AcceptVersionCogProfIntellGifted Def

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/320054231
Cognitive Proﬁle of Intellectually Gifted Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale
Article in Assessment · July 2019

DOI: 10.1177/1073191117733547
CITATIONS READS
17 12,601
5 authors, including:
Margherita Lang Michael Matta

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca University of Houston
44 PUBLICATIONS 189 CITATIONS 10 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Laura Parolin Lina Pezzuti

Università degli Studi di Milano-Bicocca Sapienza University of Rome
35 PUBLICATIONS 385 CITATIONS 72 PUBLICATIONS 951 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Personality Assessment View project
Intelligence View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Michael Matta on 10 November 2017.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running Head: COGNITIVE PROFILE OF INTELLECTUALLY GIFTED ADULTS
Cognitive Profile of Intellectually Gifted Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult

Intelligence Scale
Margherita Lang1,2, Michael Matta1, Laura Parolin1, Cristina Morrone3, & Lina Pezzuti4
1
Department of Psychology, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy
2
Association for the Research of clinical Psychology (A.R.P.), Milan, Italy
3
Department of Psychology, University of Pavia, Italy
4
Department of Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, Italy
Corresponding Author: michael.matta@unimib.it
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank Elisa Bardelli, Emanuela Brusadelli, Giulia
Caravano, Simona Ciervo, Stella Di Milia, Agnese Donati, Nadia Dottori, Sara Farinelli,
Diana Ferma, Alice Garavaglia, Danila Marandino, Irene Orlandi, Angela Palmieri, Silvia
Testa, Marta Tironi, Claudia Volontè, Serena Volpe, Nicoletta Vurro, and Massimilano
Zaccaro for their help in the data collection.
1
Abstract
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 two 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 to a matched comparison group.
130 gifted individuals (79 males) were administered the full battery and their
performance was compared to 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.
Keywords
Intellectual Giftedness; CHC Theory of Intelligence; WAIS-IV; Fluid Reasoning;
Underachievement; Discrepancies
2
1. Introduction
Giftedness in adulthood is rarely discussed in literature (Rinn & Bishop, 2015),
whereas most studies have investigated this topic in childhood and adolescence (Francis,
Hawes, & Abbott, 2016; Molinero, Mata, Calero, Garcia-Martin, & Araque-Cuenca,
2015).
Giftedness is an umbrella term including people with advanced abilities in
different domains (Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). In general, the term “giftedness”
identifies those who “demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an
exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or
achievement in top 10% or rarer) in one or more domains. Domains include any
structured area of activity with its own symbol system (e.g., mathematics, music,
language) and/or set of sensorimotor abilities (e.g., painting, dance, sports)” (National
Association for Gifted Children, 2010).
Some authors have defined giftedness considering high academic performances
(e.g., SAT or ACT scores) (Lubinski & Benbow, 2006); others have distinguished
between intellectual giftedness, referring to intellectual potential, and talent, which is the
actual achievement of successes (Gagnè, 2003). Different definitions reflect different
conceptions of this phenomenon and the large difference between theoretical models of
giftedness and the most common methods of assessment and identification (Carman,
2013).
Relative to intellectual giftedness, Gridley’s and colleagues (2003) described
intellectually gifted individuals on the basis of CHC Theory of Intelligence1 (Schneider &
McGrew, 2012). To be included in this category, people should “demonstrate (a) a high
performance in general intellectual abilities and/or (b) an exceptional potential in specific
intellectual abilities and/or (c) exceptional general or specific school attitudes” (Gridley,
3
Norman, Rizza & Decker, 2003, p. 290). Afterwards, Subotnik and colleagues (2011)
have considered other important outcomes that allow to define intellectual giftedness
regardless the effective achievements: (1) high academic achievers; (2) obtaining at least
130 in FSIQ (i.e., Full Scale Intelligence Quotient) on intellectual test (e.g., WAIS); (3)
exhibiting an extraordinary talent in one or more domains of ability or (4) high
intellectual abilities and specific socio-emotional characteristics.
1.1 Use of the Intelligence Tests to Identify Intellectual Giftedness
There is no one cut-off score for giftedness identification using intelligence tests.
Many authors have suggested different thresholds of general cognitive ability (for
example, FSIQ). In the literature, the inconsistency is quite evident. For example, for
Antshel and colleagues (2009) the cut-off is 120, for Terrassier (1999) 125, for Fishkin,
Kampsnider, and Pack (1996) 127. This little consensus makes extremely difficult both to
evaluate similarities and differences across multiple studies and to interpret research on
giftedness globally. The threshold of 130 (corresponding to 2.28% of the population) is
the statistical definition of giftedness most commonly used (Vaivre-Douret, 2011) and it
is equal to two standard deviations above the mean of 100 (for example, on Wechsler
Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales). According to the Gridley’s
definition of intellectual giftedness, we considered as gifted each individual who obtained
at least one composite score equal to or higher than 130 . This criterion was also
explicitly suggested by Rizza, McIntosh, and McCunn (2001) when they commented
cognitive profiles of gifted students who were administered WJ III.
In the present study, we used the WAIS-IV (Wechsler, 2008b); this is one of the
most well-known tests to measure intellectual abilities in adulthood. None of the few
studies on WAIS results of gifted adults has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.
The scores obtained by a relatively small group of intellectually gifted adults were
4
reported in the “Technical and Interpretive Manual of WAIS-IV” (Wechsler, 2008a).
Gifted group was composed of individuals who obtained a standardized measure of
cognitive ability at least 2 SD above the mean or who was a Mensa member and had
received special services for intellectual giftedness during his or her education. Their
mean FSIQ score was 126.5. Gifted individuals showed the highest results in verbal tasks
(M = 127.2) and the lowest performances in processing speed (M = 112.4). According to
some authors, these results would indicate that they have a wide vocabulary and a
particular attitude to acquire knowledge on the world and culture, and prefer having an
accurate response style rather than solving processing speed tasks as quick as possible
(Rimm, Gilman, & Silverman, 2008; Sparrow & Gurland, 1998; Wasserman, 2006).
Gifted group’s performance has been investigated more extensively in childhood
and adolescence. Although gifted children perform better than the others in almost all
subtests, they typically show strengths in verbal comprehension, fluid reasoning, and
visual spatial processing. Their working memory and processing speed performances are
generally higher than general population (Elliot, 2007; Kaufman & Kaufman, 2004), but
lower than the other performance measures (Raiford, Weiss, Rolfhus, & Coalson, 2005;
Rowe, Kingsley, & Thompson, 2010). Scores of 95 intellectually gifted students (age
range: 6-16 years) were reported in the manual of WISC-V (Wechsler, 2014) and
compared to a matched control group. Their mean FSIQ score was 127.5. Moreover,
gifted children showed significant differences in the 5 Indexes, obtaining higher results in
verbal comprehension tasks (M = 127.7), similar scores for fluid reasoning (M = 120.3)
and visual spatial processing (M = 121.2) and lower performances in working memory
(117.9) and processing speed tasks (M = 112.9). Other samples of gifted children
confirmed analogous patterns on Wechsler scales (Rimm et al., 2008; Wechsler, 2003;
Reams, Chamrad, & Robinson, 1990). The pattern of performance is generally similar to
5
the adult gifted. Silverman (2009) added that over 70% of the students applying for gifted
classes have Processing Speed Index scores in the average range or below. These scores
on Processing Speed can decrease FSIQ scores. This ability was found significantly lower
than fluid reasoning and verbal comprehension also in the gifted group of the WJ III
(Mather & Woodcock, 2001; Rizza et al., 2001).
Finally, the external validity of Stanford-Binet 5 (Roid, 2003) was demonstrated
comparing performance of a gifted group to another group of average-intelligence
children. Inclusion criteria for gifted group were IQ scores and teachers’ referrals. Their
mean FSIQ was 123.7. The gifted sample showed the lowest mean score on working
memory tasks (115.8 vs. median factor score of about 121; Roid, 2003, p. 97). Regression
analyses on the SB 5/WJ III ACH linking sample displayed that quantitative reasoning
and fluid reasoning tasks were better predictors of scholastic achievements than working
memory skills.
In addition, scatter scores allow to describe deeply intellectual strengths and
weaknesses of gifted individuals. Although they may have lost relevance in empirical
studies (Watkins, 2005), they continue to be considered useful in the clinical practice
(Binder, Iverson & Brooks, 2009; Oakes, Lovejoy, Tartar, & Holdnack, 2013). In
particular, obtaining a measure of how test scores scatter around the individual average
could be important. For instance, if the difference across subtests or Indexes is large,
composite scores could only partially describe the performance on the test (Lohman,
Gambrell, & Lakin, 2008). In fact, a composite score reflects a single ability when it is
“represented by a cohesive set of scaled scores, each reflecting slightly different or
unique aspects of the ability” (Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2009, p. 167).
Intellectually gifted adults show large discrepancies among their cognitive
abilities. Matarazzo and Herman (1985) have analyzed the WAIS-R scores obtained from
6
individuals with a Full Scale IQ of at least 120. Approximately one quarter of individuals
had a discrepancy between VIQ (Verbal Intelligence Quotient) and PIQ (Performance
Intelligence Quotient) >15 points in both directions. Of these, 62% obtained a VIQ score
higher than PIQ. Kaufman and Lichtenberger (2006) found similar discrepancies in the
WAIS-III. Approximately 54% of gifted individuals had a discrepancy of at least 9 points
(in both directions). In addition, a discrepancy of 17 points, which occurs in 15% of cases
(considered abnormally large), is present in 20% of gifted individuals. Finally, the
American group of gifted adults, whose results were reported in the WAIS-IV manual,
showed a greater variability than the average-intelligence group (Oakes et al., 2013).
Large discrepancies across cognitive domains have been observed consistently
also in gifted children. Considering the results in the WISC-IV manual, they displayed a
particular intellectual profile where Working Memory and Processing Speed were
significantly lower than the other Indexes (Wechsler, 2003). Specifically, Verbal
Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning scores were ranked at the 99th percentile (i.e.,
gifted range), whereas Processing Speed mean score was situated around the 91st
percentile. Rimm and colleagues (2008) reported similar results and found a mean
discrepancy of 27.4 points between processing speed and crystallized intelligence. In
relation to the frequency of discrepancy analysis, conforming to Flanagan and Kaufman’s
criteria (2004), 43.7% of gifted children obtained an IQ score not cohesive (i.e.
discrepancy between the highest and the lowest Index score equal or greater than 23
points). According to the Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR; Spearman, 1927;
Reynolds, Hajovsky, Niileksela, & Keith, 2011), discrepancies become larger with
increasing IQ. Similar results were found across different countries (Molinero et al.,
2015) and in previous editions of the battery (Bessou, Montlahuc, Louis, Fourneret &
