Journal articles

Deficits: Fact and/or Fiction? Or, Can We See the Forest for the Trees?” Twice-Exceptional and Special Populations of Gifted Students. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Pp. 35-65.

• 
  “Rather than jumping to conclusions, educators and parents are encouraged to follow a step-by-step course of action that serves to rule out alternate hypotheses prior to referral for ADHD behaviors. Environmental modalities and strategies must be considered and assessed for behavioral effects by conducting comprehensive observations of classroom activities, curricular and pacing adaptations, and school efforts to reinforce creativity as well as to develop individual talent.” (p. 37)
  
• 
  “Medications [prescribed for ADHD] are usually successful in controlling behavior, but they are also suspected to inhibit creativity and intellectual curiosity in bright children.”
  
• 
  “School administrators occasionally exacerbate the situation by viewing ADHD purely as a medical problem, thereby absolving themselves, teachers, and school curricula from responsibility. Parents, too, can excuse their child’s inappropriate behaviors rather than providing the support and structure some of these students need to practice academic and behavioral self-regulation.” (pp. 37-38) Absolutely can happen, from a parent who has been there and refused to medicate, but provided structure, coping mechanisms, and alternative stimulation when classes were not challenging.
  
• 
  Three groups of students who demonstrate behaviors associated with ADHD:
  
  • 
    Students whose learning and attention problems stem, for the most part, from a neurochemical disorder
    
  • 
    Those whose behaviors are mostly brought about, and perhaps intensified, by the learning environment
    
  • 
    Those who fall into both of the preceding categories (p. 39)
    
• 
  Children with ADHD, according to the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, …” have problems sustaining situation-appropriate attention. … A majority of these students have learning deficits in spelling, math, reading, and handwriting.”
  
• 
  There is currently a consensus about a genetic and physiological predisposition to the disorder (ADHD).
  
• 
  Emotional Development of Gifted Students
  
  • 
    Dabrowski’s “increased psychic excitabilities” among gifted individuals (p. 41)
    
  • 
    Piechowski and Colangelo’s “organic excess of energy or excitability of the neuromuscular system [that] manifests itself as a love of movement for its own sake, rapid speech, pursuit of intense physical activities, impulsiveness, restlessness, pressure for action, drivedness, the capacity for being active and energetic.” (p. 42)
    
  • 
    Cruickshank “came to assess hyperactivity and extreme sensitivity to the environment as positive characteristics in bright children rather than as problematic behavior. … Their curiosity and desire for knowledge can take precedence over the school’s need for a prescribed curriculum locked in time, sequence, and space. In this sense, the regular classroom can be too restrictive for students predisposed to ‘overexcitabilities’.”
    
  • 
    There is evidence that some adults may be intimidated or overwhelmed by the precocity of gifted youngsters and, as a result, may fail to exercise control over the child’s behavior.” (p. 44)
    
• 
  Inappropriate Curriculum and Pacing
  
  • 
    “Problems with hyperactivity, attention, and impulsivity increase when the curriculum is perceived as routine and dull.” Of course.
    
  • 
    “When as much as 60% of the curriculum was eliminated, gifted students exceeded or equaled achievement levels of matched students who were required to complete the regular curriculum.” (p. 43)
    
  • 
    “When school tasks are mysteriously frustrating or not meaningful and the environment is unfriendly, the student may avoid the aversion by searching for solace through optimal arousal elsewhere” – daydreams, visits to the school nurse, disrupting the boring class routine in any way.
    
• 
  Application of Multiple Intelligence Theory
  
  • 
    “Gardner’s Theory of Multiple Intelligences offers yet another hypothesis for understanding the complexity of attention disorders.”
    
  • 
    “School is mostly about verbal and logical-mathematical abilities … other ways of knowing and communicating are not only restricted but often devalued.”
    
  • 
    “Many gifted youngsters who are not achieving in school have exceptional spatial abilities.”
    
  • 
    “When some hyperactive students are encouraged to learn and communicate in an area of strength (usually a non-verbal intelligence), even boring tasks are accomplished without accompanying behavioral problems.”
    
