning goals, engagement and achievement in a diverse high school. Psychology in the Schools, 53(3), 321–336. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21901

16.

Fugate

C. M.

Gentry

(2016). Understanding adolescent gifted girls with ADHD: Motivated and achieving. High Ability Studies, 27(1), 83–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1098522

17.

Gagné

Deci

E. L.

(2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26(4), 331–362. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.322

18.

Gillet

Vallerand

R. J.

Lafrenière

M. A. K.

(2012). Intrinsic and extrinsic school motivation as a function of age: The mediating role of autonomy support. Social Psychology of Education: An International Journal, 15(1), 77–95. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-011-9170-2

19.

Guay

Ratelle

C. F.

Roy

Litalien

(2010). Academic self-concept, autonomous academic motivation, and academic achievement: Mediating and additive effects. Learning and Individual Differences, 20(6), 644–653. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.08.001

20.

Hornstra

Bakx

Mathijssen

Denissen

J. J.

(2020). Motivating gifted and non-gifted students in regular primary schools: A self-determination perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 80, Article 101871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101871

21.

Howard

J. L.

Bureau

Guay

Chong

J. X. Y.

Ryan

R. M.

(2021). Student motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 16(6), 1300–1323. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691620966789

22.

Hua

C. B.

(2002). Career self-efficacy of the student who is gifted/learning disabled: A case study. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 25(4), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.4219/jeg-2002-282

23.

IBM Corp . (2021). IBM SPSS statistics for windows, version 29.0. [Computer software].

24.

Jussim

(1986). Self-fulfilling prophecies: A theoretical and integrative review. Psychological Review, 93(4), 429–445. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.4.429

25.

Kerr

B. A.

Huffman

J. M.

(2018). Gender and talent development of gifted students. In Pfeiffer

S. I.

(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 115–128). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8

26.

Koegel

L. K.

Singh

A. K.

Koegel

R. L.

(2010). Improving motivation for academics in children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40(9), 1057–1066. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0962-6

27.

Lamanna

Vialle

Wormald

(2020). Reversing underachievement in students with twice-exceptionality: Findings from two case studies. TalentEd, 32(1), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3316/informit.624204555776152

28.

Lee

K. M.

Olenchak

F. R.

(2015). Individuals with a gifted/attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder diagnosis: Identification, performance, outcomes, and interventions. Gifted Education International, 31(3), 185–199. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429414530712

29.

Lewis

R. L.

(2021). Twice-exceptionality: Maximizing academic and psychosocial success in youth. Journal of Health Service Psychology, 47(4), 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42843-021-00046-1

30.

Lin

C. L. R.

Foley-Nicpon

(2019). Integrating creativity into career interventions for twice-exceptional students in the United States: A review of recent literature. Gifted and Talented International, 34(1–2), 91–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2019.1704667

31.

Lohbeck

Grube

Moschner

(2017). Academic self-concept and causal attributions for success and failure amongst elementary school children. International Journal of Early Years Education, 25(2), 190–203. https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2017.1301806

32.

Lovecky

D. V.

(2018). Misconceptions about giftedness and the diagnosis of ADHD and other mental health disorders. In Kaufman

S. B.

(Ed.), Twice-exceptional: Supporting and educating bright and creative students with learning difficulties (pp. 83–103). Oxford University Press.

33.

Marcenaro-Gutierrez

Ó.

López-Agudo

Ropero-García

(2018). Gender differences in adolescents’ academic achievement. Young, 26(3), 250–270. https://doi.org/10.1177/1103308817715163

34.

Marleau

(2021). L’évaluation de la douance intellectuelle. Ordre des Psychologues du Québec. https://www.ordrepsy.qc.ca/-/l-%C3%A9valuation-de-la-douance-intellectuelle

35.

Maulana

Opdenakker

M.-C.

Bosker

(2016). Teachers’ instructional behaviors as important predictors of academic motivation: Changes and links across the school year. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 147–156. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.07.019

36.

Missett

T. C.

(2017). Twice-exceptional students: Gifted students with disabilities impacting learning. In Callahan

C. M.

Hertberg-Davis

H. L.

(Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 361–371). Routledge.

37.

Mullet

D. R.

Rinn

A. N.

(2015). Giftedness and ADHD: Identification, misdiagnosis, and dual diagnosis. Roeper Review, 37(4), 195–207. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1077910

38.

National Association for Gifted Children . (2019). A definition of giftedness that guides best practice: Position statement. https://assets.noviams.com/novi-file-uploads/nagc/Position_Statements/a_definition_of_giftedness_t.pdf

39.

