University-based talent searches, in which students take a challenging, above-level test, have provided rigorous outside-of-school opportunities to academically talented students for decades. Talented young students take a test that was developed for older students, and the test results help educators discover the level of challenge the student needs and develop opportunities to meet those needs. The process of above-level testing and interpretation of the results has been well-established over the past 50 years in university-based talent searches. What has been learned from these programs can be applied in schools to challenge students year-round, rather than for only a short period of time in outside-of-school programs.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2011). Developing math talent: A comprehensive guide to math education for gifted students in elementary and middle school (2nd ed.). Prufrock Press.
2.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 45–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911433946
3.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA.ColangeloN. (2017). Academic acceleration: The theory applied. In PluckerJ. A.RinnA.MakelM. (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 1–19). Prufrock Press.
4.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA.ColangeloN. (2018). Acceleration and the talent search model: Transforming the school culture. In PfeifferS. I.Shaunessy-DedrickE.Foley-NicponM. (Eds.), APA handbook of giftedness and talent (pp. 333–346). American Psychological Association.
5.
AssoulineS. G.MahatmyaD.IhrigL. M.LynchS.KarakisN. (2023). A theoretically based STEM talent development program that bridges excellence gaps. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1522(1), 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.14978
6.
BernsteinB. O.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2021). Academic acceleration in gifted youth and fruitless concerns regarding psychological well-being: A 35-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 113(4), 830–845. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000500
CalvertE.Olszewski-KubiliusP.CrossT. L.CrossJ. R. (2023). Project OCCAMS: A five-year, collaborative intervention of an online intensive, accelerated, two-year language arts program designed to address systemic disparities among high ability middle school students. Gifted Child Today, 46(3), 159–167. https://doi.org/10.1177/10762175231168804
9.
CollinsK. H.ColemanM. R.GranthamT. C. (2022). A bioecological perspective of emotional/behavioral challenges for gifted students of color: Support needed versus support received. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 30(2), 86–95. https://doi.org/10.1177/10634266221076466
10.
HinshawM.CalvertE.Steenbergen-HuS. (2019). Is it valuable for younger students to take above-grade-level assessments more than once?Unpublished report. Center for Talent Development, Northwestern University.
11.
HollingworthL. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet: Origin and development. World Book.
12.
I-MTSS Research Network. (2023). What is an integrated multi-tiered system of support? Integrated multi-tiered systems of support research Network. University of Connecticut. https://www.mtss.org
LeeS. Y.MatthewsM. S.Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2008). A national picture of talent search and talent search educational programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52(1), 55–69. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207311152
15.
LubinskiD. (2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316675476
16.
LubinskiD.WebbR. M.MorelockM. J.BenbowC. P. (2001). Top 1 in 10,000: A follow-up of the profoundly gifted. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 718–729. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.4.718
17.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA.SwiatekM. A. (1999). Elementary student talent searches: Establishing appropriate guidelines for qualifying test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 43(4), 265–272. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629904300405
18.
Lupkowski-ShoplikA. E.AssoulineS. G. (1993). Identifying mathematically talented elementary students: Using the lower level of the SSAT. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 118–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698629303700304
19.
MillsC. J.AblardK. E.StumpfH. (1993). Gender differences in academically talented young students’ mathematical reasoning: Patterns across age and subskills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 340–346. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.2.340
Olszewski-KubiliusP.Steenbergen-HuS. (2017). Blending research-based practices and practice-embedded research: Project excite closes achievement and excellence gaps for underrepresented gifted minority students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 61(3), 202–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217701836
22.
StanleyJ. C. (1990). Leta Hollingworth's contributions to above‐level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 12(3), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783199009553264
23.
StanleyJ. C. (1996). In the beginning: The study of mathematically precocious youth (SMPY). In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 225–235). Johns Hopkins University Press.
StanleyJ. C.KeatingD. P.FoxL. H. (Eds.), (1974). Mathematical talent: Discovery, description, and development: Proceedings (Vol. 3). Johns Hopkins University Press.
26.
StephensK. R. (2022). Enrichment in and out of school. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 201–226). Routledge.
27.
SubotnikR.Olszewski-KubiliusP.WorrellF. (2020). Talent development. In PluckerJ.CallahanC. (Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education: A survey of current research on giftedness and talent development (3rd ed., pp. 443–455). Routledge.
28.
SwiatekM. A.BenbowC. P. (1991). A ten-year longitudinal follow-up of ability-matched accelerated and unaccelerated gifted students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 528–538. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.528