  • 
    “Perhaps attention deficits are connected to specific intelligences, an idea that has not yet been investigated.” (p. 44)
    
• 
  Barkley’s Trait Theory of ADHD as it applies to giftedness: “Everyone falls somewhere along a continuum of extreme inhibition to no inhibition.”
  
• 
  Gifted and creative people fall on the low inhibition side of the continuum. “When the environment is too restrictive and inhibits the natural energy of such students, they find themselves being pushed toward a more extreme end of the continuum. At that point, the behavior of these students may resemble that of a smaller number of people who truly suffer from ADHD due to neurological or chemical imbalances.” (p. 45)
  
• 
  “If changes in the classroom – including curricula and instruction – result in improved student attention and behavior, more intrusive and ineffectual interventions can be avoided.” (p. 46)
  
• 
  Strategies to Assist in Evaluation:
  
  • 
    Observe and document under which circumstances child has difficulty attending to tasks or performing acceptably.
    
  • 
    Are there adaptations of curricular presentations (visual or kinesthetic, for example) that might capture the student’s attention?
    
  • 
    Observe student’s behavior in different learning environments to estimate optimal conditions for learning.
    
  • 
    Observe parent-child and teacher-child dynamics: limits set? Strategies for self-regulation provided? Student able to self-regulate?
    
  • 
    Observe child at different times of day to discover whether student creativity is appreciated, reinforced, or allowed expression.
    
  • 
    Investigate whether there is any effort to develop student’s gifts or talents; if so, how does student behave during these activities?
    
  • 
    Pretest student to assess instructional levels and evaluate appropriate curricular pacing.
    
• 
  “Unfortunately, current remedies for the vast majority of bright students with ADD-like behaviors typically encompass plans for medication and behavior modification, with little attention extended to curricula and instruction.” (p. 47)
  
• 
  Students with a strong kinesthetic intelligence often work better when listening to music.
  

Grimm, J. (1998). The Participation of Gifted Students with Disabilities in Gifted

Programs, Roeper Review, 20(4), pp. 285-286.

• 
  According to P.L. 94-142, [gifted students with disabilities] are legally entitled to an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, which includes services for gifts as well as disabilities.” (p. 285)
  
• 
  In a 1989 special education study in Texas, approximately 91% of the responding school districts had not identified any gifted learning-disabled students. A corresponding gifted program survey also reported that no gifted learning-disabled students were identified for the gifted program in 77% of the responding districts. 21 different definitions of “gifted” were reported.
  
• 
  Grimm conducted a similar study in Minnesota in 1994, and found that 77% of the responding coordinators of special education programs reported that gifted students with disabilities were being served in the gifted program, and 81% of the corresponding GT coordinators indicated that gifted students with disabilities were being served in the gifted program.
  
• 
  Two events heightened awareness in Minnesota:
  
  • 
    1988 Minnesota standards for services to gifted and talented was published by the Minnesota Department of Education
    
  • 
    1991 guide from Minnesota Department of Education Gifted and Talented Department included a table with specific identification procedures for identifying gifted students with disabilities (Rogers, 1991).
    
• 
  1993 study by Coleman and Gallagher of state identification policies found that 43 states’ policies “encouraged the schools to provide service to students in special populations, including those with disabilities who did not meet the initial acceptance requirements.”
  
• 
  Special education and gifted education teachers must work together in the best interests of each child.
  

Konza, D. (1998). Inclusion for Children with Dual Exceptionalities, Paper presented at

• 
  Paper focused on three individuals who are at “great risk of non-identification because their gifts or potential strengths are accompanied by a disability of some kind.” (p. 1)
  
• 
  Sarah – gifted student with cerebral palsy
  
  • 
    14-year-old girl with severe athetoid cerebral palsy from birth
    
  • 
    Unable to walk, and almost completely non-verbal, highly dependent on others to attend to her physical needs
    
  • 
    Independently mobile by using a chin switch on an electric wheelchair
    
  • 
    Relatively independent in written communication through technology (headpointer with IBM compatible laptop, Easy Keys software, speech output word predictor)
    
  • 
    Above average mathematically, although reading and written language are delayed and spelling is poor
    
  • 
    General knowledge reflects above average ability
    
  • 
    Full time Integration Aide, fully integrated in primary years in local school
    