Revol, 2005).
7
1.2 Aims of the study
In the current study, we examined WAIS-IV cognitive performance in a sample of
intellectually gifted adults compared to a group matched for gender, age and education
level. The study had three aims: (1) to compare the results obtained by a sample of gifted
individuals who were tested with the WAIS-IV; (2) to obtain data on the pattern of
performance among the four WAIS-IV Indexes in the gifted group; (3) to compare
differences in WAIS-IV scatter scores between groups.
According to other studies in which intelligence tests were administered to gifted
sample (Molinero et al., 2015; Rimm et al., 2008; Rizza, Gridley & Kipfer, 1998; Rizza
et al., 2001), we hypothesized they will show higher scores on all WAIS-IV subtests with
the highest effect sizes associated with verbal comprehension subtests and the lowest
effect sizes for processing speed tasks. Moreover, intellectually gifted adults could
display differential pattern of performance compared to matched control group and higher
discrepancies across the four cognitive domains.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
The sample consisted of 130 gifted adults (79 males, corresponding to 60.77%).
Descriptive statistics by gender are provided in Table 1.
– INSERT TABLE 1 ABOUT HERE –
According to Gridley and colleagues (2003), gifted group was composed of
people who obtained at least one composite score (VCI, PRI, WMI, PSI or FSIQ) equal
to or greater than 130. They were part of Italian standardization sample of the WAIS-IV
(Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013), members of Mensa Association2 or clients who requested a
8
diagnostic consult at A.R.P. (Association for the Research of clinical Psychology) 3. The
age of participants ranged between 18 and 60 years (M = 34.87, SD = 11.50), and the
education level was mainly distributed between high school and university (Table 2).
To compare the performance of gifted participants, a comparison group was
randomly extracted from the Italian standardization sample (Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013).
This group had the same distribution of age, gender and education level of the gifted
group. Both groups had also the same sample size. The two groups were therefore
mutually exclusive. Only individuals who scored less than 130 in FSIQ score and in the
other Indexes could be selected for the comparison group.
2.2 Measure and procedure
We administered the WAIS-IV (Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013; Wechsler, 2008b) to a
gifted group. The WAIS-IV consists of 10 core subtests that measure four intellectual
abilities: Similarities, Vocabulary and Information constitute the Verbal Comprehension
Index (VCI); Block Design, Matrix Reasoning and Visual Puzzle assess the Perceptual
Reasoning Index (PRI); Digit Span and Arithmetic constitute the Working Memory Index
(WMI); Symbol Search and Coding assess Processing Speed Index (PSI). The sum of
these four Indexes provides the Full Scale Intelligence Quotient (FSIQ). The WAIS-IV
has also five supplementary subtests: Comprehension for VCI, Figure Weights and
Picture Completion for PRI, Letter-Number Sequencing for WMI and Cancellation for
PSI. Supplemental subtests can replace one or two core subtests when clinicians assume
that results may have been affected by external conditions (e.g. loud background noises
during the administration of the test) (Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2009). The WAIS-IV
9
also allows to calculate the General Ability Index (GAI), which can be used as an
alternative to the FSIQ for individuals whose Processing Speed and Working Memory
Indexes are significantly lower than Verbal Comprehension and Perceptual Reasoning
Indexes (Pezzuti, 2016; Rowe et al., 2010). High GAI scores are indicators of well-
developed abstract conceptual reasoning, visual spatial reasoning, and verbal problem
solving. Similarly, the Processing Speed and Working Memory Indexes constitute the
Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), a descriptor of a set of functions with a common
element that is the proficiency of information processing (Holdnack, Drozdick, Weiss, &
Iverson, 2013; Lang, Michelotti, & Bardelli, 2015).
2.3 Ethical Statements
All participants were voluntary and they gave a written informed consent before
testing. The study was approved by Ethics Committee of Milano-Bicocca University.
2.4 Data Analysis
WAIS-IV Cognitive Abilities in Gifted Individuals. Multiple t-tests were conducted
on the scaled scores of each subtest, Index, FSIQ, GAI and CPI to compare performances
of the gifted group on the WAIS-IV to the comparison group. We performed a Bonferroni
correction. The calculation of effect size (Cohen’s d; Cohen, 1988) was also computed.
Pattern of Performance on WAIS-IV Indexes. We used a multivariate approach to
repeated measures analysis to explore differences between pattern of performance of
gifted group and individuals with average intelligence.
WAIS-IV Subtest and Index Scatter. Multiple t-tests were conducted to compare
scatter measures between the two groups. These measures refer to two characteristics of
the performance on intelligence test: (a) the difference between two test scores, between
the highest and the lowest Index, or between two subtests of interest; and (b) the degree
10
of overall variability (i.e., standard deviation) among all subtests and among all Indexes,
or the difference of each score from the average performance (Oakes et al., 2013).
3. Results
The WAIS-IV scaled scores were computed using Italian normative data (Orsini &
Pezzuti, 2013). Multiple t-tests were conducted to examine differences in the
performance between the two groups (Table 3).
All scaled scores had a normal distribution. Bonferroni correction was conducted
(new α =.002). As expected, intellectually gifted individuals showed better performance
on the WAIS-IV than the comparison group. At the subtest level, they had better scores in
all tasks. In general, effect sizes were large. The largest effect sizes occurred on Matrix
Reasoning, Block Design and Visual Puzzle (Cohen’s d = 1.62, 1.55 and 1.55,
respectively). The lowest effect sizes occurred on Picture Completion and Cancellation
(Cohen’s d = 0.58 and 0.41, respectively).
At the Index level, gifted individuals obtained significantly higher scores in all
four Indexes; in particular, Perceptual Reasoning was the cognitive domain with the
highest scores and the largest effect size (Cohen’s d = 2.17). Consequently, Full Scale IQ
was also significantly higher than the comparison group (t = 22.39, p = <.001, Cohen’s d
= 2.78). Finally, GAI and CPI scores were also significantly higher and had large effect
sizes (Cohen’s d = 2.12 and 1.76, respectively).
A repeated measures ANOVA was conducted to analyze the pattern of
performance among cognitive abilities of gifted individuals compared to the matched
comparison group (Figure 1). All assumptions were met. Statistical analysis showed a
11
significant interaction between group and intellectual abilities (F (3, 256) = 9.533, p
=.002). Pairwise comparisons were made to assess differences of abilities within each
group. As expected, no significant differences among the intellectual abilities were found
in the comparison group. In contrast, the PRI score in the gifted group was significantly
higher than the other Indexes, VCI (p <.001), WMI (p <.001), and PSI (p <.001).
– INSERT FIGURE 1 ABOUT HERE –
Scatter measures were calculated for subtests and Indexes. We computed the
highest and the lowest scores, the mean difference between the highest and lowest scores,
and the standard deviation of both the main 10 WAIS-IV subtests and of four Indexes.
Multiple t-tests were performed. Bonferroni correction was also computed (new α =.006)
(Table 4).
As expected, gifted individuals scored significantly higher in the lowest and
highest scores in both subtests and Indexes. Furthermore, the gifted group displayed a
larger difference between the lowest and the highest Index. In addition, a chi-square test
was performed to examine the relation between groups and IQ score cohesiveness
(threshold value of 38, according to Orsini, Pezzuti, & Hulbert, 2015). The relation
between these two variables was significant, χ2 (2, N = 260) = 10.637, p = .001. This
means that gifted individuals’ IQ was more often not cohesive than average intelligence
people.
4. Discussion
12
The main objectives of this study were: (1) to examine mean group performance
data of gifted individuals on the WAIS-IV; (2) to validate their pattern of performance
across intellectual domains; (3) to compare their scatter measures to a matched
comparison group.
First, about the mean group performance, gifted individuals displayed
significantly higher scores in all 15 subtests and all 4 Indexes. This is not an unexpected
finding because gifted individuals are defined by advanced abilities and they generally
score better on cognitive tasks (McGrew, La Forte, & Schrank 2014; Roid, 2003;
Wechsler, 2014). However, the important consideration of this result is that the WAIS-IV
can be considered a good measure when assessing high ability adults. The clinical
usefulness of these findings may be seen when assessing high functioning individuals
with learning disabilities (Toffalini, Pezzuti, & Cornoldi, 2017) or other psychological
issues (“twice-exceptional”; Webb, Amend, Beljan, Webb, Kuzujanakis, Olenchak, &
Jean, 2016). For instance, gifted people often show higher performances across all
cognitive domains; therefore, each difference between specific abilities would need
further evaluations. Future studies could determine if gifted people with psychological
impairments obtain a different pattern of performance on the WAIS-IV.
Gifted individuals obtained the highest scores on the three core perceptual
reasoning tasks. According to Weiss and colleagues’ five-factor model (2013), this means
that gifted individuals have intellectual strengths in controlling attention to find a solution
for unfamiliar problems that do not depend on previous learnings (e.g., inductive
reasoning) and in making use of visual spatial simulation (e.g., object manipulation,
constructing models of spatial patterns, movements prediction, etc.). People with high
perceptual reasoning skills can figure out solutions to problems intuitively and with few
instructions. Once they have found an appropriate solution to a problem, they can see
13
how that may apply to similar tasks. Moreover, these individuals could prefer visual
strategies to solve problems and this ability could be so high to change the ability that
clinicians pretend to measure through a particular task (Mann, 2005). For example, they
could obtain higher scores in digit-span tasks not just because they have a great working
memory but because they are able to find different strategies to remember all the
numbers, based on their high fluid reasoning skills. The lack of consideration of
perceptual reasoning in gifted people’s intellectual functioning is quite surprising,
considering how well-supported is the relationship between those skills and general
intelligence (Kvist & Gustafsson, 2008; Marshalek, Lohman, & Snow, 1983). For
instance, Raven’s Progressive Matrices, similar to Matrix Reasoning on the WAIS-IV,
have the highest loading on g factor (i.e. general factor of intelligence) (Jensen, 1998;
Martínez, Villalon-Reina, Kessel, Joshi, Pineda, Jahanshad, ... & Solana, 2013).
Although perceptual reasoning tasks are measures of the same Index in the
standard structure of the WAIS-IV, confirmatory factorial analysis revealed that they may
be considered indicators of two different broad intellectual domains (i.e., visual
processing and fluid reasoning). However, interpreting PRI as composed of two different
abilities should be done carefully because Matrix Reasoning (and the other supplemental
fluid reasoning task i.e., Figure Weights) displayed small but significant loadings on both
Gf and Gv (Keith, Fine, Taub, Reynolds, & Kranzler, 2006; Weiss et al., 2013) and many
researchers and clinicians have considered Block Design a measure of visual processing
with a component of fluid reasoning (Carroll, 1993; Cohen, Fiorello, & Farley, 2006;
McGrew & Flanagan, 1996; Willis, 1996). Indeed, this task involves abstract reasoning
abilities. In the fourth edition of the Wechsler scales, “constructs for Gf and Gv appeared
