Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Subcategories Within Gifted or Talented Populations
Subcategories Within Gifted or Talented Populations
Subcategories Within Gifted or Talented Populations
com/
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for Gifted Child Quarterly can be found at:
Subscriptions: http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations: http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/42/2/87.refs.html
What is This?
with the prevalence of more extreme subgroups (e.~.. community: (a) a clear and defensible minimum
the &dquo;highly&dquo; giftcd>. threshold (top 10%) giving aceess to the gifted or
Are these important questions? As will be argued talented populations; (b) a series of four simple,
below. the first question is at the heart of clear and equivalently spaccd (next 10%), consecutivc cut-
complete definitions of the giftedness and talent con- offs to subdivide the gifted or talented populations
structs. Aloreover. it is at the forefront of laypersons’ into progressively
more selective
sub~;roups; and
intcrr<>giiti<>n;; indeed, from my experience of dozens (c) a of labels, most of them well-known, to
set
of interviews with the media, that first question ranks descrihe each of these five categories. The author
second only to &dquo;1 1<>v. do you define giftedness?&dquo; As for considers that he has done his joh. Now. the ball is
the second. it is directly related to the common use of in the educators’ court. They are the ones (schol-
adverbs like &dquo;exceptionally.&dquo; &dquo;highly.&dquo; or &dquo;moderately&dquo; ars, administrators, coordinators, teachers) who
to differentiate extreme subgroups from the &dquo;garden will put this research to use in their daily life, first
variety&dquo; of gifted and talented individuals. ! truly by learning the system (easy!), and then by using
believe that every scholar or professional in the field it to describe individual students, subgroups of stu-
acknowledges the need for differentiation 2eithin the dents, samples in a study, and so forth. The more
gifted and talented populations, not only to recognize dissemination there is, the more useful this system
major differences in ability and personality profiles. will become.
be assumed that utilization of these criteria for identi- Gagn6’s much more inclusive 15%, and even a 20%
fication of the gifted and talented will encompass a advanced by Renzulli (1986) to create the talent pools in
minimum of 3% to 5% of the school population&dquo; (p. 5). his Revolving Door model. What about the ratios used in
For his part, GagnO (1993) adopted the top 15% as his school districts? In a survey of state policies, Zettel
threshold for membership in either the gifted or tal- (1979, p. 66) affirmed that &dquo;the most common standard
ented populations. No doubt the absence of agreed- among states using intelligence tests ... appears to be a
minimum intelligence score of 130 [top 2.5%].&dquo; More
upon definitions for the giftedness and talent
constructs explains, in large part, a similar lack of a recently, Mitchell (1988) pointed out that &dquo;states using
shared prevalence estimate. If scholars shy away from intelligence and achievement test scores for identifica-
that thorny question, program coordinators have no tion generally use cut-off [sic] points which range
choice but to address it-at least implicitly-and give between the 95th and 98th percentile levels&dquo; (p. 240).
some answer when they plan their budget or define the
The author did not specify whether these cutoff points
were for individual measures or combined ones. If the
identification process in their school district. Similarly,
researchers do answer that question, again implicitly, process was disjunctive (A or B or C), as would be the
case when a school district follows the U.S.O.E./Marland
through the operational definitions of their samples of
gifted or talented individuals. (1972) definition, then we would expect the total per-
Such an oversight is very surprising since the ques- centage of selected subjects to be significantly larger than
the cutoff chosen for each instrument. If, on the other
tion of prevalence is directly linked to the definition of
the concepts of giftedness and talent. Why? Because hand, the process was conjunctive (A and B and C), as
would be the case if the Renzulli (1979) three-ring defin-
these concepts belong to the category of normative
ition of giftedness was adopted, then the total percentage
concepts, namely concepts which pinpoint a special of selected subjects would be significantly smaller than
&dquo;non-normal&dquo; subgroup within a general population.
any of the cutoff ratios (see B61anger, 1997).
