One hundred years of research (1916–2016) on intellectually precocious youth is reviewed, painting a portrait of an extraordinary source of human capital and the kinds of learning opportunities needed to facilitate exceptional accomplishments, life satisfaction, and positive growth. The focus is on those studies conducted on individuals within the top 1% in general or specific (mathematical, spatial, or verbal reasoning) abilities. Early insights into the giftedness phenomenon actually foretold what would be scientifically demonstrated 100 years later. Thus, evidence-based conceptualizations quickly moved from viewing intellectually precocious individuals as weak and emotionally labile to highly effective and resilient individuals. Like all groups, intellectually precocious students and adults have strengths and relative weaknesses; they also reveal vast differences in their passion for different pursuits and their drive to achieve. Because they do not possess multipotentiality, we must take a multidimensional view of their individuality. When done, it predicts well long-term educational, occupational, and creative outcomes.
AchterJ. A.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (1996). Multipotentiality among intellectually gifted: “It was never there and already it’s vanishing.”Journal of Counseling Psychology, 43, 65–76. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.77
2.
AchterJ. A.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.Eftekhari-SanjaniH. (1999). Assessing vocational preferences among gifted adolescents adds incremental validity to abilities: A discriminant analysis of educational outcomes over a 10-year interval. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 777–786. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.4.777
3.
AckermanP. L. (1996). A theory of adult intellectual development: Process, personality, interests, and knowledge. Intelligence, 22, 227–257. doi:10.1016/S0160-2896(96)90016-1
4.
AckermanP. L. (2014). Nonsense, common sense, and science of expert performance: Talent and individual differences. Intelligence, 45, 6–17. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.04.009
5.
AckermanP. L.HeggestadE. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 218–245. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.121.2.219
6.
AllportG. W. (1960). Uniqueness in students. In WeatherfordW. D. (Ed.), The goals of higher education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
AsburyK.PlominR. (2014). G is for genes: The impact of genetics on educational achievement. New York, NY: Wiley.
8.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.Vantassel-BaskaJ. (2015). A nation empowered (Vol. I). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.
9.
AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.Vantassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2015). A nation empowered (Vol. II). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.
10.
AustinJ. T.HanischK. A. (1990). Occupational attainment as a function of abilities and interests: A longitudinal analysis using Project Talent data. Journal of Applied Psychology, 75, 77–86. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.75.1.77
11.
BenbowC. P. (1992). Academic achievement in mathematics and science between ages 13 and 23: Are there differences among students in the top one percent of mathematical ability?Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 51–61. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.51
12.
BenbowC. P.LubinskiD.SheaD. L.Eftekhari-SanjaniH. (2000). Sex differences in mathematical reasoning ability: Their status 20 years later. Psychological Science, 11, 474–480. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00291
13.
Bleske-RechekA.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2004). Meeting the educational needs of special populations: Advanced Placement’s role in developing exceptional human capital. Psychological Science, 15, 217–224. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00655.x
14.
BoringE. G. (1959). Lewis Madison Terman: 1877–1956. Biographical Memoirs of the National Academy of Science, 33, 414–440.
15.
CampbellD. P. (1977). Take the road to creativity and get off your dead end. Allen, TX: Argus Communications.
16.
CarrollJ. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
17.
CattellR. B. (1957). Personality and motivational structure and measurement. New York: World Book.
18.
CeciS. J.PapiernoP. B. (2005). The rhetoric and reality of gap closing: When the “have nots” gain but the “haves” gain even more. American Psychologist, 60, 149–160. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.60.2.149
19.
ClynesT. (2016). How to raise a genius: A long-running study of exceptional children reveals what it takes to produce the scientists who will lead the twenty-first century. Nature, 573, 152–155. doi:10.1038/537152a
20.
ColangeloN.AssoulineS. G.GrossM. U. M. (Eds.). (2004). A nation deceived: How schools hold back America’s brightest students. Iowa City: University of Iowa.
21.
ColomR.ThompsonP. M. (2011). Understanding human intelligence by imaging the brain. In Chamorro-PremuzicT.Von StummS.FurnhamA. (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences (pp. 330–352). Cambridge, MA: Blackwell. doi:10.1002/9781444343120.ch12
22.