  • 
    Transition to secondary school was complex and involved massive communication and training for teachers, children, administration, staff, as well as provision of a range of highly specialized resources
    
  • 
    Positive outcomes of her integration in public school:
    
    • 
      Special Education teacher had developed more mainstream classroom skills
      
    • 
      Regular teachers have overcome misconceptions about abilities of people with disabilities
      
    • 
      Peers have increased perspective on people with disabilities
      
• 
  Melanie – gifted student with ADHD
  
  • 
    Reading before entering school, rapidly grasped math concepts, and exceptional memory led parents to think she had great ability
    
  • 
    Entertaining mimic and could easily copy accents
    
  • 
    Bored easily and had frequent tantrums even at ages 9 and 10
    
  • 
    Highly intolerant of people who could not grasp concepts quickly
    
  • 
    Highly oppositional behavior and would not change
    
  • 
    Several management methods were tried to little avail
    
  • 
    “Some loss of self-esteem and sense of personal worth as she realized that her behavior was affecting family and social relationships” (p. 5)
    
  • 
    Secondary school – truancy and increasingly hostile responses to authority
    
  • 
    Underachievement
    
  • 
    Parents and teachers would not give up on her
    
  • 
    Tried Gossen’s Restitution Model
    
    • 
      Emphasis “is on becoming the person one wants to be” (p. 6)
      
    • 
      “Assists people in making an internal evaluation of what they can do to repair their mistakes.”
      
    • 
      “Responsibility of wrongdoer to come up with a solution that will make some amends for the wrong done.
      
    • 
      Melanie tried it and it worked for her. She gained control of herself.
      
    • 
      Her father put it this way, “There are always waves on the ocean of Melanie’s life, but we now have fewer storms at sea.”
      
• 
  Adam – gifted student with autistic tendencies
  
  • 
    Uneven developmental profile, including not forming normal close attachments to mother, other family members, or with ‘significant others.’
    
  • 
    Highly dependent on routines, vigorously resisted change, and had a range of obsessive behaviors
    
  • 
    Demonstrated early interest in numbers and written language, but oral language did not progress past babbling through toddler years
    
  • 
    Assessed by psychologist at age 3 (using Stanford Binet) as having average to low average ability and autistic tendencies
    
  • 
    Parents believed that he had some exceptional abilities that were not detected
    
  • 
    Adept at computer games that would challenge an older child while he was in pre-school, but had no interaction socially and began speaking in a robotic ‘Nintendo-like’ voice Interesting since he found a strength in computer games that his voice would mimic those games’ sounds. Was he merely communicating like his “friends” in the games?
    
  • 
    In kindergarten, responded better to visual instructions than to verbal ones
    
  • 
    Was reading aloud to his mother before starting school, but took months to do so in school
    
  • 
    “He avoids tasks that he finds difficult because he strives for perfection and that rarely happens on a first attempt!” (p. 10)
    
  • 
    Asocial behavior makes acceleration problematic
    
  • 
    Has difficulty accepting correction or redirection, responding by saying “No! No!” repeatedly and babbling to himself. Reprimanding himself for having made a mistake?
    
• 
  Contributing factors to successful inclusion of these and other students
  
  • 
    Broadly based identification procedures (pp. 11-12)
    
  • 
    Acknowledgement of individual learning styles and needs (pp. 12-13)
    
  • 
    Collaboration (p. 13)
    
  • 
    Informed approach (pp. 13-14)
    
  • 
    Appropriate curriculum (p. 14)
    
  • 
    Parent advocacy (pp. 14-15)
    
  • 
    Philosophy of acceptance (p. 15)
    

Moon, S. M. & Dillon, D. R. (1995). Multiple Exceptionalities: A Case Study, Journal

• 
  Case study of an 11-year-old boy who did not attend school because of asthma, severe food and chemical sensitivities, poor motor skills, difficulties with perception and orientation, hyperactivity, and learning disabilities. Child was verbally gifted and learning disabled in mathematics.
  
