The Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS) has been used extensively to study intellectual abilities of special groups. Here, we report the results of an intellectually gifted group on the WAIS-IV. Gifted individuals are people who obtained scores equal to or greater than 2 standard deviations above the mean on an intelligence test. Hence, the current study aims first, to examine mean group performance data of gifted individuals on the WAIS-IV; second, to revalidate the pattern of performance identified in this special group in previous studies (i.e., verbal skills higher than all other abilities); third, to compare scatter measures across intellectual domains with a matched comparison group. A total of 130 gifted individuals (79 males) were administered the full battery and their performance was compared with a matched comparison group. Analyses revealed that gifted group displayed higher scores in all intellectual domains. Contrary to expectations, they showed the highest scores in perceptual reasoning tasks. A multivariate approach revealed that this ability was statistically different from all other domains within the gifted group. Moreover, gifted individuals showed higher discrepancies across intellectual domains than average-intelligence people. Findings have important practical implications to detect intellectual giftedness in adulthood.
AbadF. J.ColomR.RebolloI.EscorialS. (2004). Sex differential item functioning in the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for bias. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 1459-1470. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00241-1
AmendE. R.PetersD. B. (2012). Misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of gifted children: The importance of accurate assessment. In CrossT. L.CrossJ. R. (Eds.), Handbook for counselors serving students with gifts and talents: Development, relationships, school issues, and counseling needs/interventions (pp. 585-596). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
4.
AntshelK.FaraoneS.MaglioneK.DoyleA.FriedR.SeidmanL.BiedermanJ. (2009). Is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence of high IQ?Psychological Medicine, 39, 1325-1335. doi:10.1017/S0033291708004959
5.
BaileyC. L. (2011). An examination of the relationships between ego development, Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration, and the behavioral characteristics of gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 208-222. doi:10.1177/0016986211412180
6.
BaudsonT. G.PreckelF. (2013). Teachers’ implicit personality theories about the gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37-46. doi:10.1037/spq0000011
7.
BessouA.MontlahucC.LouisJ.FourneretP.RevolO. (2005). Profil psychométrique de 245 enfants intellectuellement précoces au WISC-III [Psychometric profile of 245 intellectually precocious children (WISC III)]. A.N.A.E., 81, 23-28.
8.
BinderL. M.IversonG. L.BrooksB. L. (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal” neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 31-46. doi:10.1093/arclin/acn001
9.
CarmanC. A. (2013). Comparing apples and oranges: Fifteen years of definitions of giftedness in research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 52-70. doi:10.1177/1932202X12472602
CattellR. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1-22. doi:10.1037/h0046743
12.
CattellR. B. (Ed.). (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York, NY: Elsevier Science.
13.
ChenH. Y.KeithT. Z.ChenY. H.ChangB. S. (2009). What does the WISC-IV measure? Validation of the scoring and CHC-based interpretive approaches. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 54, 85-108.
14.
CohenA.FiorelloC. A.FarleyF. H. (2006). The cylindrical structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–IV: A retest of the Guttman model of intelligence. Intelligence, 34, 587-591. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.003
15.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
16.
CrawfordJ. R.GarthwaiteP. H.GaultC. B. (2007). Estimating the percentage of the population with abnormally low scores (or abnormally large score differences) on standardized neuropsychological test batteries: A generic method with applications. Neuropsychology, 21, 419-430. doi:10.1037/0894-4105.21.4.419
17.
DavisG. A.RimmS. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
18.
DearyI. J.IrwingP.DerG.BatesT. C. (2007). Brother–sister differences in the g factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the NLSY1979. Intelligence, 35, 451-456. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.003
19.
DearyI. J.ThorpeG.WilsonV.StarrJ. M.WhalleyL. J. (2003). Population sex differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31, 533-542. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9
20.
EhrlingerJ.DunningD. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 5-17. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
21.
ElliottC. D. (2007). Differential Ability Scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
22.
FishkinA. S.KampsniderJ. J.PackL. (1996). Testing: Exploring the WISC-III as a measure of giftedness. Roeper Review, 18, 226-231. doi:10.1080/02783199609553744
23.