CornoL.CronbachL. J.KupermintzH.LohmanD. F.MandinachE. B.PorteusA. W.TalbertJ. E. (Eds.). (2002). Remaking the concept of aptitude: Extending the legacy of Richard E. Snow. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
CronbachL. J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684. doi:10.1037/h0043943
24.
CronbachL. J. (1975). Beyond the two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 30, 116–127. doi:10.1037/h0076829
25.
CronbachL. J. (1989). Lee J. Cronbach. In LindzeyG. (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. VIII, pp. 62–93). Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
26.
CronbachL. J. (1992a, April19). Opening remarks: Julian C. Stanley’s Festschrift [Video recording]. San Francisco, CA: American Educational Research Association. Copy in possession of author.
27.
CronbachL. J. (1992b). Four Psychological Bulletin articles in perspective. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 389–392. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.112.3.389
28.
CronbachL. J. (1996). Acceleration among the Terman males: Correlates in midlife and after. In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 179–191). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
29.
DawisR. V. (1992). The individual differences tradition in counseling psychology. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 39, 7–19. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.39.1.7
30.
EisnerE. W. (1999). The uses and limits of performance assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 658–670.
31.
EricssonK. A.CharnessN.FeltovichP.HoffmanR. R. (2006). Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
32.
FeldmanD. H. (1984). A follow-up of subjects scoring above 180 IQ in Terman’s genetic studies of genius. Exceptional Children, 50, 518–523.
33.
FerrimanK.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Work preferences, life values, and personal views of top math/science graduate students and the profoundly gifted: Developmental changes and sex differences during emerging adulthood and parenthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 517–532. doi:10.1037/a0016030
34.
FlanaganJ. C.DaileyJ. T.ShaycoftM. F.GorhamW. A.OrrD. B.GoldbergI. (1962). Design for a study of American youth. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
35.
FreyM. C.DettermanD. K. (2004). Scholastic assessment or g? The relationship between the scholastic assessment test and general cognitive ability. Psychological Science, 15, 373–378. doi:10.1111/j.0956-7976.2004.00687.x
36.
GagneF. (2005). From noncompetence to exceptional talent: Exploring the range of academic achievement within and between grade levels. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 139–153. doi:10.1177/001698620504900204
37.
GarrisonC. G.BurkeA.HollingsworthL. S. (1917). The psychology of a prodigious child. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1, 101–110. doi:10.1037/h0070864
38.
GilesJ. (2011). Social science lines up its biggest challenges: “Top ten” crucial questions set research priorities for the field. Nature, 470, 18–19. doi:10.1038/470018a
39.
GohmC. L.HumphreysL. G.YaoG. (1998). Underachievement among spatially gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 515–531. doi:10.3102/00028312035003515
40.
GoldenC. (2014). A grand gender convergence: Its last chapter. American Economic Review, 104, 1–30. doi:10.1257/aer.104.4.1091
41.
GuttmanL. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: The radex. In LazarsfeldP. (Ed.), Mathematical thinking in the social sciences (pp. 258–348). New York, NY: Free Press.
42.
HolahanC. K.SearsR. R.CronbachL. J. (1995). The gifted group in later maturity. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
43.
HollandJ. L. (1996). Exploring careers with a typology: What we have learned and some new directions. American Psychologist, 51, 397–406. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.51.4.397
44.
HollingworthL. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York, NY: Macmillan.
45.
HollingworthL. S. (1927). Subsequent history of E: Ten years after the initial report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 11, 385–390. doi:10.1037/h0070579
46.
HollingworthL. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ, Stanford-Binet. Yonkers, NY: World Book Company.
47.
HollingworthL. S.CobbM. V. (1928). Children clustering at 165 IQ and children clustering at 146 IQ compared for three years in achievement. In Twenty-seventh Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 3–33). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
48.
HollingworthL. S.GarrisonC. G.BurkeA. (1922). Subsequent history of E: Five years after the initial report. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 205–210. doi:10.1037/h0069972
49.
HummD. G. (1946). Validation by remote criteria. Journal of Applied Psychology, 30, 333–339.
50.
HumphreysL. G.LubinskiD.YaoG. (1993). Utility of predicting group membership and the role of spatial visualization in becoming an engineer, physical scientist, or artist. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 250–261. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.78.2.250
51.
JamesW. (1890). Principles of psychology. New York, NY: Holt.