mixed, making identification of a pure fluid intelligence factor and a pure visual
processing factor questionable” (Chen, Chen, Keith, & Chang, 2009).
14
Contrary to the most frequent outcomes (Wechsler, 2003, 2008), in the present
study gifted individuals did not achieve the highest scores in verbal comprehension tasks.
They displayed the same effect size for crystallized intelligence and processing speed.
These results were consistent with the gifted sample of the WJ IV. McGrew and
colleagues (2014) described performances on the WJ IV (Woodcock-Johnson IV;
Schrank, McGrew & Mather, 2014) of 53 students (age range: 5-9 years) who received
gifted services or participated in high ability school curriculum. In general, they showed
consistently average scores about one standard deviation above the mean (i.e., 115 or
higher). About broad abilities, gifted group had an inverse ratio relative to the Wechsler
scales: Fluid Reasoning mean score (M = 119.7) was higher than the Comprehension-
Knowledge cluster score (M = 111.2). Their mean Fluid Reasoning (Gf) cluster score was
8.5 points higher than the Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc). Since this battery is
composed of about 50 subtests, authors have decided to administer a smaller amount of
them. Tasks were selected using a diagnostic group-targeted approach (i.e., administering
tasks considered diagnostically relevant and sensitive for each clinical group). Gifted
children were administered subtests to calculate two broad abilities of the CHC model
i.e., fluid reasoning (Gf) and crystallized intelligence (Gc). For this reason, we cannot
confirm that Gv is higher than Gc also in that gifted sample. However, this is the only
finding consistent with our results; no other study about cognitive abilities of
intellectually gifted individuals confirmed them.
The criteria used to select gifted individuals (i.e., one composite score equal to or
greater than 2 standard deviations from the mean) should be considered to explain this
divergence. High intellectual functioning should be identified based on the performance
on single intellectual domains factor and not only on a broad general score (e.g., FSIQ).
This is consistent with the current conception of intellectual giftedness, which should be
15
considered as a multicomponent entity of strengths and abilities (Davis & Rimm, 1994;
Renzulli & Reis, 1997). This approach allows to identify different kinds of intellectual
giftedness and represents an attempt to go beyond the traditional view of gifted
individuals who are usually described as brilliant students with extraordinary verbal skills
(Wechsler, 2003; 2008b) and scholastic achievements (Park, Lubinski, & Benbow, 2013).
These outcomes could be reasonable if we overlook that intellectual giftedness does not
always guarantee positive scholastic and academic successes; indeed, this view of high
intellectual functioning may be considered biased because there are many other gifted
students who were underachievers or more simply they had good grades at school but
they decided not to get a degree after high school. From this point of view, our sample
could be considered more representative of the intellectually gifted population than others
because it was composed of individuals who may have discovered their high abilities on
their own or they may have not realized at all. They may have felt “out-of-sync” with
friends, other students, and teachers during their education and this may have had
negative consequences on learning processes if compared to gifted individuals who were
supported since childhood. Currently, no data support this idea, but it can be considered
for future studies.
According to previous studies (Rowe, Dandridge, Pawlush, Thompson, & Ferrier,
2014; Wechsler, 2008a), processing speed tasks displayed the lowest effect size.
Perfectionism and high reflectivity may have generated uneven performances in this kind
of tasks (Fletcher & Neumeister, 2012; Sparrow & Gurland, 1998). Their great variability
in simple and repetitive tasks may be due to factors not strictly related to the task, such as
a reflective cognitive style (Mann, 2005), poor motor coordination (Wechsler, 2008a) or
their level of motivation. WAIS-IV Processing Speed Index may penalize individuals
whose strategies involve the analysis of details or need to repeatedly check the answer
16
they are going to give. These issues could be also applied to other time-limited tasks; in
fact, in some subtests, the responses given over the time limit are considered wrong. This
is the reason why we believe that the assessment of intellectual abilities should always
require a well-trained clinician. A second interpretation of this result is more related to
the psychometric properties of the battery; indeed, Processing Speed has the lowest
loadings on the g factor and this can contribute to decrease reliability of its subtests (te
Nijenhuis, Bakhiet, van den Hoek, Repko, Allik, Zebec, … Abduljabbar, 2016).
At the subtest level, Cancellation and Picture Completion had the lowest effect
sizes. This finding is consistent with the American gifted sample of the WAIS-IV
(Wechsler, 2008a). These subtests have several common aspects that could explain the
reasons why gifted individuals displayed worse performances in them: i) they have low
loadings to the g factor (Weiss et al., 2013); the less a subtest loads on g factor, the less it
will be an indicator of high intellectual functioning; ii) they are timed tests; since gifted
individuals show a relative weakness in processing speed, their performances could be
affected by the time more than in other tasks; iii) since these subtests are the last two of
the battery, people with high intellectual abilities might be tired and bored to solve them;
they might perceive these tasks as not very challenging, which could result in more
frequent experiences of boredom and reduce their performances (Ford, 2010; Kanevsky
& Keighley, 2003; Preckel, Gotz, & Frenzel, 2010). Also, other tasks of the battery could
have low loadings to the g factor, their score could be time-limited or be boring and
repetitive but we suggest that these three characteristics together could make these two
subtests poor indicators of intellectual giftedness, showing the lowest effect sizes.
Second, gifted individuals show a different performance pattern among the four
cognitive domains compared to the comparison group. The analysis of the performance
pattern of gifted group reveals that PRI was significantly superior to all other Indexes.
17
“Reasoning abilities are traditionally considered to be at or near the core of what is
ordinarily meant by intelligence” (Carroll, 1993, p. 196). Although the relationship
between Gf and g is still largely debated, some authors have claimed that g is equal to
fluid intelligence, which in turn is equal to inductive reasoning (Gustafsson, 1998; Kvist
& Gustafsson, 2008); at least there are sufficient evidences for a close association
(Baudson & Preckel, 2013). According to Guttman’s (1954) Radex Model, Marshalek,
Lohman, and Snow (1983) showed that reasoning skills and general intelligence are
closely related. It means that the content or the modality of representation of a subtest is
secondary for the more abstract, g-loaded tasks, while it becomes more important for
automatic and low-level subtests. In doing so, the g loading appears to be an indicator of
fluid reasoning (or Gf) (Horn & Noll, 1997). Furthermore, the Radex Model could
explain why Arithmetic has the highest effect size among working memory subtests.
Although this task involves some memory skills, it is closer to fluid reasoning than Digit
Span and Letter-Number Sequencing (Cohen et al., 2006). Convergent findings are
reported in the CHC five-factor model of the WAIS-IV where Arithmetic shows stronger
loading on the fluid reasoning ability (Weiss et al., 2013).
Based on these considerations, we believe that our findings may be more
consistent with the literature on intelligence than previous studies where intellectually
gifted individuals obtained the highest scores in verbal abilities (Rowe et al., 2010;
Wechsler 2003; 2008b; 2014). Superior crystallized intelligence could be more indicative
of a restricted group of gifted (e.g., who has received an appropriate special education or
performed well at school). Indeed, the education level has a large effect on the
measurement of verbal abilities, especially at the extremes of the distribution.
Consequently, VCI shows the largest score variance ranges across education levels
(Holdnack & Weiss, 2013, p.180–185). Our findings may be biased in a different way
18
(for instance, we do not have any information about occupational background or career
paths) but these results could allow to reconsider our knowledge about cognitive profiles
of gifted individuals. Moreover, our sample is composed of adults while most of studies
have considered groups of children. Longitudinal data would be required to find out if
intellectual development depends on the earlier identification or support of one’s
giftedness during one’s education.
Third, scatter measures confirmed that gifted individuals displayed larger
discrepancies among intellectual abilities than average intelligence people. Lohman,
Gambrell, and Lakin (2008) analyzed score profiles of gifted students who obtained the
highest score in at least two Cognitive Abilities Test batteries. They found that
individuals with extremely high scores showed a significant weakness in at least one
cognitive domain or they may have a more irregular profile. Discrepancies among verbal
abilities, fluid reasoning, and memory are more common in gifted individuals than in
others (Lohman et al., 2008; Molinero et al., 2015; Reynolds et al., 2011); they have
different cognitive profiles, learning styles, and idiosyncratic ways of information
processing (Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1997; Reis & Renzulli, 2011; Sternberg, 1997). Large
discrepancies in gifted cognitive profiles would be the consequence of the
“developmental asynchrony” (Alsop, 2003; Silverman, 1997). This term designs a pattern
of discrepancies between cognitive, emotional, and psychomotor domains and has been
proposed as a marker of giftedness in childhood. Several authors suggested that
developmental asynchrony may be reflected on Wechsler scale discrepancies, which
quantify the cognitive imbalance among verbal abstraction, concrete nonverbal reasoning,
visual processing skill, working memory and processing speed (Alsop, 2003; Guénolé,
Louis, Creveuil, Baleyte, Montlahuc, Fourneret, & Revol, 2013; Vaivre-Douret, 2011).
Nevertheless, this construct may not be applied to explain the same results in adulthood
19
because it may not have the same relevance. In fact, intellectual abilities are less related
to the physiological development and are not time-dependent in adulthood. It might be
more appropriate using the term “differentiated development”, since intelligence could
depend on growth and personal choices, own interests and aptitudes (Tolan, 1994). The
“Investment theory” (Cattell, 1963; 1987) could explain why gifted individuals display
large and significant discrepancies between Gf and the other cognitive domains. Cattell
argued that there is a single and general intellectual ability, similar to fluid reasoning,
during the first stage of development and that would be associated with the maturation of
the brain, genetic factors and neural functioning. He postulated that learning rate of
different tasks could depend on this broad and unique ability. Certainly, Cattell (1987)
suggested that other factors could explain individual differences in learning rate and
successful achievements, e.g. motivation, interests, parental education attainment and
quality of teachers at school. So, the intellectual development would be supported by
experiences, practice and previous levels of Gf. This high-order ability would strongly
influence the acquisition and development of many other intellectual abilities; for
instance, new words may be learned by inferring their meanings from partial clues
embedded in the context (Landauer & Dumais, 1997; Lohman, 2004). Although Cattell
suggested that this relationship occurred between fluid reasoning and crystallized
intelligence, Kvist and Gustaffson (2008) proposed that the fluid reasoning could have a
similar relationship with the development of other intellectual domains, such as the