FlanaganD. P.KaufmanA. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC–IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
24.
FletcherK. L.NeumeisterK. L. (2012). Research on perfectionism and achievement motivation: Implications for gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 668-677. doi:10.1002/pits.21623
25.
FordD. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33, 31-35. doi:10.1177/107621751003300308
26.
FrancisR.HawesD. J.AbbottM. (2016). Intellectual giftedness and psychopathology in children and adolescents: A systematic literature review. Exceptional Children, 82, 279-302. doi:10.1177/0014402915598779
27.
FurnhamA. (2001). Self-estimates of intelligence: Culture and gender difference in self and other estimates of both general (g) and multiple intelligences. Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 1381-1405. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(00)00232-4
28.
FurnhamA.BuchananT. (2005). Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 543-555. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.011
29.
FurnhamA.GassonL. (1998). Sex differences in parental estimates of their children’s intelligence. Sex Roles, 38, 151-162. doi:10.1023/A:1018772830511
30.
GagnèF. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 60-74). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
31.
GridleyB. E.NormanK. A.RizzaM. G.DeckerS. L. (2003). Assessment of gifted children with the Woodcock–Johnson III. In SchrankF. A.FlanaganD. P. (Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp. 285-317). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
32.
GuénoléF.LouisJ.CreveuilC.BaleyteJ. M.MontlahucC.FourneretP.RevolO. (2013). Behavioral profiles of clinically referred children with intellectual giftedness. BioMed Research International, 2013, 540153. doi:10.1155/2013/540153
33.
GustafssonJ. E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive abilities. In SternbergR. J. (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence (Vol. 4, pp. 35-71). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
34.
GuttmanL. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In LazarsfeldP. F. (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258-348). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
35.
HeimA. (1970). Intelligence and personality. Harmondsworth, England: Penguin.
36.
HellerK. A. (2005). Education and counseling of the gifted and talented in Germany. International Journal for the Advancement of Counselling, 27, 191-210. doi: 10.1007/s10447-005-3181-7
37.
HoldnackJ. A.DrozdickL.WeissL. G.IversonG. L. (2013). WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced clinical interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
38.
HoldnackJ. A.WeissL. G. (2013). Demographic adjustments to WAIS-IV/WMS-IV Norms. In HoldnackJ. A.DrozdickL.WeissL. G.IversonG. L. (Eds.), WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced clinical interpretation (pp. 171-216). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
39.
HornJ. L.NollJ. (1997). Human cognitive capabilities: Gf-Gc theory. In FlanaganD. P.GenshaftJ. L.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53-91). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
40.
JensenA. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
41.
JohnsonW.DearyI. J.CarothersA. (2008). Sex differences in variability in general intelligence: A new look at the old question. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3, 518-531. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00096.x
42.
KanevskyL.KeighleyT. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20-28. doi:10.1177/0016986211422098
43.
KaufmanA. S.KaufmanN. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children (2nd ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
44.
KaufmanA. S.LichtenbergerE. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult intelligence. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
45.
KeithT. Z.FineJ. G.TaubG. E.ReynoldsM. R.KranzlerJ. H. (2006). Higher order, multisample, confirmatory factor analysis of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition: What does it measure?School Psychology Review, 35, 108-127.
46.
KvistA. V.GustafssonJ.-E. (2008). The relation between fluid intelligence and the general factor as a function of cultural background: A test of Cattell’s investment theory. Intelligence, 36, 422-436. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2007.08.004
47.
LandauerT. K.DumaisS. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104, 211-240. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
48.
LangM.MichelottiC.BardelliE. (2015). WAIS-IV: Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV: lettura dei risultati e interpretazione clinica. Milan, Italy: Raffaello Cortina Editore.
49.
LichtenbergerE. O.KaufmanA. S. (2009). Essentials of WAIS-IV assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
50.
LipnevichA. A.RobertsR. D. (2012). Noncognitive skills in education: Emerging research and applications in a variety of international contexts. Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 173-177. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.016
51.