• 
  “Three clusters of factors can cause underachievement: (a) environmental, (b) personal-neurological, and (c) personal-psychological. Gifted children with disabilities of any kind are at risk for personal-psychological problems. The risk for underachievement increases if disabled-gifted children experience environmental stressors such as inappropriate schooling or have personal-neurological problems.” (p. 112)
  
• 
  This study used qualitative, single-case methodology.
  
• 
  Child was mentored for 25 sessions over the course of a year in creative writing.
  
• 
  One interesting tidbit in the case study that had nothing to do with the topic was regarding Alec’s end of day ritual: “He then tells me a bedtime story.” Usually the parent is telling the bedtime story. (p. 116)
  
• 
  “Alec also showed the subtest scatter on the WISC-R that Silverman has found typical of learning-disabled, gifted children.” (p. 118)
  
• 
  When asked questions, “it often took him several moments to construct his response, and he tended to subvocalize while he was doing so.” (p. 120)
  
• 
  “Several of his best story ideas came from dreams.” (p. 122)
  
• 
  “Homebound instruction seemed more effective in nurturing Alec’s giftedness than in remediating his weaknesses or nurturing his social and emotional growth.” (p. 123)
  
• 
  “Other important benefits of home schooling for Alec seemed to be the development of creativity and an intrinsic motivation. Creativity is often an undeveloped strength in learning-disabled gifted children.” (p. 126) This would indicate that we will want to specifically include modifications that foster creativity when we design curricula for this population.
  
• 
  “While most learning-disabled gifted children in school settings receive a great deal of remediation for their weaknesses and very little enrichment for their strengths, Alec’s situation was just the opposite. … As a result, his strengths became stronger and his weaknesses weaker.” It would appear, then, that it is equally important to develop strengths and improve areas of weakness.
  
• 
  “The findings of this study suggest that children with multiexceptionalities should be assessed especially carefully, using as many methods as possible. It may be dangerous to rely solely on test scores in assessing their talents.”
  
• 
  “Whenever possible, home teaching programs for children like Alex need to be balanced with activities with peers and experiences with group instruction.” (p. 127)
  
• 
  Suggestions for duplicating Alec’s learning environment in a school setting:
  
  • 
    Individually tailored mentorships
    
  • 
    Create unstructured spaces within the structure of a normal school day where students can pursue their own interests
    
  • 
    Provide opportunities for the development of creativity
    
• 
  Look at the Albuquerque Public School System as a model – “Twice-Exceptional Children project” (pp. 127-128)
  

Morrison, W. F. & Rizza, M. G. (2007). Creating a Toolkit for Identifying Twice-

• 
  Article purports to design a plan for identifying twice-exceptional students.
  
• 
  Reports on “Project O2E, a state-funded collaboration program that resulted in a toolkit for identifying students who are twice-exceptional.
  
• 
  “Underrepresentation of students with disabilities in gifted programs continues to be the main issue.” (p. 57)
  
• 
  Most states do have language “regarding identification and encouraged educational provisions for twice-exceptional students.”
  
• 
  “Mills and Brody (1999) pointed to the following three characteristics as indicators of the twice-exceptional student: (a) evidence of an outstanding talent or ability, (b) evidence of a discrepancy between expected and actual achievement, and (c) evidence of a processing deficit.” (p. 58)
  
• 
  “The twice-exceptional student rarely gets to the point of failing and is able to mask discrepancies in achievement.” (p. 59)
  
• 
  “Although the use of intelligence tests can provide the practitioner with valuable information, its value needs to be viewed as limited for the twice-exceptional student.” (p. 60)
  
• 
  “McCoach, et al. (2004) warned that use of test scores alone will cause many students to go unnoticed because abilities may be masked by disabilities, and there is the possibility of a regression to the mean effect on overall test scores commonly used to identify gifted students.”
  
• 
  “For the twice-exceptional student, the process must include an examination of strengths and weaknesses, drawing upon what the student knows to assist him or her with problems.” (p. 61)
  
• 
  “Among the components needed in the referral and placement process for the [2X student] are: individually administered intelligence tests; information from multiple sources including parents, family, and the student; observations of the student; case histories; and subjective evaluations.”
  