spatial one.
Also the information on the gifted sample composition may be used to explain the
inter- and intra-individual variability in the WAIS-IV performance; indeed, the
relationships among demographic and background characteristics with intellectual test
scores and performance variability have been well-documented (Deary, Thorpe, Wilson,
20
Starr, & Whalley, 2003; Johnson, Deary, & Carothers, 2008; Oak et al., 2013). In
particular, gender and education level have been identified as two of the most relevant
factors that influence individual performances on intelligence tests. For instance, gender
was not balanced in the current study. This tendency has been found in several gifted
samples; furthermore, men are over-represented at the low and high extremes of cognitive
abilities (Deary, Irwing, Der, & Bates, 2007; Deary et al., 2003; Strand, Deary, & Smith,
2006). This finding is not confined to ability tests. “In the ‘real world’ situation, the same
tendency holds: men rather than women are found at the extremes. There are more male
geniuses, more male criminals, more male mental defectives” (Heim, 1970, pp. 137).
During the last century, different explanations have been given to explain this
phenomenon, e.g. genetic (Shields, 1982), educational (Furnham, 2001) or cultural
effects (Furnham & Gasson, 1998) or as a methodological artifact (i.e. test biased; Abad,
Colom, Rebollo, & Escorial, 2004). Focusing on the extreme right tail of the ability
distribution, we agree with an anonymous reviewer of this manuscript who suggested that
the sociological and psychological function of the label “gifted” should be considered as
additional reasons that affect the gender distribution. Our gifted sample was composed
mainly of Mensa members, where gender ratio is typically 2:1. Women may be less
interested in measuring their intellectual abilities because cultural stereotypes influence
the self-perception of those skills (Ehrlinger & Dunning, 2003; Furnham, 2001; Furnham
& Buchanan, 2005). Participation in the Mensa Association is entirely voluntary and it is
reasonable to think that most of the members are interested to be recognized as
intellectually gifted.
Moreover, the distribution of education level in our sample could be considered
unusual for gifted individuals. Only 62.31% had a bachelor degree or more, which could
be atypical for people with high intellectual abilities. Two main reasons could explain
21
why the remaining part of the sample was relatively large: first, since some of them were
students, they were still attending college and could not have a degree; second, and more
interesting, previous studies on gifted population could be biased. Participants are usually
selected because they are enrolled in special programs for gifted students. Possibly, this
selection strategy may over represent high functioning students, and exclude other
intellectually gifted individuals whose potential could be detected through intelligence
tests (Francis et al., 2016).
In conclusion, the results of this study suggest three main implications for future
research and psychological practice. First, gifted group’s performance showed that none
of the four WAIS-IV Indexes had a mean score equal to or greater than 130; moreover,
gifted individuals had a large variability across their cognitive abilities scores. This
means that there are different ways to be considered intellectually gifted. We suggest to
avoid interpretations based on any cut-off and, first of all, to consider the pattern of
performance on all Indexes of an intelligence test. When clinicians administer the WAIS-
IV to evaluate the presence of giftedness, we recommend to pay more attention to PRI
score because it may be a marker of an overall high intellectual functioning. Future
studies should examine which other Indexes could be considered better indicators of
giftedness. For instance, a score of 130 on VCI may be not considered equivalent of
obtaining the same result on PSI because high verbal skills could influence daily life
more than high processing speed. Moreover, background factors (Holdnack & Weiss,
2013), such as education level, gender and ethnicity, and noncognitive skills, such as
attitudes and beliefs, social and emotional qualities, learning processes, and personality
traits (Lipnevich & Roberts, 2012), can affect test scores differently and this should be
considered when interpreting intelligence test performances.
22
Giving importance to visual perceptual reasoning has another advantage: it allows
to identify intellectually gifted individuals who have not necessarily reached degree level
or high level positions at work. The term “underachiever” is usually used to describe
students who “exhibit severe discrepancy between expected achievement (as measured by
standardized achievement test scores or cognitive or intellectual ability assessments) and
actual achievement (as measured by class grades and teacher evaluations” (Reis &
McCoach, 2000, p.157). They often have special needs which were not recognized and
were not supported. In adulthood, we could use the same term to define brilliant
individuals whose high functioning has never been documented. According to Amend
and Peters (2012), we believe that “well-meaning professionals—with limited or no
knowledge about gifted individuals—do not have a framework from which to view the
behaviors of gifted children as ‘typical’ for them, thus resulting in misinterpretation” (p.
586). If there are no suspects for intellectual disability, intellectual functioning is rarely
considered during the whole assessment of adult individuals. On the contrary, well-
trained psychologists should be able to identify high intellectual functioning also in
adulthood because it could contribute to make a more appropriate psycho(patho)logical
diagnosis (Webb et al., 2016) and job orientation (Nauta & Ronner, 2013). Negative
associations between psychological concerns and giftedness are described in the
“disharmony hypothesis”. A recent form of this theory states that giftedness could be “a
factor which brings along a high degree of endangerment for a harmonious development”
(Heller, 2005, p. 199). Preckel, Baudson, Krolak-Schwerdt, and Glock (2015) suggested
that it is not giftedness per se to be a risk factor but rather “inappropriate reactions in the
social environment (e.g., teachers, peers, or society in general) toward gifted, their
developmental advances, and their unique intellectual and socioemotional needs”. These
characteristics may increase the vulnerability of gifted individuals (Bailey, 2011;
23
Peterson, 2009). So, they may need to consult a clinician because they may have
developed long-term psychological issues or adjustment difficulties in the workspace. In
these situations, psychologists and practitioners should consider the presence of these
characteristics because they could contribute to explain individual psychological
functioning.
Finally, future studies should establish if similar considerations could be applied
to people who exhibit extraordinary talent in other fields (e.g., creative thinking,
leadership skills, psychomotor aptitudes and visual/performing arts) or if intelligence
tests are less relevant for the assessment of other kinds of giftedness.
5. Inherent Limitations to the Study of Intellectual Giftedness
Studies on giftedness are very complex for many reasons. First, there is an
inherent difficulty in obtaining the sample. In fact, since a very small percentage of the
general population is involved, it is difficult to collect an adequate sample size.
Psychologists rarely administer intelligence tests to adult individuals. Thus, gifted
children assessment is simpler because some schools have specific programs to identify
high functioning students and provide a specific education. Moreover, women are widely
underestimated both in the Italian (39%) and in the American sample (38%). The small
number of females in the sample may partially be due to the larger variability of males’
IQ scores than females’ (Deary et al. , 2003) and to psychological and sociological
reasons.
Another limitation is related to the definition of giftedness. Many authors have
described intellectual giftedness differently from one another. Some of them have used a
single IQ cut-off score, while others have used different kinds of measures (e.g.,
scholastic achievements, parent or teacher recommendation, extracurricular activities, or
clinical judgement) (Carman, 2013). For example, American gifted sample reported in
24
the WAIS-IV manual was recruited considering not only intelligence test scores but also
on their education or their Mensa membership (Wechsler, 2008a). However, when
intellectual giftedness is evaluated using a psychometrical cut-off on an intelligence test,
issues related to confidence intervals should be considered. Indeed, single WAIS-IV
scores are always inexact and measurement errors, as quantified by the SEM (i.e.,
Standard Error of Measurement), are associated with each of them. Range of values
within which test takers’ true scores are likely to fall is called “confidence interval”. This
is computed for an obtained score on the basis of the estimated reliability of scores
(Urbina, 2014). For instance, for an obtained FSIQ of 130 on the WAIS-IV, the 95%
confidence interval is between 126 and 133. Test taker’s true FSIQ score could be lower
than 130 (between 126 and 129). An obtained FSIQ of 134 should have been taken to be
sure that test taker’s FSIQ were equal to 130 at the 95% level of confidence (95%
confidence interval = 130 – 137; Orsini & Pezzuti, 2013, p. 60). The same logic should
be applied to the other WAIS-IV composite scores. For this reason, people with a true
score less than 2 SD above the mean could have been included in our sample. This issue
should be considered when trying to apply our results on comparable samples.
Finally, although our aims were to describe the performance of intellectually
gifted individuals, we are aware that different kinds of giftedness exist. For example, we
have not considered individuals who demonstrate advanced abilities in creativity,
academic achievements, leadership and arts. They could have different scores and
patterns of performance.
6. Conclusion
The present study was the first to examine extensively the intellectual per-
formance in a group of intellectually gifted individuals using the WAIS-IV. Although
another similar study were reported in the American WAIS-IV manual (Wechsler,
25
2008a), this study is relevant for three main reasons: (1) larger sample size (130 vs. 34
participants); (2) higher representativeness of the general gifted population, especially
regarding education level (36% vs. 6% participants with a high school diploma or less);
(3) links to the most recent studies about intelligence (i.e., CHC Theory of Intelligence)
and implications in the clinical practice.
About the results, gifted showed higher scores in all subtests and intellectual domains,
compared to a matched comparison group. Their superior pattern of performance was
mainly represented by perceptual reasoning skills. Further, they showed larger
discrepancies among intellectual abilities. Their intellectual profiles were not similar to
previous studies because we have tried to involve gifted individuals who have not
necessarily reached degree level at college or high level positions at work. Findings have
important implications for identification of intellectual giftedness. Well-trained
psychologists should consider to evaluate the presence of high intellectual functioning
also in adulthood because it could contribute to make a better psychological diagnosis
(Webb et al., 2016) or for occupational placement and planning (Nauta & Ronner, 2013).
26
Footnotes
1
The CHC (i.e., Cattell-Horn-Carroll) Theory of Intelligence describes Three-Stratum or
levels of hierarchical structure of intelligence. At the top of the hierarchy lies the g factor
(Stratum III). Stratum II includes a limited number of broad abilities more specific than g.
They can be applied to different contexts and stimuli; this stratum includes, for example,
fluid intelligence, visual and auditory processing, crystallized intelligence, short-term and
long-term memory, and processing speed. Several narrow abilities (Stratum I)
corresponding to single specific aspects are associated with each broad ability and can be
measured through basic tasks.