LohmanD. (2004). Aptitude for college: The importance of reasoning tests for minority admissions. In ZwickR. (Ed.). Rethinking the SAT: The future of standardized testing in university admissions (pp. 41-56). Oxford, England: RoutledgeFalmer.
52.
LohmanD. F.GambrellJ.LakinJ. (2008). The commonality of extreme discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 269-282.
53.
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, 316-345. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
54.
MannR. L. (2005). Gifted students with spatial strengths and sequential weaknesses: An overlooked and underidentified population. Roeper Review, 27, 91-97. doi:10.1016/j.psfr.2011.08.002
55.
MarshalekB.LohmanD. F.SnowR. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7, 107-127.
56.
MartínezK.Villalon-ReinaJ.KesselD.JoshiA.PinedaJ. A.JahanshadN.. . . ThompsonP. M. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis of brain networks reveals sub-networks related to cognitive performance. International Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 10, 608-611. doi:10.1109/ISBI.2013.6556548
57.
MatarazzoJ. D.HermanD. O. (1985). Clinical uses of the WAIS-R: Base rates of differences between VIQ and PIQ in the WAIS-R standardization sample. In WolmanB. B. (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 899-932). New York, NY: John Wiley.
58.
MatherN.WoodcockR. W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities examiner’s manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
59.
McGrewK. S.FlanaganD. P. (1996). The Wechsler performance scale debate: Fluid intelligence (Gf) or visual processing (Gv). Communique, 24, 14-16.
60.
McGrewK. S.LaForteE. M.SchrankF. A. (2014). Technical manual: Woodcock-Johnson IV. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
61.
MolineroC.MataS.CaleroM. D.Garcia-MartinM. B.Araque-CuencaA. (2015). Usefulness of WISC-IV in determining intellectual giftedness. Spanish Journal of Psychology, 18, 1-10. doi:10.1017/sjp.2015.63
OakesH.LovejoyD.TartarS.HoldnackJ. A. (2013). Understanding index and subtest scatter in healthy adults. In HoldnackJ. A.DrozdickL.WeissL. G.IversonG. L. (Eds.), WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced clinical interpretation (pp. 103-170). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
65.
OrsiniA.PezzutiL. (2013). WAIS-IV Contributo alla Taratura Italiana [WAIS-IV Contribution to the Italian standardization]. Florence, Italy: Giunti O.S.
66.
OrsiniA.PezzutiL.HulbertS. (2015). The unitary ability of IQ and Indexes in WAIS-IV. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000306
67.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2013). When less is more: Effects of grade skipping on adult STEM accomplishments among mathematically precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105, 176-198. doi:10.1037/a0029481
68.
PetersonJ. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280-282. doi:10.1177/0016986209346946
69.
PezzutiL. (2016). The GAI and CPI in the Italian standardization of the WAIS-IV and their clinical implications. Applied Psychology Bulletin, 276, 19-37.
70.
PreckelF.BaudsonT. G.Krolak-SchwerdtS.GlockS. (2015). Gifted and maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children. American Educational Journal, 52, 1160-1184. doi:10.3102/0002831215596413
71.
PreckelF.GötzT.FrenzelA. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on academic self-concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 451-472. doi:10.1348/000709909X480716
ReamsR.ChamradD.RobinsonN. M. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the swift: Validity of WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 108-110. doi:10.1177/001698629003400304
74.
ReisS. M.McCoachD. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go?Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-170. doi:10.1177/001698620004400302
75.
ReisS. M.NeuT. W.McGuireJ. M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63, 463-479. doi:10.1177/001440299706300403
76.
ReisS. M.RenzulliJ. S. (2011). Intellectual giftedness. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanS. B. (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 235-252). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
77.
RenzulliJ. S.ReisS. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
78.
ReynoldsM. R.HajovskyD. B.NiilekselaC.KeithT. Z. (2011). Spearman’s law of diminishing returns and the DAS-II: Do g effects on subtest scores depend on g?School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 275-289. doi:10.1037/a0026190
79.
RimmS.GilmanB.SilvermanL. (2008). Nontraditional applications of traditional testing. In VanTassel-BaskaJ. L. (Ed.), Alternative assessments with gifted and talented students (pp. 175-202). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
80.