• 
  “Because training and support will only go so far in finding the twice-exceptional, districts must be willing to extend services to these students in the absence of full funding, because funding is currently tied to the number of appropriately identified students.” (p. 62)
  
• 
  Assessments such as skill worksheets “may not accurately evaluate true potential in gifted students who are not motivated to complete work that they perceive as redundant.” (p. 63)
  
• 
  Recommendations for designing identification plan for 2E students:
  
  • 
    In-service training for general, special, and gifted education teachers on the characteristics and needs of [2E];
    
  • 
    Inclusion of gifted education teachers on Individual Assistance Teams (IAT) and Multifactor Evaluation (MFE) teams and special education teachers involved in the gifted identification process;
    
  • 
    Formation of a multidisciplinary team responsible for referrals and further evaluation of {2E} populations;
    
  • 
    Flexibility in use of test data to include subtest scores to denote discrepancies between ability and achievement; and
    
  • 
    Use of traditional and nontraditional data that further demonstrates student strength areas including tests from approved list for gifted identification, teacher, parent, and student nominations, student product assessment, behavior checklists, record review, portfolio assessment, and progress monitoring. (pp. 63-64)
    
• 
  Project O2E is described in terms of data collection in three school districts in Midwest state: one urban, one suburban, and one rural. (p. 64- 65)
  
• 
  Interviews and focus group discussions “comprised the primary data collected for this project.”
  
• 
  “Data … were analyzed using qualitative methods. (p. 66)
  
• 
  “The results of the analyses are called a toolkit, designed to provide districts with a wide variety of options from which to choose when defining an identification plan for the twice-exceptional. … the actual contents of the toolkit should be modified to meet the policy and procedures specific to individual districts and needs of the student populations therein.” (p. 67)
  
• 
  “Each toolkit shall include description and items in the following categories:
  
  • 
    I. Referral and Screening,
    
  • 
    II. Preliminary Intervention,
    
  • 
    III. Evaluation Procedures, and
    
  • 
    IV. Educational Planning
    
• 
  Three categories to which 2E students belong:
  
  • 
    Students first identified as gifted who later show indicators of a specific disability area;
    
  • 
    Students identified as having a specific learning disability and who also show outstanding talent in one or more areas; or
    
  • 
    Students who may appear average or underachieving because the disability area masks any manifestation of giftedness.
    
• 
  “A team of school personnel [should] be established [to provide] analysis of student progress.” (p. 69)
  
• 
  Portfolios of student work should be assembled for evaluation of students’ needs. Student interests and hobbies will be looked at well as more traditional factors. (p. 70)
  
• 
  504 plans or newly designed forms that mirror the IEP will be adapted to include curriculum modifications for enrichment and remediation for 2E students. (p. 71)
  
• 
  “Communication and collaboration between special and gifted personnel remains a stumbling block.” (p. 72)
  
• 
  Training sessions and in-service topics should include how to meet the needs of 2E students.
  
• 
  “Maintaining a wide range of options available for identification appears to be the soundest plan for accurately measuring strengths and weaknesses [of 2E students].
  
• 
  “It was found in this project that identification in special areas like science and social studies before grade 4 was not stable.”
  

Zirkel, P. A. (2004). The Case Law on Gifted Education: A New Look, Gifted Child

• 
  “This article provides a comprehensive, concise, and current overview of the case law – specifically, published hearing/review officer and court decisions – concerning gifted education for K-12 students. This case law represents two distinct groups: ‘gifted alone’ … and ‘gifted plus.’” (p. 309)
  
• 
  People working with gifted and twice-exceptional students need a clearer understanding of the case law. “The statutory or regulatory framework is primarily on the state level for the gifted-alone category. It is primarily on the federal level for the gifted-plus category.”
  
• 
  “Thorough searching resulted in a final sample of approximately 75 hearing/review officer and 60 court decisions from 1962 to 2002.” (p. 310) These can be found in The Law on Gifted Education, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut, 2003.
  
• 
  “‘Gifted plus’ refers to two groups of students “who are, or at least purport to be, additionally or alternatively legally eligible under other federal special legal protection. … (i) ‘twice exceptional,’ referring to those whose other legal protection stems from one or more of the laws applying to students with a disability, and (ii) ‘gifted minority,’ referring to those whose other legal protection is based on race or national origin.”
  