2
Mensa is an international group composed of people who have obtained a score above
the 98th percentile on a well-validated intelligence test, properly administered and
supervised. Generally, there are two ways to apply for the membership of Mensa: taking
the Mensa test, or submitting a reliable test score from another intelligence test.
3
It is a common practice administering an intelligence test (e.g., Wechsler scale) to each
client during psychological assessment at A.R.P.
27
References
Abad, F. J., Colom, R., Rebollo, I., & Escorial, S. (2004). Sex differential item
functioning in the Raven's Advanced Progressive Matrices: Evidence for
bias. Personality and individual differences, 36, 1459−1470.
http://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-8869(03)00241-1
Alsop, G. (2003). Asynchrony: Intuitively valid and theoretically reliable. Roeper
Review, 25, 118−127. http://doi.org/10.1080/02783190309554213
Amend, E. R., & Peters, D. B. (2012). Misdiagnosis and missed diagnosis of gifted
children: The importance of accurate assessment. In T. L. Cross & J. R. Cross
(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.
Antshel, K., Faraone, S., Maglione, K., Doyle, A., Fried, R., Seidman, L., & Biederman,
J. (2009). Is attention deficit hyperactivity disorder a valid diagnosis in the presence
of high IQ? Psychological Medicine, 39, 1325-1335.
http://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291708004959
Bailey, C. 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.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211412180
Baudson, T. G., & Preckel, F. (2013). Teachers' implicit personality theories about the
gifted: An experimental approach. School Psychology Quarterly, 28, 37−46.
http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000011
Bessou, A., Montlahuc, C., Louis, J., Fourneret, P., & Revol, O. (2005). Profil
28
psychométrique de 245 enfants intellectuellement précoces au WISC-III. A.N.A.E.,
81, 23−28.
Binder L. M., Iverson G. L., & Brooks B. L. (2009). To err is human: “Abnormal”
neuropsychological scores and variability are common in healthy adults. Archives of
Clinical Neuropsychology, 24, 31–46. http://doi.org/10.1093/arclin/acn001
Carman, C. A. (2013). Comparing Apples and Oranges: Fifteen Years of Definitions of
Giftedness in Research. Journal of Advanced Academics, 24, 52–70.
http://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X12472602
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Cattell, R. B. (1963). Theory of fluid and crystallized intelligence: A critical experiment.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 1–22. http://doi.org/10.1037/h0046743
Cattell, R. B. (Ed.). (1987). Intelligence: Its structure, growth and action. New York:
Elsevier Science.
Chen, H. Y., Keith, T. Z., Chen, Y. H., & Chang, B. 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.
Cohen, A., Fiorello, C. A., & Farley, F. 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. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.05.003
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Hillside. NJ:
Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.
Crawford, J. R., Garthwaite, P. H., & Gault, C. B. (2007). Estimating the Percentage of
29
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. http://doi.org/10.1037/0894-
4105.21.4.419
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1994). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston, MA:
Allyn and Bacon.
Deary, I. J., Irwing, P., Der, G., & Bates, T. C. (2007). Brother–sister differences in the g
factor in intelligence: Analysis of full, opposite-sex siblings from the
NLSY1979. Intelligence, 35, 451−456. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2006.09.003
Deary, I. J., Thorpe, G., Wilson, V., Starr, J. M., & Whalley, L. J. (2003). Population sex
differences in IQ at age 11: The Scottish mental survey 1932. Intelligence, 31, 533–
542. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0160-2896(03)00053-9
Ehrlinger, J., & Dunning, D. (2003). How chronic self-views influence (and potentially
mislead) estimates of performance. Journal of personality and social
psychology, 84, 5−17. http://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.5
Elliott, C. D. (2007). Differential ability scales (2nd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt
Assessment.
Fishkin, A. S., Kampsnider, J. J., & Pack, L. (1996). Exploring the WISC-III as a
measure of giftedness. Roeper Review, 18, 226–231.
http://doi.org/10.1080/02783199609553744
Flanagan, D. P., & Kaufman, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC–IV assessment. Hoboken,
NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Ford, D. Y. (2010). Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted
30
education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future.
Gifted Child Today, 33, 31–35. http://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300308
Francis, R., Hawes, D. J., & Abbott, M. (2016). Intellectual Giftedness and
Psychopathology in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Literature Review.
Exceptional Children, 82, 279–302. http://doi.org/10.1177/0014402915598779
Furnham, A. (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. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0191-
8869(00)00232-4
Furnham, A., & Buchanan, T. (2005). Personality, gender and self-perceived intelligence.
Personality and individual differences, 39, 543−555.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.02.011
Furnham, A., & Gasson, L. (1998). Sex differences in parental estimates of their
children's intelligence. Sex Roles, 38, 151−162.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018772830511
Gagnè, F. (2003). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a developmental theory.
In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp.
60–74). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Garb, H. N., & Schramke, C. J. (1996). Judgment Research and Neuropsychological
Assessment: A Narrative Review and Meta-Analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 120,
140–153. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.1.140
Gridley, B. E., Norman, K. A., Rizza, M. G., & Decker, S. L. (2003). Assessment of
gifted children with the Woodcock–Johnson III. In F. A. Schrank & D. P. Flanagan
31
(Eds.), WJ III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives (pp.
285–317). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Guénolé, F., Louis, J., Creveuil, C., Baleyte, J. M., Montlahuc, C., Fourneret, P., &
Revol, O. (2013). Behavioral profiles of clinically referred children with intellectual
giftedness. BioMed research international, 2013.
http://doi.org/10.1155/2013/540153
Gustafsson, J. E. (1988). Hierarchical models of individual differences in cognitive
abilities. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Advances in the psychology of human intelligence
(Vol. 4, pp. 35−71). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guttman, L. (1954). A new approach to factor analysis: the radex. In Mathematical
Thinking in the Social Sciences (pp. 258–349). Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
Heim, A. (1970). Intelligence and personality. Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin.
Heller, K. A. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness and Its Impact on Identification
and Programming. Gifted and Talented International, 20, 30–36.
http://doi.org/10.1080/15332276.2005.11673055
Holdnack, J. A., Drozdick, L., Weiss, L. G., & Iverson, G. L. (2013). WAIS-IV, WMS-IV,
and ACS: Advanced Clinical Interpretation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Holdnack, J. A., & Weiss, L. G. (2013). Demographic Adjustments to WAIS-IV/WMS-
IV Norms. In J. A. Holdnack, L. Drozdick, L. G. Weiss, & G. L. Iverson (Eds.),
WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced Clinical Interpretation (pp. 171–216). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Horn, J. L., & Noll, J. (1997). Human Cognitive Capabilities: Gf-Gc Theory. In D. P.
Flanagan, J. L. Genshaft, & P. L. Harrison (Eds.) Contemporary intellectual
32
assessment: Theories, tests, and issues (pp. 53-91). New York: Guilford.
Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Johnson, W., Deary, I. J., & Carothers, A. (2008). Sex Differences in Variability in
General Intelligence: A New Look at the Old Question. Perspectives on
Psychological Science, 3, 518–531. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-
6924.2008.00096.x
Kanevsky, L., & Keighley, T. (2003). To produce or not to produce? Understanding
boredom and the honor in underachievement. Roeper Review, 26, 20−28.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986211422098
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (2004). Kaufman assessment battery for children (2nd
ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Kaufman, A. S., & Lichtenberger, E. O. (2006). Assessing adolescent and adult
intelligence. Wiley.
Keith, T. Z., Fine, J. G., Taub, G. E., Reynolds, M. R., & Kranzler, J. 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.
Kvist, A. V., & Gustafsson, J.-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. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10273-011-1262-2
Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. 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. http://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
33
Lang, M., Michelotti, C., & Bardelli, E. (2015). WAIS-IV Wechsler Adult Intelligence
Scale-IV: lettura dei risultati e interpretazione clinica. Milan, IT: Raffaello Cortina
Editore.
Lipnevich, A. A., & Roberts, R. D. (2012). Noncognitive skills in education: Emerging
research and applications in a variety of international contexts. Learning and
Individual Differences, 22, 173-177. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2011.11.016
Lohman, D. (2004). Aptitude for college: The importance of reasoning tests for minority
admissions. In R. Zwick (Ed.). Rethinking the SAT. The future of standardized
testing in university admissions (pp. 41-56). New York and London:
RoutledgeFalmer.
Lohman, D. F., Gambrell, J., & Lakin, J. (2008). The commonality of extreme
discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology
Science Quarterly, 50, 269–282.
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. 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.
http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6916.2006.00019.x
Mann, R. L. (2005). Gifted students with spatial strengths and sequential weaknesses: An
overlooked and underidentified population. Roeper Review, 27, 91−97.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.psfr.2011.08.002
Marshalek, B., Lohman, D. F., & Snow, R. E. (1983). The complexity continuum in the
radex and hierarchical models of intelligence. Intelligence, 7, 107−127.
Martinez, K., Villalon-Reina, J., Kessel, D., Joshi, A., Pineda, J. A., Jahanshad, N., Nir,
34
T., Eschenburg, K., Roman, F. J., Burgaleta, M., Solana, A. B., Angeles Quiroga,
M., Colom, R., & Thompson, P. M. (2013). Exploratory factor analysis of brain
networks reveals sub-networks related to cognitive performance. International
Symposium on Biomedical Imaging, 10, 608–611. http://doi.org/10.1109/ISBI.2013.
6556548
Matarazzo, J. D., & Herman, D. O. (1985). Clinical uses of the WAIS-R: Base rates of
differences between VIQ and PIQ in the WAIS-R standardization sample. In B. B.
Wolman (Ed.), Handbook of intelligence (pp. 899–932). New York, NY: John Wiley
& Sons.
Mather, N. & Woodcock, R.W. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Cognitive
Abilities Examiner's Manual. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing Company.
McGrew, K. S., & Flanagan, D. P. (1996). The Wechsler performance scale debate: Fluid
intelligence (Gf) or visual processing (Gv). Communique, 24, 14-16.
McGrew, K. S., LaForte, E. M., & Schrank, F. A. (2014). Technical Manual. Woodcock-
Johnson IV. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.
Molinero, C., Mata, S., Calero, M. D., Garcia-Martin, M. B., & Araque-Cuenca, A.
(2015). Usefulness of WISC-IV in Determining Intellectual Giftedness. The Spanish
Journal of Psychology, 18, 1–10. http://doi.org/10.1017/sjp.2015.63
National Association for Gifted Children. (2010). Redefining giftedness for a new
century: Shifting the paradigm (position statement). Retrieved from
https://www.nagc.org/resources-publications/resources/definitions-giftedness
Nauta, N. & Ronner, S. (2013). Gifted workers. Hitting the target. Maastricht, NL:
Shaker-media.
35
Oakes, H., Lovejoy, D., Tartar, S., & Holdnack, J. A. (2013). Understanding Index and
Subtest Scatter in Healthy Adults. In J. A. Holdnack, L. Drozdick, L. G. Weiss, & G.
L. Iverson (Eds.), WAIS-IV, WMS-IV, and ACS: Advanced Clinical Interpretation
(pp. 103–170). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Orsini, A., & Pezzuti, L. (2013). WAIS-IV Contributo alla Taratura Italiana. Firenze:
Giunti O.S.
Orsini, A., Pezzuti, L., & Hulbert, S. (2015). Unitary ability of IQ and Indexes in WAIS-
IV. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. http://doi.org/10.1027/1015-
5759/a000306
Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C.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.
http://doi.org/10.1037/a0029481
Peterson, J. S. (2009). Myth 17: Gifted and talented individuals do not have unique social
and emotional needs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 280–282.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209346946
Pezzuti, L. (2016). The GAI and CPI in the Italian standardization of the WAIS-IV and
their clinical implications. Applied Psychology Bulletin, 276, 19-37.
Preckel, F., Baudson, T.G., Krolak-Schwerdt, S., & Glock, S. (2015). Gifted and
maladjusted? Implicit attitudes and automatic associations related to gifted children.
American Educational Journal, 52,1160–1184.
http://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215596413
Preckel, F., Götz, T., & Frenzel, A. (2010). Ability grouping of gifted students: Effects on
36
academic self‐concept and boredom. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
451−472. http://doi.org/10.1348/000709909X480716
Raiford, S. E., Weiss, L. G., Rolfhus, E., & Coalson, D. (2005). General ability index
[WISC–IV Technical Report No. 4]. Retrieved from http://www.
pearsonassessments.com/ NR/rdonlyres/1439CDFE- 6980-435F-93DA-
05888C7CC082/0/80720_ WISCIV_Hr_r4.pdf
Reams, R., Chamrad, D., & Robinson, N. M. (1990). The race is not necessarily to the
swift: Validity of WISC-R bonus points for speed. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 108–
110. http://doi.org/10.1177/001698629003400304
Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What
do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152–170.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400302
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case studies of high-ability students
with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional children, 63, 463−479.
http://doi.org/10.1177/001440299706300403
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2011). Intellectual Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & S. B.
Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 235–252). Cambridge,
UK: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: A how-to guide
for educational excellence (2nd ed.). Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
Reynolds, M. R., Hajovsky, D. B., Niileksela, C., & Keith, T. Z. (2011). Spearman's Law
of Diminishing Returns and the DAS-II: Do g effects on subtest scores depend on g?
37
School Psychology Quarterly, 26, 275–289. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0026190
Rinn, A. N., & Bishop, J. (2015). Gifted Adults: A Systematic Review and Analysis of
the Literature. Gifted Child Quarterly, 59, 213–235.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0016986215600795
Rizza, M. G., Gridley, B. E., & Kipfer, M. (1998). Beyond the IQ: Looking at
intelligence from a multiple view of ability. In Presentation at the 45th Annual
Conference of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), Louisville,
KY.
Rizza, M. G., McIntosh, D. E., & McCunn, A. (2001). Profile analysis of the Woodcock–
Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities with gifted students. Psychology in the
Schools, 38, 447–455. http://doi.org/10.1002/pits.1033
Roid, G. H. (2003). Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales interpretive manual: Expanded
guide to the interpretation of SB5 test results. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Rowe, E. W., Kingsley, J. M., & Thompson, D. F. (2010). Predictive ability of the
general ability index (GAI) versus the full scale IQ among gifted referrals. School
Psychology Quarterly, 25, 119–128. http://doi.org/10.1037/a0020148
Rowe, E. W., Dandridge, J., Pawlush, A., Thompson, D. F., & Ferrier, D. E. (2014).
Exploratory and Confirmatory Factor Analyses of the WISC-IV With Gifted. School
Psychology Quarterly, 29, 536–552. http://doi.org/10.1037/spq0000009
Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. S. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll (CHC) Model of
Intelligence. In D. P. Flanagan & P. L. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual
Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (3rd ed., pp. 99–144). New York, NY: The
Guilford Press.
38
Shields, S. 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. https://doi.org/10.1086/493921
Silverman, L. K. (1997). The construct of asynchronous development. Peabody Journal
of Education, 72, 36−58. http://doi.org/10.1080/0161956X.1997.9681865
Silverman, L. K. (2009). The measurement of giftedness. In L. V. Shavinina (Ed.),
International handbook on giftedness (pp. 947–970). Amsterdam: Springer Science
and Business Media.
Sparrow, S., & Gurland, S. T. (1998). WISC–III clinical use and interpretation: Scientist-
practitioner perspectives. In A. Prifitera & D. H. Saklofske (Eds.), Assessment of
gifted children with the WISC–III (pp. 59–72). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Spearman, C. (1927). The abilities of man. London, UK: Macmillan.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Thinking styles. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (2005). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.). New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Strand, S., Deary, I. J., & Smith, P. (2006). Sex differences in cognitive abilities test
scores: A UK national picture. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 76,
463−480. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X50906
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness
and gifted education A proposed direction forward based on psychological science.
Psychol. Sci. Public Interest, 12, 3–54. http://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056
te Nijenhuis, J., Bakhiet, S. F., van den Hoek, M., Repko, J., Allik, J., Zebec, M. S., …
Abduljabbar, A. S. (2016). Spearman’s hypothesis tested comparing Sudanese
39
children and adolescents with various other groups of children and adolescents on
the items of the Standard Progressive Matrices. Intelligence, 56, 46–57.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.02.010
Terrassier, J. C. (1999). Les enfants surdoués ou la précocité embarrassante (4e edition).
Montrouge, FR: Esf Éditeur.
Toffalini, E., Pezzuti, L., & Cornoldi, C. (2017). Einstein and dyslexia: Is giftedness
more frequent in children with a specific learning disorder than in typically
developing children?. Intelligence, 62, 175–179.
http://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2017.04.006
Tolan, S. (1994). Discovering the ex-gifted child. Roeper Review, 17, 134–137.
Urbina, S. (2014). Essentials of psychological testing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Vaivre-Douret, L. (2011). Developmental and cognitive characteristics of “high-level
potentialities” (highly gifted) children. International Journal of Pediatrics, 2011, 1–
14. http://doi.org/10.1155/2011/420297
Watkins, M. W. (2005). Diagnostic Validity of Wechsler Subtest Scatter. Learning
Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 3, 20–29.
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Beljan, P., Webb, N. E., Kuzujanakis, M., Olenchak, F. R., &
Jean, G. (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.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX:
Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). WISC-IV Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Technical and
40
Interpretative Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2008a). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition. Technical and
Interpretive Manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2008b). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale - Fourth Edition. San Antonio,
TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2014). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (5th ed.). Bloomington,
MN: Pearson.
Weiss, L. G., Keith, T. Z., Zhu, J., & Chen, H. (2013). WAIS-IV and Clinical Validation
of the Four- and Five-Factor Interpretative Approaches. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 31, 94–113.
http://doi.org/10.1177/0734282913478030
Willis, J. O. (1996). A practitioner’s reaction to McGrew & Flanagan and Kaufman.
Communique, 24, 17.
41
Table 1. Descriptive statistics for intellectually gifted group by gender.
Intellectually Gifted Intellectually Gifted