52.
JenkinsJ. J. (1981). Can we have a fruitful cognitive psychology? In HoweH. E.Jr.FlowersJ. H. (Eds.) Cognitive processes: Nebraska symposium on motivation 1980 (pp. 211–238). Lincoln, Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press.
53.
JensenA. R. (1991). Spearman’s g and the problem of educational equality. Oxford Review of Education, 17, 169–187. doi:10.1080/0305498910170205
54.
JensenA. R. (1996). Giftedness and genius: Crucial differences. In BenbowC. P.LubinskiD. (Eds.), Intellectual talent: Psychometric and social issues (pp. 393–411). Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
55.
JungR. E.HaierR. J. (2007). The Parieto-frontal integration theory (P-FIT) of intelligence: Converging neuroimaging evidence. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 135–187. doi:10.1017/S0140525X07001185
56.
KellH. J.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2013). Who rises to the top? Early indicators. Psychological Science, 24, 648–658. doi:10.1177/0956797612457784
57.
KellH. J.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SteigerJ. H. (2013). Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychological Science, 24, 1831–1836. doi:10.1177/0956797613478615
58.
KennyD. A. (1975). A quasi-experimental approach to assessing treatment effects in the nonequivalent control group design. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 345–362. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.82.3.345
59.
LearnedW. S.WoodB. D. (1938). The student and his knowledge. New York, NY: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
60.
LubinskiD. (2000). Scientific and social significance of assessing individual differences: “Sinking shafts at a few critical points.”Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 405–444. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.51.1.405
61.
LubinskiD. (2004). Introduction to the special section on cognitive abilities: 100 years after Spearman’s (1904) “‘General intelligence,’ objectively determined and measured.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 86, 96–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.86.1.96
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2000). States of excellence. American Psychologist, 55, 137–150. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.137
64.
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
65.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.KellH. J. (2014). Life paths and accomplishments of mathematically precocious males and females four decades later. Psychological Science, 25, 2217–2232. doi:10.1177/0956797614551371
66.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.SheaD. L.Eftekhari-SanjaniH.HalvorsonM. B. J. (2001). Men and women at promise for scientific excellence: Similarity not dissimilarity. Psychological Science, 12, 309–317. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00357
67.
LubinskiD.BenbowC. P.WebbR. M.Bleske-RechekA. (2006). Tracking exceptional human capital over two decades. Psychological Science, 17, 194–199. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01685.x
68.
MackintoshN. J. (2011). IQ and human intelligence (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
69.
MakelM.KellH. J.LubinskiD.PutallazM.BenbowC. P. (2016). When lightning strikes twice: Profoundly gifted, profoundly accomplished. Psychological Science, 27, 1004–1018. doi:10.1177/0956797616644735
70.
MeehlP. E. (1978). Theoretical risks and tabular asterisks: Sir Karl, Sir Ronald, and the slow progress of soft psychology. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 806–834.
71.
MeehlP. E. (1990). Appraising and amending theories: The strategy of Lakatosian defense and two principles that warrant it. Psychological Inquiry, 1, 108–141, 173–180. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0102_1
72.
MertonR. K. (1968). The Matthew effect in science. Science, 159, 56–63. doi:10.1126/science.159.3810.56
73.
MessickS. (1992). Multiple intelligences or multilevel intelligence? Selective emphasis on distinctive properties of hierarchy: An essay review of Gardner’s Frames of Mind and Sternberg’s Beyond IQ in the context of theory and research on the structure of human abilities. Psychological Inquiry, 3, 365–384. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0304_20
74.
MilesW. R. (1956). Carl Emil Seashore (1866–1949) [Biographical memoir]. Washington, DC: National Academy of Science Press.
75.
MurrayC. (2003). Human accomplishment: The pursuit of excellence in the arts and sciences, 800 B.C. to 1950. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
76.
National Research Council (1995). Research-doctorate programs in the United States: Continuity and change. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
77.
OdenM. H. (1968). The fulfillment of promise: 40-Year follow-up of the Terman group. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 77, 3–93.
78.
Olszewski-KubiliusP. (2015). Talent searches and accelerated programming for gifted students. In AssoulineS. G.ColangeloN.Vantassel-BaskaJ.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (Eds.), A nation empowered (Vol. II, pp. 111–121). Iowa City, IA: Belin-Blank Center.