• 
  “The federal Constitution does not provide a right to an education, much less a right to a gifted education.”
  
• 
  “Federal legislation does not provide an entitlement to gifted education.”
  
• 
  “State constitutions, although varying in the specificity and strength of their education provisions, are generally not a fruitful basis for judicial claims on behalf of gifted students.” (pp. 310-311)
  
• 
  “State common law, or court decisions arising without pertinent provisions in a constitution or other such codification, is not a viable basis for establishing a right to specialized education for gifted students.” (p. 311)
  
• 
  A few states have strong gifted education legislation or regulations (PA, for example) but it usually falls on the side of the school district rather than the parent.
  
• 
  “Even where the child’s dual exceptionality is recognized, the hearing/review officers and courts have tended to focus on the child’s disability, not giving significant weight to giftedness in terms of interpreting and applying the FAPE requirements, including least restrictive environment.” (p. 312) Does this explain why GT specialists are seeking more diagnoses? With a diagnosis comes protection under the law and funding, whereas that protection and funding is not available for the “simply gifted.”
  
• 
  “Sec. 504 and the ADA apply if the gifted child is eligible in terms of these sister statutes’ broader definition of ‘disability,’ which consists of three elements: (a) a mental or physical impairment (b) substantially limiting (c) a major life activity.”
  
• 
  “Based on the IDEA, a hearing officer in New York ruled that a gifted child with disabilities was entitled to a gifted education component in his IEP even though the IDEA does not extend to gifted education and New York law does not provide a mandatory entitlement to gifted education.”
  
• 
  “A minority-group child who is or may be gifted is covered by the protection of civil rights laws, which prohibit discrimination based on race or national origin.” (p. 313)
  

Children in Relation to KEDI-WISC and T.O.V.A. Performance, Gifted Child Quarterly, 47(3), pp. 192-201.

• 
  Study was conducted “to evaluate the correlation between intelligence and a Continuous Performance Test (CPT) that assesses ADHD in children.” (p. 192)
  
• 
  177 elementary school children were studied—106 gifted from the Educational Institute for Gifted Children and 71 nongifted from elementary schools in Seoul.
  
• 
  73 boys and 33 girls / average age 7.7 years with a range of 6 – 9 years, average IQ 138.4 with a range of 130 – 157 for gifted group and 83 – 127 for nongifted group. (p. 194)
  
• 
  About 9.4% of the gifted children were identified with ADHD using the Test of Variables of Attention (T.O.V.A.), Child Behavior Check List (CBCL), and Teacher’s Report Form (TRF).
  
• 
  “The prevalence of ADHD in children among the clinical population is approximately 40%.”
  
• 
  “Due to the alarming number of referrals for attention disorders among gifted children, there is concern that some nonintellectual features of gifted children (e.g., creativity) may be misinterpreted as symptoms of ADHD.”
  
• 
  This study suggests that “higher norms on tests such as T.O.V.A. may be necessary for diagnosing ADHD in gifted children.” That would just be raising the bar on the same standard, wouldn’t it?
  
• 
  “Thorough investigation about the nature of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity is necessary for the diagnosis of ADHD among gifted children.”
  
• 
  “Medication is usually successful in controlling behavior, but it is also suspected of inhibiting creativity and intellectual curiosity in bright children.” (p. 193)
  
• 
  Discussion of overexcitability as opposed to ADHD in gifted children. “It is difficult to differentiate a gifted child’s overexcitability from ADHD symptoms.”
  
• 
  “There is perhaps a very large overlap between what we call ADHD and creativity.”
  
• 
  “Those with IQs over 130 are hardly ever diagnosed with ADD.”
  
• 
  “Children with ADHD perform comparatively poorly on tests in general.”
  
• 
  “Gifted children tend to demonstrate weakness in one or two subtests of the Freedom From Distractibility Factor of the KEDI-WISC (a Korean version of the WISC), such as the Arithmetic and Digit Span subtests.” (p. 194)
  
• 
  T.O.V.A.’s visual mode was used for this study – small black squares appearing on a computer screen. Isn’t this sort of like a video game? Don’t children with and without ADHD focus on video games equally well?
  
• 
  The CBCL and TRF are observational instruments recorded on scales with no references as to WHY the behaviors are occurring.
  