Men Women
N 79 51
Age in years (mean ± SD) 34.24 ± 10.49 35.87 ± 12.91
Age range 19 - 60 18 - 58
Education in years, n (%)
0-12 (Not graduate from high school) 0 7 (13.73)
13-15 (High school or equivalent) 27 (34.18) 13 (25.49)
16-17 (Bachelor Degree) 10 (12.66) 4 (7.84)
18 or More (Postsecondary degree or
41 (51.90) 25 (49.02)
more)
42
Table 2. Descriptive statistics for gender, age and educational level of both samples.
Intellectually Gifted Matched Comparison

Group Group
N 130 130
Sex male, n (%) 79 (60.77) 79 (60.77)
Age in years (mean ± SD) 34.87 ± 11.50 34.87 ± 11.50
Age range 18 - 60 18 - 60
Education in years, n (%)
0-12 (Not graduate from high school) 7 (5.38) 7 (5.38)
13-15 (High school or equivalent) 40 (30.77) 40 (30.77)
16-17 (Bachelor Degree) 16 (12.31) 16 (12.31)
18 or More (Postsecondary degree or
66 (50.77) 66 (50.77)
more)
Participants recruited, n (%)a
A.R.P. Milano 24 (18.46) 0
Italian Mensa member 97 (74.61) 0
Italian standardization sample 9 (6.92) 130 (100)
Index ≥ 130, n (% ) b
Full Scale IQ 82 (63.08)