Terms like poverty, obesity, mental deficiency, genius,
Concerning the general population, Gagn6,
deafness, and so forth, are also members of that cate-
Belanger, and Motard (1993) discovered that layper-
gory. Francis Galton (1892/1962) was among the sons’ estimates of gifted and talented individuals
first-if not the first-to point out that such normative
ranged from under 1% to 99%. Gifted individuals were
concepts had to be defined not only descriptively, but
also quantitatively. In his study of the family relation-
perceived to be about half as numerous (M 19%, SD
= =
88
ning of this text, namely the creation of subcategories end of the IQ distribution, those whose intellectual gift-
within the gifted or talented populations. That question edness is usually labeled exceptional, extreme, very
can be divided into two distinct problems: (a) the cut- high, profound, and so forth. There is no consensus,
off points for these more selective subgroups and, con- either in terms of terminology or in terms of precise
sequently, their size, and (b) the appropriate label to threshold. For instance, Ilollingworth (1942) defined
describe each of them. As mentioned earlier, dozens, if exceptionally gifted children as those with IQs of ISO
not hundreds, of academics and professionals have or more; Gross (1993) used the same label, but with a
noted the importance of distinguishing subgroups cutoff score of 160, while Lovecky (199~) chose a cut-
within the gifted population, pointing out that intellec- off IQ of 170. So, there is a tendency to create a special
tually gifted individuals have IQs that range from subgroup with children whose IQs exceed the +4 or +5
around 120/125 to over 200+, a span almost as large as standard deviation. In terms of ratios, a very approxi-
the one covered from that same cutoff of 120/125 to the mate figure would be 1:51),O(>0 or fewer. Imprecision is
depths of mental deficiency (IQs of s0 or so). No one in inevitable since no IQ test can reliably measure such
the field would question such a need: time and again extreme deviations from the average.
researchers, consultants, and school psychologists Another subgroup appears also very popular: those
involved with this target population (e.g., Gross, 1993; labeled hi,ghly gifted. In that case, the cutoff scores are
Hollingworth, 1942; Forelock, in press; Silverman & lower, usually ranging from 140 to 1 >0. It is worth
Kearney, 19~9) have observed how much exceptionally pointing out that this 1(>-point range looks small if wc
(or extremely, or profoundly) gifted individuals differ consider that the standard error of measurement of the
from those who just exceed the minimum threshold best individually administered IQ tests is close to 5
used in the identification process. points (see Sattler, 19t~~i); yet, it still corresponds to a
White the need for subgroups is generally recog- teiiji>ld difference-from 1:200 to 1:2000 approxi-
nized, few have gone as far as to propose an explicit mately-in the size of the population. The last com-
system of progressively more selective categories. monly used label is moderately. In that case, it is not
Apart from Gagne’s (1993) proposal, I found only two. clear if that subgroup corresponds to the lowest level
The first one, by Robeck (1968), is a system of four cat- within the intellectually gifted population. In many
egories in which she used the terms able, talented, cases, a threshold IQ of 130 or so will he mentioned
gifted, and highly gifted to label subgroups correspond- (e.g., Morelock, 1996), but that can vary, Lovccky
ing to +1 to +4 standard deviations from a 100 IQ aver- (1994), for instance, used that label to describe a sam-
age (SD 16). Note that Robeck differentiated
= ple where the IQs ranged from 140 to 160, while Gross
giftedness and talent in terms of level of intelligence, a (1993) associated that label with a threshold IQ of 125.
distinction sometimes found among laypersons (Gagn6 In summary, the global picture shows a series of
et al., 1993). The second one comes from Gross ( 1993); interconnected questions cascading from the definition
it is not a formal proposal, but it brings together, in a of the basic concepts to the inclusion in these defini-
structured fashion, information from various sources. tions of an estimate of prevalence, as Marland (1972)>
She states: and Gagne (1993) did, to a subdivision of the gifted-
ness/talent range into a certain number of more homo-
The term ’exceptiontily gifted’ refers to children who score in geneous levels, appropriately labeled. Concerning the
the lQ range 1(>Il-179 (Kiine & Meekstroth, 19t~5), while ’pro- last point, from my own experience in the field com-
found);.’ f;ifted’ refers to those very rare individuals who score bined with an extensive review of the literature, I have
at or abore IQ 180 (11’cbh, Nieckstroth, & Tolan, 1983)....