79.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, 4716. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
80.
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, 948–952. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.02007.x
81.
ParkG.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957–961. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02182.x
82.
PatersonD. G. (1957). The conservation of human talent. American Psychologist, 12, 134–144. doi:10.1037/h0043853
83.
PinkerS. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human nature. New York, NY: Penguin Putnam.
84.
PlominR.DeFriesJ. C.KnopikV. S.NeiderhiserJ. M. (2013). Behavioral genetics (6th ed.). New York, NY: Worth.
85.
PlominR.DeFriesJ. C.KnopikV. S.NeiderhiserJ. M. (2016). Top 10 replicated findings from behavioral genetics. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11, 3–23. doi:10.1177/1745691615617439
86.
PresseyS. L. (1946a). Acceleration: Disgrace or challenge?Science, 104, 215–219. doi:10.1126/science.104.2697.215
87.
PresseyS. L. (1946b). Time-saving in professional training. American Psychologist, 1, 324–329. doi:10.1037/h0062575
88.
PresseyS. L. (1949). Educational acceleration: Appraisals and basic problems. Columbus: Ohio State University.
89.
PresseyS. L. (1955). Concerning the nature and nurture of genius. Scientific Monthly, 81, 123–129.
90.
RenzulliJ. S. (2012). Reexamining the role of gifted education and talent development for the 21st century: A four part theoretical approach. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 150–159. doi:10.1177/0016986212444901
91.
SchmidtD. B.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (1998). Validity of assessing educational-vocational preference dimensions among intellectually talented 13-year olds. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 45, 436–453. doi:10.1037/0022-0167.45.4.436
92.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (1998). The validity and utility of selection methods in personnel psychology: Practical and theoretical implications of 85 years of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 262–274. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.262
93.
SeashoreC. E. (1922). The gifted student and research. Science, 56, 641–648. doi:10.1126/science.56.1458.641
94.
SeashoreC. E. (1930). Carl Emil Seashore. In MurchisonC. (Ed.), A history of psychology in autobiography (Vol. 1, pp. 225–297). Worcester, MA: Clark University Press.
95.
SeashoreC. E. (1942). Pioneering in psychology (University of Iowa Studies, No. 398). Iowa City: University of Iowa Press.
96.
SheaD. L.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2001). Importance of assessing spatial ability in intellectually talented young adolescents: A 20-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 604–614. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.3.604
97.
ShurkinJ. N. (1992). Terman’s kids: The groundbreaking study of how the gifted grow up. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
98.
SieglerR. S. (1992). The other Alfred Binet. Developmental Psychology, 28, 179–190. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.2.179
99.
SimontonD. K. (1988). Scientific genius. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
100.
SimontonD. K. (1994). Greatness: Who makes history and why. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
101.
SimontonD. K. (1999). Talent and its development: An emergenic and epigenetic model. Psychological Review, 106, 435–457.
102.
SimontonD. K. (2014). Handbook of genius. New York, NY: Wiley.
103.
SkinnerB. F. (1968). The technology of teaching. New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
104.
SnowR. E. (1991). The concept of aptitude. In SnowR. E.WileyD. E. (Eds.), Improving inquiry in the social sciences (pp. 249–284). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
105.
SnowR. E. (1999). Commentary: Expanding the breadth and depth of admissions testing. In MessickS. (Ed.), Assessment in higher education: Issues of access, quality, student development, and public policy (pp. 133–140). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
106.
SnowR. E.CornoL.JacksonD.III. (1996). Individual differences in affective and conative functions. In BerlinerD. C.CalfeeR. C. (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243–310). New York, NY: Macmillan.
107.
SnowR. E.LohmanD. F. (1989). Implications of cognitive psychology for educational measurement. In LinnR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 263–331). New York, NY: Collier.
108.
SpainS. L.PedrosoI.KadevaN.MillerM. B.IaconoW. G.McGueM.. . . SimpsonM. A. (2016). A genome-wide analysis of putative functional and exonic variation associated with extremely high intelligence. Molecular Psychiatry, 21, 1145–1151. doi:10.1038/mp.2015.108
109.
SpearmanC.JonesL. L. (1950). Human ability. London: Macmillan.
110.