Verbal Comprehension Index 34 (26.15)
Perceptual Reasoning Index 72 (55.38)
Working Memory Index 43 (33.08)
Processing Speed Index 49 (37.69)
Indexes ≥ 130, n (%) c
1 Index 75 (57.69)
2 Indexes 44 (33.85)
3 Indexes 9 (6.92)
4 Indexes 2 (1.54)
a
Provenance of the gifted participants.
b
Participants whose Indexes are equal to or greater than 130. The sum of Indexes exceeds the number of all
participants because one gifted individual can have more than one Index equal to or greater than 130.
c
Number of Indexes for each participant equal to or greater than 130. The sum of Indexes is 130 because one
participant has a precise number of Indexes equal to or greater than 130.
43
Table 3. Group Differences on WAIS-IV Subtest Scaled Scores and Index. The asterisk is placed before the
additional subtests.

Group Group
Tests Mean SD Mean SD t p Cohen's d
Verbal Comprehension Index 121.88 10.80 107.48 10.06 11.13 <.001 1.38
Similarities 13.23 2.32 10.82 2.34 8.34 <.001 1.04
Vocabulary 14.15 2.19 11.81 2.37 8.25 <.001 1.02
Information 13.85 2.65 11.15 2.29 8.79 <.001 1.09
*Comprehension 14.53 2.21 12.32 2.39 7.74 <.001 0.96
Perceptual Reasoning Index 129.37 10.58 106.45 10.54 17.50 <.001 2.17
Block Design 14.78 2.72 10.92 2.24 12.51 <.001 1.55
Matrix Reasoning 14.82 1.98 11.19 2.47 13.10 <.001 1.62
Visual Puzzle 14.63 2.11 11.10 2.44 12.46 <.001 1.55
*Figure Weights 14.55 2.38 11.11 2.82 10.65 <.001 1.32
*Picture Completion 12.29 3.03 10.43 3.36 4.67 <.001 0.58
Working Memory Index 122.08 12.70 105.41 10.30 11.63 <.001 1.44
Digit Span 13.51 2.85 10.92 2.41 7.92 <.001 0.98
Arithmetic 14.07 2.27 10.98 2.32 10.85 <.001 1.35
*Letter-Number Sequencing 13.95 2.96 11.54 2.81 6.70 <.001 0.83
Processing Speed Index 122.69 13.89 105.78 10.34 11.13 <.001 1.38
Symbol Search 13.65 3.03 10.85 2.04 8.74 <.001 1.08
Coding 14.55 2.86 11.22 2.46 10.07 <.001 1.25
*Cancellation 11.62 2.14 10.69 2.39 3.28 .001 0.41
Full Scale IQ 131.27 7.99 108.13 8.66 22.39 <.001 2.78
General Ability Index 128.31 10.11 107.90 9.13 17.09 <.001 2.12
Cognitive Proficiency Index 126.16 11.60 106.23 11.04 14.19 <.001 1.76
44
Table 4. Group Differences on WAIS-IV Subtest and Index Scatter Scores.