Ntoumanis

(2001). A self-determination approach to the understanding of motivation in physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(2), 225–242. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709901158497

40.

Preckel

Goetz

Pekrun

Kleine

(2008). Gender differences in gifted and average-ability students: Comparing girls’ and boys’ achievement, self-concept, interest, and motivation in mathematics. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(2), 146–159. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986208315834

41.

Reis

S. M.

Baum

S. M.

Burke

(2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698621453497

42.

Reis

S. M.

McGuire

J. M.

Neu

T. W.

(2000). Compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400205

43.

Ronksley-Pavia

(2015). A model of twice-exceptionality: Explaining and defining the apparent paradoxical combination of disability and giftedness in childhood. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 38(3), 318–340. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353215592499

44.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

45.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, Article 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

46.

Seyed

Salmani

Nezhad

F. M.

Noruzi

(2017). Self-efficacy, achievement motivation, and academic progress of students with learning disabilities: A comparison with typical students. Middle East Journal of Rehabilitation and Health, 4(2), 1–6. https://doi.org/10.5812/mejrh.44558

47.

Shen

Wingert

R. K.

Sun

Rukavina

P. B.

(2010). An amotivation model in physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education, 29(1), 72–84. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.29.1.72

48.

Siegle

Rubenstein

Pollard

Romey

(2010). Exploring the relationship of college freshmen honors students’ effort and ability attribution, interest, and implicit theory of intelligence with perceived ability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 101–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355975

49.

Sierens

Vansteenkiste

Goossens

Soenens

Dochy

(2009). The synergistic relationship of perceived autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(1), 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908x304398

50.

Smedsrud

(2020). Explaining the variations of definitions in gifted education. Nordic Studies in Education, 40(1), 79–97. https://doi.org/10.23865/nse.v40.2129

51.

Smith

Z. R.

Langberg

J. M.

Cusick

C. N.

Green

C. D.

Becker

S. P.

(2020). Academic motivation deficits in adolescents with ADHD and associations with academic functioning. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 48(2), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-019-00601-x

52.

Soenens

Vansteenkiste

(2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains: The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 589–604. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y

53.

Speirs Neumeister

Yssel

Burney

V. H.

(2013). The influence of primary caregivers in fostering success in twice-exceptional children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 263–274. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213500068

54.

Tasca

Guidi

Turriziani

Mento

Tarantino

(2024). Behavioral and socio-emotional disorders in intellectual giftedness: A systematic review. Child Psychiatry and Human Development, 55(3), 768–789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10578-022-01420-w

55.

Teimouri

Rezaei

Mohammadzadeh

(2020). A comparative study of hope, academic achievement motivation, and academic self-concept among students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 9(2), 7–35. https://doi.org/10.22098/JLD.2020.854

56.

Tirri

Nokelainen

(2010). The influence of self-perception of abilities and attribution styles on academic choices: Implications for gifted education. Roeper Review, 33(1), 26–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.530204

57.

Vallerand

R. J.

Blais

M. R.

Brière

N. M.

Pelletier

L. G.

(1989). Construction et validation de l’échelle de motivation en éducation (EME). Revue Canadienne des Sciences du Comportement, 21(3), 323–349. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079855

58.

Vansteenkiste

Lens

Deci

E. L.

(2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41(1), 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4101_4

59.

Wang

C. W.

Neihart

(2015). Academic self-concept and academic self-efficacy: Self-beliefs enable academic achievement of twice-exceptional students. Roeper Review, 37(2), 63–73. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2015.1008660

60.

Willard-Holt

Weber

Morrison

K. L.

Horgan

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners’ perspectives on effective learning strategies. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57(4), 247–262. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213501076

61.

Zentall

S. S.

Moon

S. M.

Hall

A. M.

Grskovic

J. A.

(2001). Learning and motivational characteristics of boys with AD/HD and/or giftedness. Exceptional Children, 67(4), 499–519. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290106700405

Academic Motivation in Gifted-Only and Twice-Exceptional Elementary Students With ADHD or Specific Learning Disorder: A Differential Portrait Based on the Self-Determination Theory and Gender Differences

Abstract

Keywords

Motivation According to Self-Determination Theory

Academic Motivation in Twice-Exceptional Students With ADHD or SLD

The Current Study

Method

Participants

Procedure

Materials

Academic Motivation Scale

Data Analysis

Results

Discussion

Strengths and Limitations

Practical Implications

Future Directions

Footnotes

Author Note

Acknowledgments

ORCID iD

Funding

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Author Biographies

References