Moderately gifted students of IQ 12s appear in the population the distinct impression that the most common
ata ratio of approximately 1 in 20. Highly gifted students of IQ &dquo;implicit theory&dquo; in the mind of gifted education pro-
145 are approximately 1 in 1,()110. (p. 8) fessionals takes the form of a three-category system of
What be pointed out is that the whole question
must
subgroups (mildly/moderately, highly, exceptionally),
with a very imprecise minimum threshold and equally
of subgroups has strictly involved intellectual gifted- approximate cutoffs between the subgroups.
ness and its privileged measure, the IQ score. I did not
&dquo;end&dquo; of normal abilities and the &dquo;beginning&dquo; of gifted Critique and Counter-proposal
or talented performance. As Gagn6 (1993) comments:
Examined in the light of the literature review,
To be sure nobody questions the talent of the top 1% in a pop- Gagn6’s (1993) proposal appears as a formalization and
ulation nor the fact that being just a bit above average-below explicitation of the underlying implicit theory of many
the upper third for instance-is not sufficient to be recognized
as gifted or talented. But, between these clear marks lies a
professionals, with just a &dquo;generous&dquo; first level added.
large grey Isiel zone of disputable performances; the more
By deciding to anchor his system on the standard devi-
ations of the normal distribution, Gagn6 followed in the
’
strict or selective one will be, the higher the threshold will be
placed. (p. 81 ) footsteps of most preceding scholars, who chose IQ val-
ues corresponding to one standard deviation unit or the
racy the rarity of winning a local or regional piano com- a different logic. As noted above, the logic of the
petition. Similarly, one would compare the number of MB system resides in the regularity of the cutoff
elite 9-year-old hockey players with the total number criterion for each successive subgroup.
of same age players to obtain the approximate per- 2. The cutoff criterion-a percentage-is much easier
centile corresponding to membership in an elite team. to understand and memorize by those who are not
In brief, ratios are easy to compute if one has access to familiar with statistics or the psychometric of
simple statistical information. intelligence measurement. Indeed, my own experi-
Having decided to structure a category system ence indicates that few professionals in gifted edu-
around ratios instead of standard deviations, one needs cation, be they teachers, coordinators or
to choose the most appropriate one. And what ratio is administrators, feel comfortable with the statistical
the most natural, the most simple to understand? operations associated with the normal distribution.
Undoubtedly a base-10 ratio, which allows passing from Adopting a more user-friendly system should facil-
one level to the next just by moving a decimal point. No itate its dissemination; yet I made sure that user-
wonder that the metric system, which is based on such friendliness would not be attained at the expense of
a ratio, has been adopted by almost
every country in the scientific soundness.
world-except the US! Consequently, my counter-pro- 3. The MB system is easier to apply to measurements
posal, shown in Table 2, is a five-level system, in which that do not clearly follow a normal distribution, as
each level, including the first one, corresponds to the is the case with athletic achievements, leader per-
top 10% of the preceding level. Thus, the gifted or tal- formances, achievements in the arts or in business,
ented population in any one ability domain or field of and so forth. For instance, average measures are
human activity is defined as the top 10% of individuals. never taken into consideration in sports; the
For instance, in a classroom of 3U students, the top benchmark is either a record, another competitor’s
performance to beat, a standard performance to
attain in order to gain membership into a compet-
Table 2 itive team, and so forth. What is used frequently is
a system of &dquo;geographic&dquo; achievements: medals or
Proposed Metric-based (MB) System of Levels
Within the Gifted or Talented Populations prizes at the local, county, state or national level
(see Kay & Gagné, 1997). In such cases, as already
noted, ratios are much easier to use than standard
deviations from the mean.
4. The MB system allows for much easier compar-
isons of subgroups within the gifted or talented
populations. For instance, from the ratios in Table
2, one can see that there would be only one
extremely gifted individual on average in a group of
10,000 mildly gifted persons. Even among moder-
ately gifted (or talented) individuals, the preva-
lence of extremely gifted persons would not exceed
6. Recall that the gray zone was shown to extend from from any other level.
approximately 1%-2% to 15%-20%. Within that zone, 3. I chose the term &dquo;extreme&dquo; instead of &dquo;profound&dquo;
it is not possible to justify one cutoff score more so to qualify the highest level. Even though profound
than any other; thus, a 10% cutoff within the general goes well with thinking, because it is contrasted
population is no less logical than the 15% proposed with superficial, its connotation of &dquo;lower depths&dquo;
hy Gagn6 (1993). But, by placing the minimum fits better with mental deficiency or depression
threshold close to the midpoint of that gray zone, I than with those who mentally soar so high above
offer a &dquo;Solomon’s judgment&dquo; solution, a negotiator’s average thinkers.