• 
  Data was analyzed in a number of ways and a discussion of this analysis is provided. (pp. 195-199)
  
• 
  “Thorough investigation about the nature of inattention, impulsivity, and hyperactivity is necessary for the diagnosis of ADHD among gifted children.” (p. 200)
  
• 
  “Gifted children with ADHD can likely benefit from social skills training to improve relationships with their peer group.”
  
• 
  “Generalizing these findings to other situations and cultures requires caution because the subjects were not recruited from general schools but from an institute for gifted children. They may have received some special education or training from the institute, which may have influenced the results.”
  

Leroux, J. A. & Levitt-Perlman, M. (2000). The Gifted Child with Attention Deficit

• 
  Study “reviews the literature on ADHD traits, their similarity to gifted and creative behaviors, and the implications for educational interventions. A case study of a [third grade] boy identified with ADHD provides the focus” for the discussion. (p. 171)
  
• 
  Child in study has always been at least two years ahead of his peers academically, but is immature. His teachers have not considered the possibility that he might be gifted.
  
• 
  “The diagnosis of DHD does not include any intellectual boundaries and the characteristics of it are remarkably similar to those of creativity.” (p. 172)
  
• 
  Characteristics associated with both ADHD and giftedness:
  
  • 
    Hyperactivity
    
  • 
    Challenge of Authority
    
  • 
    Disruptive Behavior
    
  • 
    Social/Emotional Development in asynchrony with intellectual development
    
• 
  “Multiple diagnostic measures which would reveal gifts, attentional problems, learning disabilities, and emotional problems, are necessary.” (p. 173)
  
• 
  “Results from the WISC III-R may not be accurate in many children with ADHD whose lack of attention to the tasks may affect scores. Their high levels of creativity may go undetected. The WISC III-R Freedom From Distractibility Factor is not always considered a reliable indicator of ADHD. When school boards require identification before beginning enrichment programs, gifted/ADHD students fall through the assessment cracks.”
  
• 
  Sad story: “Though Jason displayed many of the characteristics of ADHD, his kindergarten teacher told his concerned parents that it was not possible because Jason was too smart. As he continued through grades 1 and 2, teachers focused on behavioral problems rather than his advanced academic achievement. In fact, on his grade 1 report card, his teacher failed to mention that he was reading at grade 4 level. They never suggested testing for ADHD because they could see that he was able to focus when he so chose. Now, grade 3, Jason has lost interest in school due to the frustration of unchallenging activities and peer rejection. His self-esteem is low and he is performing at grade level, though group achievement tests have p[laced him significantly above average. Now Jason’s teachers see no reason to consider giftedness or ADHD; they just look at him as a difficult child with an attitude problem.”
  
• 
  “Olenchak reported that a highly structured individualized school wide enrichment program (based on Renzulli’s model) was found to have a positive impact on the attitudes, self-concepts, and relative productivity of gifted/LD students. … It would be especially beneficial for gifted/ADHD students, giving them the opportunity to focus their energy on challenging and meaningful tasks.” (p. 174)
  
• 
  “Pirie (1995) pays special attention to the process of learning. By teaching English through kinesthetics, he uses the area in which students are skilled to approach another subject. A musical child, for example, might react more positively to the prospect of writing a song about the environment than to the idea of writing an essay on the topic.”
  
• 
  Extrinsic motivation can be beneficial with gifted/ADHD children. For example, “If you get your work done now, we will have time to go get your skates sharpened.”
  
• 
  A wonderful chart listing behavioral, curriculum, and instructional strategies for the gifted, ADHD, and gifted/ADHD child is provided. (p. 175)
  

Lovecky, D. V. (1999). Gifted Children With AD/HD, Paper presented in slightly

• 
  Four major conclusions:
  
  • 
    Gifted children with AD/HD differ from average children with AD/HD in cognitive, social, and emotional variables.
    
    • 
      They miss many easier items and are correct on much more difficult items on tests of intelligence and achievement
      
    • 
      Abstract reasoning ability is often well developed and in advance of other more basic skill levels.
      
    • 
      Exhibit more mature use of metacognitive strategies but often forget to use them, accounting for variability of work product.
      