StanleyJ. C. (2000). Helping students learn only what they don’t already know. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 6, 216–222. doi:10.1037/1076-8971.6.1.216
111.
SteenL. A. (1988). The science of patterns. Science, 240, 611–616. doi:10.1126/science.240.4852.611
112.
SuR.RoundsJ.ArmstrongP. I. (2009). Men and things, women and people: A meta-analysis of sex differences in interests. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 859–884. doi:10.1037/a0017364
113.
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
114.
SuperD. E.BachrachP. B. (1957). Scientific careers and vocational development theory. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University.
115.
TermanL. M. (1916). The measurement of intelligence. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
116.
TermanL. M. (1917). The intelligence quotient of Francis Galton in childhood. American Journal of Psychology, 28, 209–215. doi:10.2307/1413721
117.
TermanL. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
118.
TermanL. M. (1939). Review of “The student and his knowledge,” by Willian S. Learned and Ben D. Wood. Journal of Higher Education, 10, 111–113. doi:10.2307/1974727
119.
TermanL. M. (1954a). The discovery and encouragement of exceptional talent. American Psychologist, 9, 221–230. doi:10.1037/h0060516
120.
TermanL. M. (1954b). Scientists and nonscientists in a group of 800 gifted men. Psychological Monographs, 68, 1–44. doi:10.1037/h0093672
121.
TermanL. M. (1955). Are scientists different?Scientific American, 192, 25–29. doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0155-25
122.
TermanL. M.FentonJ. C. (1921). Preliminary report on a gifted juvenile author. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 163–178. doi:10.1037/h0074962
123.
TermanL. M.MilesC. C. (1936). Sex and personality: Studies in masculinity and femininity. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
124.
ThorndikeR. L. (1949). Personnel selection: Test and measurement techniques. New York, NY: John Wiley.
125.
TylerL. E. (1965). The psychology of human differences (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Applton-Century-Crofts.
126.
TylerL. E. (1992). Counseling psychology—Why?Professional Psychology, 23, 342–344. doi:10.1037/0735-7028.23.5.342
127.
TyreP. (2016). The math revolution. Atlantic, 3, 50–57.
128.
von StrummS.AckermanP. L. (2013). Investment and intelligence: A review and meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 139, 841–869. doi:10.1037/a0030746
129.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 484–492. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.484
130.
WaiJ.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2009). Spatial ability for STEM domains: Aligning over fifty years of cumulative psychological knowledge solidifies its importance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 817–835. doi:10.1037/a0016127
131.
WaiJ.WorrellF. C. (2016). Helping disadvantaged and spatially talented students fulfill their potential: Related and neglected national resources. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 3, 122–128. doi:10.1177/2372732215621310
132.
WarneR. T. (2012). History and development of above-level testing of the gifted. Roeper Review, 34, 183–193. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.686425
133.
WarneR. T. (2015). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll Theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly. doi:10.1177/0016986215605360
134.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2002). Mathematically facile adolescents with math-science aspirations: New perspectives on their educational and vocational development. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 785–794. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.4.785
135.
WebbR. M.LubinskiD.BenbowC. P. (2007). Spatial ability: A neglected dimension in talent searches for intellectually precocious youth. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 397–420. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.397
136.
WellsF. L. (1937). Intelligence and socialization. American Journal of Psychiatry, 93, 1265–1291. doi:10.1176/ajp.93.6.1265
137.
WhiteR. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934
138.
WhiteR. W. (1973). The concept of healthy personality: What do we really mean?The Counseling Psychologist, 4, 3–12. doi:10.1177/001100007300400203
139.
WillermanL. (1979). The psychology of individual and group differences. San Francisco, CA: Freedman.
140.
WilliamsonE. G. (1965). Vocational counseling. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
141.
WittyP. (1951). The gifted child. Boston, MA: Heath.
142.
WolfleD. (1960). Diversity of talent. American Psychologist, 15, 535–545. doi:10.1037/h0046101
143.
WolfleD. (1969). The discovery of talent: The Walter Van Dyke Bingham lectures on the development of exceptional abilities and capacities. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
144.
WorrellF. C.Olszewski-KubiliusP.SubotnikR. F. (2012). Important issues, some rhetoric, and a few straw men: A response to comments on “Rethinking Giftedness and Gifted Education.”Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 224–231. doi:10.1177/0016986212456080
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
