Promoting the well-being and school success of gifted underachieving students is one of the great challenges of the educational system. For years, numerous studies have tried to shed light on the factors associated with this phenomenon, while various interventions aimed at reversing this situation have been implemented and evaluated. The goal of this study is to identify interventions to reduce the underachievement of gifted students in Basic Education. To ensure its rigor and replicability, the systematic review was conducted following the PRISMA guidelines. The procedure was carried out in 3 phases and allowed the identification of 11 articles that respond to the research question posed. Their analysis shows that almost all the interventions attempt to reverse underachievement by intervening on motivational, socioemotional and environmental factors. Although the time frame is limited and constrains the potential for substantial change, the results invite us to consider aspects such as self-efficacy, self-regulation and environmental perceptions to guide gifted underachieving students towards school success.
BarbierK.DoncheV.VerschuerenK. (2019). Academic (under)achievement of intellectually gifted students in the transition between primary and secondary education: An individual learner perspective. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 2533. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02533
BrigandiC. B.SiegleD.WeinerJ. M.GubbinsE. J.LittleC. A. (2016). Gifted secondary school students: The perceived relationship between enrichment and goal valuation. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(4), 263–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216671837
4.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
5.
Cornejo-ArayaC. A.Gómez-ArayaC. A.Muñoz-HuertaY. P.Reyes-VergaraC. P. (2021). What do we know about giftedness and underachievement? A bibliometric analysis. International Journal of Research in Education and Science (IJRES), 7(2), 400–411. https://doi.org/10.46328/ijres.1481
6.
DesmetO. A.PereiraN. (2022). The achievement motivation enhancement curriculum: Evaluating an affective intervention for gifted students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 33(1), 129–153. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X211057424
7.
Ferrer-WrederL.WänströmL.CorovicJ. (2014). Midlife outcomes of educationally underachieving Swedish adolescents with above average generalized intelligence. Research in Human Development, 11(3), 217–236. https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2014.936172
8.
FoleyN. M.AssoulineS. 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
9.
FongC. J.PatallE. A.SnyderK. E.HoffM. A.JonesS. J.Zuniga-OrtegaR. E. (2023). Academic underachievement and its motivational and self-regulated learning correlates: A meta-analytic review of 80 years of research. Educational Research Review, 41, Article 100566. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2023.100566
10.
GagnéF. (2015). From genes to talent: The DMGT/CMTD perspective | De los genes al talento: la perspectiva DMGT/CMTD. Revista de Educación, 368, 12–37. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-289
11.
GunterG. A.KennyR. F. (2012). UB the director: Utilizing digital book trailers to engage gifted and twice-exceptional students in reading. Gifted Education International, 28(2), 146–160. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429412440378
12.
HébertT. P.OlenchakF. R. (2000). Mentors for gifted underachieving males: Developing potential and realizing promise. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44(3), 196–207. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400307
13.
HesamM.AbediA. (2020). Enhancing academic engagement of underachieving gifted students: The effects of Martin’s educational program. Journal of Education and Health Promotion, 9(1), 137. https://doi.org/10.4103/jehp.jehp_715_19
14.
JacksonR. L.JungJ. Y. (2022). The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 1133–1159. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12492
15.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To Produce or Not to Produce? Understanding Boredom and the Honor in Underachievement. Roeper Review. A Journal on Gifted Education, 26(1), 20–28. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554235
16.
Landa-RamírezE.Arredondo-PantaleónA. J. (2014). Herramienta pico para la formulación y búsqueda de preguntas clínicamente relevantes en la psicooncología basada en la evidencia. Psicooncología, 11(2/3), 259–270. https://doi.org/10.5209/rev_psic.2014.v11.n2-3.47387
LongL. C.ErwinA. (2020). IGNITE: Empowering high ability underachieving students to become focused learners in mainstream classes. Gifted Education International, 36(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261429420946858
20.
MaherC. G.SherringtonC.HerbertR. D.MoseleyA. M.ElkinsM. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating quality of randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83(8), 713–721.
21.
McCoachD. B.SiegleD. (2003). Factors that differentiate underachieving gifted students from high-achieving gifted students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(2), 144–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620304700205
22.
MethleyA. M.CampbellS.Chew-GrahamC.McNallyS.Cheraghi-SoshiS. (2014). PICO, PICOS and SPIDER: A comparison study of specificity and sensitivity in three search tools for qualitative systematic reviews. BMC Health Services Research, 14, 579. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-014-0579-0
23.