middle of the road proposal. This should equally sat- 4. One group that might express objections to my
isfy-or dissatisfy-those who lean toward either of minimum threshold of 10% is composed of educa-
the two extremes, and thus facilitate-or hinder- tors and academics who have used for a long time
its dissemination. the IQ 130 threshold. I can only hope that these
7. For those who want to remain faithfully attached to professionals will revise their position and come to
IQ scores, the IQ equivalents which correspond to adopt the more generous threshold of the MB sys-
each successive threshold are almost as easy to tem. After all, a 10% cutoff separates only the top
memorize as the traditional values associated with three pupils on average in a typical heterogeneous
standard deviation cutoffs. As shown in Table 2, all classroom. It seems to me already sufficiently
the values are multiples of five; also, except for the
selective, especially in view of the possibility of re-
passage from level 1 to level 2, they all increase by selecting more marginal groups within that global
10 points. Indeed, when I discovered that the dec-
population of gifted or talented individuals. At
imal cutoffs coincided so well with easy to remem-
worst, those who wish to maintain a more selective
ber IQ equivalents, I knew that it had some chance
position could put aside the first level and start
of rallying even the staunchest supporters of an IQ- their category system with the &dquo;moderately&dquo; gifted
based system. or talented.
8. Finally, above and beyond its logic, when I first 5. Another group may also hesitate to adopt this min-
conceived this system, it really,felt (almost emo- imum threshold, namely administrators and pro-
tionally) like a very elegant solution to a long- gram coordinators in school districts. As shown in
standing problem. Mitchell’s (1988) survey, they frequently have in
mind a 5% target as they plan their selection pro-
Additional Comments cedures. Whether this target is imposed by limited
financial resources, theoretical beliefs, or custom is
The five labels and their beside the point here. I hope that this proposal will
1. respective ratios apply to
any type of giftednesstalent, as defined in my
or prompt them to look more closely at the next-
Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (see unselected-5% and assess their enrichment
Gagn6, 1995), Since the DMGT belongs to a multi- needs. They could look at Reis and Renzulli’s
faceted approach to giftedness and talent (Borland, (1982) study, in which they observed no significant
1989), disjunctive structure, as well as the low to
its differences in performance within an enrichment
moderate correlations between abilities, increases service between two groups of pupils, one chosen
the total population of gifted and talented persons with very strict criteria and another identified with
well beyond the basic threshold of 10% used for each broader ones. At worst, nothing prevents program
ability. For instance, only a small percentage of the coordinators from adopting the present proposal,
top 10% in intellectual abilities will appear among the with its 10% minimal threshold, while temporarily
top 10% in socioaffective natural abilities, or the top servicing a smaller percentage of students in
10% in natural physical abilities (see Gagn6, in press, enrichment programs. It would alert local adminis-
for a more detailed discussion of that question). trators that existing services are minimal and could
with any degree ot· accuracy the performance of erately, or highly talented? To what level of talent
highly gifted individuals, all the more so exception- does being chosen for the state swimming team
ally or extremely gifted ones? fIow can we know correspond? Answering such questions, one impor-
what performances correspond to a 160 IQ at a tant hurdle in the implementation of the Talent
given age, when the standardization sample Profile (see Kay & Gagn6, 1997), would be an inter-
includes not a single child who attained such a esting challenge for educators or trainers in these
level? One needs to do quite a few extrapolations various fields.
and live with the inherent imprecision of such a 11. One way to bring more accuracy to the placement
procedure. In short, extraordinary intellectual per- of students within some of the high levels of the MB
formances cannot be measured with any degree of system is through out-of-level testing. For instance,
accuracy because of the immense logistical prob- in many of the talent searches (Assouline &
lem of assembling an appropriate reference group. Lupkowski-Shoplik, 1997), the minimum criterion
8. The IQ values in Table 2 were obtained from tables giving access tothe competition is a 95 or 97 per-
of areas under the normal curve. In other words, centile in regular achievement tests. If we consider
they imply a normal distribution of IQs. But, it the participants to be a fairly representative sam-
seems that there might be an overrepresentation of ple of that top 5% population of academically tal-
individuals in the highest levels of measured intel- ented students, then the label &dquo;moderate&dquo; could be
ligence. Among others, Gross (1993) states that &dquo;a given to the top 20% or 30% (depending on which
number of researchers in gifted education have percentile is used) in these talent searches, and the
proposed that the number of children who score in label &dquo;highly&dquo; to the top 2% or 3% of them. Note
the extremcly high ranges of IQ may somewhat that these computations were easy to make thanks
exceed the theoretical expectations derived from to the metric base of the system.