RinnA. N.BishopJ. (2015). Gifted adults: A systematic review and analysis of the literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213-235. doi:10.1177/0016986215600795
81.
RizzaM. G.GridleyB. E.KipferM. (1998, November). Beyond the IQ: Looking at intelligence from a multiple view of ability. Paper presented at the 45th Annual Conference of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), Louisville, KY.
82.
RizzaM. G.McIntoshD. E.McCunnA. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted students. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 447-455. doi:10.1002/pits.1033
83.
RoidG. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales interpretive manual: Expanded guide to the interpretation of SB5 test results. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
84.
RoweE. W.DandridgeJ.PawlushA.ThompsonD. F.FerrierD. E. (2014). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses of the WISC-IV with gifted. School Psychology Quarterly, 29, 536-552. doi:10.1037/spq0000009
85.
RoweE. W.KingsleyJ. M.ThompsonD. F. (2010). Predictive ability of the General Ability Index (GAI) versus the Full Scale IQ among gifted referrals. School Psychology Quarterly, 25, 119-128. doi:10.1037/a0020148
86.
SchneiderW. J.McGrewK. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) model of intelligence. In FlanaganD. P.HarrisonP. L. (Eds.), Contemporary intellectual assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (3rd ed., pp. 99-144). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
87.
ShieldsS. A. (1982). The variability hypothesis: The history of a biological model of sex differences in intelligence. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 7, 769-797. doi:10.1086/493921
88.
SilvermanL. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal of Education, 72, 36-58. doi:10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681865
89.
SilvermanL. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 947-970). Amsterdam, Netherlands: Springer Science and Business Media.
90.
SparrowS.GurlandS. T. (1998). WISC–III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives. In PrifiteraA.SaklofskeD. H. (Eds.), Assessment of gifted children with the WISC–III (pp. 59-72). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
91.
SpearmanC. (1927). The abilities of man. London, England: Macmillan.
92.
SternbergR. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
93.
SternbergR. J.DavidsonJ. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
94.
StrandS.DearyI. J.SmithP. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive abilities test scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 463-480. doi:10.1348/000709905X50906
95.
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, 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056
96.
te NijenhuisJ.BakhietS. F.van den HoekM.RepkoJ.AllikJ.ZebecM. S.. . . AbduljabbarA. S. (2016). Spearman’s hypothesis tested comparing Sudanese children and adolescents with various other groups of children and adolescents on the items of the standard progressive matrices. Intelligence, 56, 46-57. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.02.010
97.
TerrassierJ. C. (1999). Les enfants surdoués ou la précocité embarrassante (4th ed.) [Gifted children or the awkward precocity]. Montrouge, France: ESF Éditeur.
98.
ToffaliniE.PezzutiL.CornoldiC. (2017). Einstein and dyslexia: Is giftedness more frequent in children with a specific learning disorder than in typically developing children?Intelligence, 62, 175-179. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.006
99.
TolanS. (1994). Discovering the ex-gifted child. Roeper Review, 17, 134-137.
100.
UrbinaS. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
101.
Vaivre-DouretL. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 1-14. doi:10.1155/2011/420297
102.
WatkinsM. W. (2005). Diagnostic validity of Wechsler subtest scatter. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3, 20-29.
103.
WebbJ. T.AmendE. R.BeljanP.WebbN. E.KuzujanakisM.OlenchakF. R.JeanG. (2016). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders (2nd ed.). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
104.
WechslerD. (2003). WISC-IV Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Technical and interpretative manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
WechslerD. (2008b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition: Technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
107.
WechslerD. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th ed.). Bloomington, MN: Pearson.
108.
WeissL. G.KeithT. Z.ZhuJ.ChenH. (2013). WAIS-IV and clinical validation of the four- and five-factor interpretative approaches. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94-113. doi:10.1177/0734282913478030
109.
WillisJ. O. (1996). A practitioner’s reaction to McGrew & Flanagan and Kaufman. Communique, 24, 15-17.
