This study examined whether aligning gifted education instruction to students’ cognitive reasoning strengths is associated with improved academic achievement. Using a quasi-experimental design with overlapping cohorts, outcomes for gifted students in Grades 3–5 from one large urban school district were compared across two academic years. The comparison cohort included 2,836 students from 47 schools, and the intervention cohort included 2,735 students from 48 schools. The intervention cohort participated in the Stretch or Support (SOS!) program, which uses cognitive reasoning profiles to guide instructional grouping and differentiation based on students’ relative verbal, quantitative, and nonverbal strengths; the prior-year cohort served as a comparison group. Academic growth was assessed using fall-to-spring i-Ready Reading and Mathematics scores and analyzed using descriptive statistics and hierarchical modeling. Results indicated that students in the intervention cohort showed significantly greater growth in both reading and mathematics, with larger and more consistent differences observed in mathematics. Findings suggest that participation in instruction aligned to cognitive reasoning strengths was associated with higher academic growth among gifted learners.
AckermanP. L.LakinJ. M. (2018). Expertise and individual differences. In PfeifferS. I. (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (2nd ed., pp. 65–80). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-77004-8_5
2.
BatesD.MächlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67(1), 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01
3.
BaumS. M.SchaderR. M.HébertT. P. (2014). Through a different lens: Reflecting on a strengths-based, talent-focused approach for twice-exceptional learners. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(4), 311–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214547632
4.
BloomH. S.BosJ. M.LeeS. W. (1999). Using cluster random assignment to measure program impacts: Statistical implications for the evaluation of education programs. Evaluation Review, 23(4), 445–469. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X9902300405
5.
BloomH. S.Richburg-HayesL.BlackA. R. (2007). Using covariates to improve precision: Empirical guidance for studies that randomize schools to measure the impacts of educational interventions. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 30–59. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299550
6.
CallahanC. M. (2013). Evaluating services offered to gifted and talented students: A planning guide. In CallahanC. M.Hertberg-DavisH. L. (Eds.), Fundamentals of gifted education: Considering multiple perspectives (pp. 439–447). Routledge.
7.
CallahanC. M.MoonT. R.OhS.AzanoA. P.HaileyE. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52(1), 137–167. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831214549448
8.
CronbachL. J.SnowR. E. (1981). Aptitudes and instructional methods: A handbook for research on interactions. Irvington.
EndersC. K.TofighiD. (2007). Centering predictor variables in cross-sectional multilevel models: A new look at an old issue. Psychological Methods, 12(2), 121–138. https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.12.2.121
12.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.Ottone-CrossK.McCoachD. B.LangleyS. D.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.CaugheyM. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted and talented students: Are identification and services connected?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
13.
HedgesL.HedbergE. C. (2007). Intraclass Correlation Values for Planning Group randomized trials in education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(1), 60–87. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373707299706
14.
KuznetsovaA.BrockhoffP. B.ChristensenR. H. B. (2017). lmerTest package: Tests in linear mixed effects models. Journal of Statistical Software, 82(13), 1–26. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v082.i13
15.
LohmanD. F. (2005). The role of nonverbal ability tests in identifying academically gifted students: An aptitude perspective. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(2), 111–138. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900203
16.
LohmanD. F.LakinJ. M. (2017). Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT), form 7. Riverside Insights.
17.
LoyA.HofmannH. (2014). HLMdiag: A suite of diagnostics for hierarchical linear models in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 56(5), 1–28. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v056.i05
18.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2006). Study of mathematically precocious youth after 35 years: Uncovering antecedents for the development of math-science expertise. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1(4), 316–345. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
19.
LüdeckeD.Ben-ShacharM. S.PatilI.WaggonerP.MakowskiD. (2021). Performance: An R package for assessment, comparison and testing of statistical models. Journal of Open Source Software, 6(60), 3139. https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.03139
20.
MaasC. J. M.HoxJ. J. (2005). Sufficient sample sizes for multilevel modeling. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1(3), 86–92. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241.1.3.86
21.
NakagawaS.SchielzethH. (2013). A general and simple method for obtaining R2 from generalized linear mixed-effects models. Methods in Ecology and Evolution, 4(2), 133–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2041-210x.2012.00261.x
NieuwenhuisR.te GrotenhuisM.PelzerB. (2012). Influence.ME: Tools for detecting influential data in mixed effects models. R Journal, 4(2), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.32614/RJ-2012-011
24.
O’BrienR. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality and Quantity, 41(5), 673–690. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6
25.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2007). Contrasting intellectual patterns for creativity in the arts and sciences: Tracking intellectually precocious youth over 25 years. Psychological Science, 18(11), 948–952. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x
26.
ParsonsS. A.VaughnM.ScalesR. Q.GallagherM. A.ParsonsA. W.DavisS. G.PierczynskiM.AllenM. (2017). Teachers’ instructional adaptations: A research synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 205–242. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317743198
27.
PetersS. J.MatthewsM. S.McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B. (2021). Beyond gifted education: Designing and implementing advanced academic programs. Routledge.
28.
PustejovskyJ. E. (2023). clubSandwich: Cluster-robust (sandwich) variance estimators with small-sample corrections [R package version 0.5.10]. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=clubSandwich
29.
PustejovskyJ. E.TiptonE. (2018). Small-sample methods for cluster-robust variance estimation and hypothesis testing in fixed effects models. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 36(4), 672–683. https://doi.org/10.1080/07350015.2016.1247004
SchochetP. (2005). Statistical power for random assignment evaluations of education programs. Mathematica Policy Research.
36.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Houghton Mifflin.
37.
SnijdersT. A. B.BoskerR. J. (2012). Multilevel analysis: An introduction to basic and advanced multilevel modeling (2nd ed.). Sage Publications.
38.
SnowR. E. (1990). New approaches to cognitive and conative assessment in education. International Journal of Educational Research, 14(5), 455–473. https://doi.org/10.1016/0883-0355(90)90028-7
39.
StramD. O.LeeJ. W. (1994). Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. Biometrics, 50(4), 1171–1177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2533455
40.
UttalD. H.MeadowN. G.TiptonE.HandL. L.AldenA. R.WarrenC.NewcombeN. S. (2013). The malleability of spatial skills: A meta-analysis of training studies. Psychological Bulletin, 139(2), 352–402. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0028446
41.
Van der MeerT.Te GrotenhuisM.PelzerB. (2010). Influential cases in multilevel modeling: A methodological comment. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 173–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122409359166
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over 50 years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101(4), 817–835. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016127