the normal curve&dquo; (p. t~). How could that affect the 12. The endorsement of this system by educators and
MB system? Not at all, since the ratios are the academics in the field implies that they will simply
backbone of the system. If such an overrepresenta- respect as best they can the ratios associated with
tion was eventually confirmed and its degree accu- each label. For instance, the students in an enrich-
the labels to use when referring to these subgroups. The Gold, M. J. (1965). Education of the intellectually gifted. Columbus,
OH: Merrill.
author hopes for reactions from colleagues, so that any Gross, M. U. M. (1993). Exceptionally gifted children. New York:
desirable modifications can be brought to this proposal. Routledge.
The rapid dissemination of such a system would be a step Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above IQ 180. New York: World
Books.
in the right direction, that of a series of shared definitions
and operationalizations within the field. This progressive
Kay, S., & Gagné, F. (1997). The talent profile. In T. Cross (Ed.),
Research Briefs of NAGC (Vol. 11, pp. 112-117). Washington, DC:
weeding out of t’uzzy and loose thinking about some of National Association for Gifted Children.
our mostfundamental concepts would send a much Kline, B. E., & Meekstroth, E. A. (1985). Understanding and encour-
needed message of scientific seriousness, not only to edu- aging the exceptionally gifted. Roeper Review, 8(1), 24-30.
cators outside the field, but to the general public. Lovecky, D. V. (1994). Exceptionally gifted children: Different minds.
Roeper Review, 17, 116-120.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to
the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of
References Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Mitchell, B. M. (1988). The latest national assessment of gifted edu-
Assnuline, S. G., & Lupkowski-Shoplik, A. (1997). Talent searches: A cation. Roeper Review, 10, 239-240.
model for the discovery and development of academic talent. In Morelock, M. (1996). On the nature of giftedness and talent:
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.) Handbook of Gifted Education Imposing order on chaos. Roeper Review, 19 , 4-12.
(2nd ed., pp. 170-179). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Moreloek, M. (in press). The child of extraordinarily high IQ from a
Bélanger, J. (1997). Étude des déterminants de la prévalence multi- Vygotskian perspective. In R. C. Friedman, & B. M. Shore (Eds.),
dimensionnelle de la douance et du talent [Study of the determi- Talents within: Cognition and development. Washington, DC:
nants of the multidimensional prevcalence of giftedness and American Psychological Association.
talent]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Université du Québec Piirto, J. (1994). Talented children and adults: Their development
à Montréal, Montréal, Canada. and education. New York: Merrill.
Borland. J.H. (1989). Planning and implementing programs for the Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1982). A case for a broadened concep-
gifted. New York: Teachers College Press. tion of giftedness. Phi Delta Kappan, 63, 619-620.
Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Renzulli, J. S. (1979). What makes giftedness: A reexamination of
Prentice Hall. the definition of the gifted and talented. Ventura, CA: Ventura
Colangelo, N., & Davis, G. A. (Eds.). (1997). Handbook of gifted edu- County Superintendent of Schools Office.
cation(2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A
Cox, J., Daniel, N., & Boston, B. O. (1985). Educating able learners: developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg
Programs and promising Practices. Austin: University of Texas and J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92).
Press. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Author’s Note
Endnotes
’The terms giftedness and talent will be used in this
text in accordance with their respective definitions in
Gagn6’s (1995) Differentiated Model of Giftedness and
Talent: &dquo;Giftedness is formally defined as the posses-
sion and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed
natural abilities (called aptitudes or gifts) in at least
one ability domain to a degree that places the child or
adult at least among the top 15% of his or her peers. By
contrast, the term talent is formally defined as the
superior mastery of systematically developed abilities
(or skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human
activity, to a degree that places a child’s or adult’s
95