MooijT. (2013). Designing instruction and learning for cognitively gifted pupils in preschool and primary school. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 17(6), 597–613. https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2012.696727
ObergriesserS.StoegerH. (2015). The role of emotions, motivation, and learning behavior in underachievement and results of an intervention. High Ability Studies: The Journal of the European Council for High Ability, 26(1), 167–190. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2015.1043003
26.
PageM. J.McKenzieJ. E.BossuytP. M.BoutronI.HoffmannT. C.MulrowC. D.ShamseerL.TetzlaffJ. M.AklE. A.BrennanS. E.ChouR.GlanvilleJ.GrimshawJ. M.HróbjartssonA.LaluM. M.LiT.LoderE. W.Mayo-WilsonE.McDonaldS.MoherD. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372(9), n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
27.
PfeifferS. I. (2015). Tripartite model of giftedness and best practices in gifted assessment | El Modelo Tripartito sobre la alta capacidad y las mejores prácticas en la evaluación de los más capaces. Revista de Educación, 368, 155–182. https://doi.org/10.4438/1988-592X-RE-2015-368-293
28.
RaoofK.ShokriO.FathabadiJ.PanaghiL. (2024). Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors. Heliyon, 10(17), e36908. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e36908
29.
R Core Team. (2025). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. [Software]. https://www.r-project.org/
30.
ReeveJ.TsengC.-M. (2011). Agency as a fourth aspect of students’ engagement during learning activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36(4), 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.05.002
31.
ReisS. M.BaumS. M.BurkeE. (2014). An Operational Definition of Twice-Exceptional Learners: Implications and Applications: Implications and Applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976
32.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. 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
33.
RitchotteJ. A.MatthewsM. S.FlowersC. 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
34.
RubensteinL. D.SiegleD.ReisS. M.MccoachD. B.BurtonM. G. (2012). A Complex quest: The development and research of underachievement interventions for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(7), 678–694. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21620
35.
SchiltzL. (2014). Application de la musicothérapie aux élèves surdoués en situation de fléchissement scolaire: Résultats d’une étude confirmatoire. Recreation, 30, 141–163.
36.
SchiltzL. (2016). Treating the emotional and motivational inhibition of highly gifted underachievers with music psychotherapy: Meta-analysis of an evaluation study based on a sequential design. Bulletin De La Societe Des Sciences Medicales Du Grand Duche De Luxembourg, 1, 7–26.
37.
SchiltzL. (2019). Lasting inhibition of creativity in highly gifted underachievers: Therapeutic reflections based on negative results of a pedagogical project. Archives of Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, 21(2), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.12740/APP/106076
38.
SiegleD.McCoachD. B.RobertsA. (2017). Why I believe I achieve determines whether I achieve. High Ability Studies: The Journal of the European Council for High Ability, 28(1), 59–72. https://doi.org/10.1080/13598139.2017.1302873
39.
SilvermanL. K. (2009). The two-edged sword of compensation: How the gifted cope with learning disabilities. Gifted Education International, 25(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1177/026142940902500203
40.
Steenbergen-HuS.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CalvertE. (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
41.
SternbergR. J. (2024). A new model of giftedness for transformational active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership. Gifted Education International, 40(2), 166–195. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294241246497
42.
SternbergR. J.Soleimani DashtakiA. (2024). Effectivity: An alternative to conceptions of gifted under- and over-achievement. Gifted Education International, 41(2), 182–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/02614294241280862
43.
StoegerH.ZieglerA. (2005). Evaluation of an elementary classroom self-regulated learning program for gifted mathematics underachievers. International Education Journal, 6(2), 261–271.
44.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3–54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
45.
SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. C. (2012). A proposed direction forward for gifted education based on psychological science. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56(4), 176–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986212456079
46.
TibkenC.RichterT.von der LindenN.SchmiedelerS.SchneiderW. (2022). The role of metacognitive competences in the development of school achievement among gifted adolescents. Child Development, 93(1), 117–133. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13640
47.
WhiteS. L. J.GrahamL. J.BlaasS. (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
48.
WorrellF. C.SubotnikR. F.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2021). Giftedness and eminence: Clarifying the relationship. Gifted and Talented International, 36(1-2), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2022.2049461