Group Group
Scatter Mean SD Mean SD t p Cohen's d
Subtest SD 2.38 0.65 2.10 0.52 3.94 <.001 0.49
Lowest Subtest Mean 10.32 1.98 7.78 1.58 11.42 <.001 1.42
Highest Subtest Mean 17.75 1.07 14.41 1.61 19.69 <.001 2.44
Max-min Subtest Mean 7.42 2.19 6.62 1.86 3.18 .002 0.39
Index SD 11.68 4.37 8.36 3.32 6.90 <.001 0.86
Lowest Index Mean 110.96 9.70 96.95 8.33 12.50 <.001 1.55
Highest Index Mean 137.08 5.49 115.60 7.36 26.67 <.001 3.31
Max-min Index Mean 26.12 9.90 18.65 7.72 6.77 <.001 0.84
45
Figure 1. Groups’ performances on WAIS-IV Composite Scores. Index Bars indicate the standard error
associated with each Index.
135,00
132,50
130,00
127,50
125,00
122,50
Index Scaled Scores
120,00
117,50
115,00
112,50
110,00
107,50
105,00
102,50
100,00
Verbal Perceptual Reasoning Working Memory Processing Speed
Comprehension
Intellectually Gifted Comparison Group
46
View publication stats

AcceptVersionCogProfIntellGifted Def

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

AcceptVersionCogProfIntellGifted Def

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AcceptVersionCogProfIntellGifted Def

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

Cognitive Proﬁle of Intellectually Gifted Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult

Article in Assessment · July 2019

Margherita Lang Michael Matta

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Laura Parolin Lina Pezzuti

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Personality Assessment View project

Intelligence View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Cognitive Profile of Intellectually Gifted Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult

Corresponding Author: michael.matta@unimib.it

Zaccaro for their help in the data collection.

intellectual abilities of special groups. Here we report the results of an intellectually

compare scatter measures across intellectual domains to a matched comparison group.

performance was compared to a matched comparison group. Analyses revealed that

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.

Intellectual Giftedness; CHC Theory of Intelligence; WAIS-IV; Fluid Reasoning;

Giftedness in adulthood is rarely discussed in literature (Rinn & Bishop, 2015),

Giftedness is an umbrella term including people with advanced abilities in

identifies those who “demonstrate outstanding levels of aptitude (defined as an

exceptional ability to reason and learn) or competence (documented performance or

Association for Gifted Children, 2010).

Some authors have defined giftedness considering high academic performances

actual achievement of successes (Gagnè, 2003). Different definitions reflect different

Relative to intellectual giftedness, Gridley’s and colleagues (2003) described

performance in general intellectual abilities and/or (b) an exceptional potential in specific

exhibiting an extraordinary talent in one or more domains of ability or (4) high

intellectual abilities and specific socio-emotional characteristics.

1.1 Use of the Intelligence Tests to Identify Intellectual Giftedness

giftedness globally. The threshold of 130 (corresponding to 2.28% of the population) is

Intelligence Scales and Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales). According to the Gridley’s

definition of intellectual giftedness, we considered as gifted each individual who obtained

cognitive profiles of gifted students who were administered WJ III.

reported in the “Technical and Interpretive Manual of WAIS-IV” (Wechsler, 2008a).

Gifted group was composed of individuals who obtained a standardized measure of

(M = 127.2) and the lowest performances in processing speed (M = 112.4). According to

Gifted group’s performance has been investigated more extensively in childhood

(Mather & Woodcock, 2001; Rizza et al., 2001).

Finally, the external validity of Stanford-Binet 5 (Roid, 2003) was demonstrated

comparing performance of a gifted group to another group of average-intelligence

In addition, scatter scores allow to describe deeply intellectual strengths and

“represented by a cohesive set of scaled scores, each reflecting slightly different or

unique aspects of the ability” (Lichtenberger & Kaufman, 2009, p. 167).

Intellectually gifted adults show large discrepancies among their cognitive

WAIS-III. Approximately 54% of gifted individuals had a discrepancy of at least 9 points

(considered abnormally large), is present in 20% of gifted individuals. Finally, the

Large discrepancies across cognitive domains have been observed consistently

discrepancy of 27.4 points between processing speed and crystallized intelligence. In

relation to the frequency of discrepancy analysis, conforming to Flanagan and Kaufman’s

points). According to the Law of Diminishing Returns (SLODR; Spearman, 1927;

1.2 Aims of the study

In the current study, we examined WAIS-IV cognitive performance in a sample of

differences in WAIS-IV scatter scores between groups.

According to other studies in which intelligence tests were administered to gifted