    • 
      Can become overwhelmed with worries.
      
    • 
      Empathetic and compassionate for others
      
    • 
      Advanced need for complexity in friendships, but often misread social cues and show lack of understanding of group goals.
      
  • 
    Gifted children with AD/HD differ from other gifted children.
    
    • 
      Show a greater degree of asynchrony among cognitive, social and emotional areas of development, and much greater variation in ability to act maturely.
      
    • 
      Cognitive deficits are shown in less ability to think sequentially, to use working memory adequately.
      
    • 
      Complete less work, tend to hurry through it, often change topics on projects, take inordinately long to complete simple exercises.
      
    • 
      Find it difficult to work in groups, even groups of gifted children.
      
    • 
      Intrinsic reward of completion is not as satisfying.
      
    • 
      When working on self-chosen activity, is able to work for long hours without much external reinforcement – even with AD/HD.
      
    • 
      Show more difficulty with self-control and self-monitoring behavior.
      
  • 
    Assessment of gifted children needs to be done by those knowledgeable about both giftedness and AD/HD.
    
    • 
      Gifted children with mild AD/HD who are placed in a stimulating school environment with small classes will see significantly decreased symptoms of AD/HD.
      
    • 
      G-AD/HD children should be compared to gifted peers in a stimulating environment rather than to average children in regular classes.
      
    • 
      A profile of strengths and weaknesses needs to be collected from home, school, and other activities. These should then be compared to the child’s own mean, rather than to absolute age norms. “Deficit areas of gifted children with AD/HD can be overlooked if only age norms are used as a measure of ability or achievement.”
      
    • 
      “Intelligence should not just be based on the Wechsler scores. Use of the Stanford-Binet LM as a supplementary test should be considered when two or more verbal subtests of the Wechsler are in the SS 17+ range,” indicating too low a ceiling.
      
  • 
    Recommendations about Individual Education Program (IEP) or Section 504 planning need to consider both AD/HD problems and the effects of being gifted.
    
    • 
      “Gifted children with AD/HD may need acceleration at the same time that they need to learn metacognitive skills that will support the higher level of functioning required.”
      
    • 
      “They will need a differentiated program, not just placement in an advanced class.”
      
    • 
      “They may need to be specifically taught study and organizational skills, in the context of higher level work, that gifted peers acquire without difficulty.”
      
    • 
      They need access to mentors to work in areas of strength.
      

Moon, S. M. (2001). “Gifted Children With Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder” in

• 
  “Little empirical research has examined the unique issues that arise when AD/HD and giftedness co-occur.” (p. 193)
  
• 
  “In the current edition of the American Psychiatric Association Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, four subtypes of AD/HD are recognized: Predominantly Hyperactive/Impulsive, Predominantly Inattentive, Combined, and Not Otherwise Specified.” (p. 194)
  
• 
  “Cognitive tests of pre-frontal functioning [in children with AD/HD] show developmental delays of two to three years.”
  
• 
  “These students have deficiencies in executive functioning that influence their behavior at home and at school.” I thought that executive functioning wasn’t consistent with intelligence until a child matures – up to mid-20s, if ever.
  
• 
  If a gifted child is misidentified as having AD/HD, it would have “negative consequences for the social and emotional development of a gifted child because his or her real needs would not be met and because he or she might receive inappropriate treatment, such as unnecessary psychotropic medication.” (p. 195)
  
• 
  “Giftedness can mask an attention-deficit disorder for a time. … The higher the IQ, the later the AD/HD diagnosis tends to occur.”
  
• 
  “Hidden AD/HD has negative effects on the self-concept of the gifted child because trying harder has little effect on such AD/HD as disorganization, daydreaming, incessant talking, inability to sit still, and social immaturity.”
  
• 
  “Children with AD/HD typically score 1-10 points lower on IQ tests than normal children at the same ability level.” (p. 196)
  
• 
  “Children with AD/HD have more difficulty than normal children sustaining attention to low-interest, low-stimulation activities with distal reinforcers.” This seems more like an attribute of a gifted child who wants to move on to something interesting and active.
  
• 
  “Children with AD/HD can sustain attention better than normal children when interest is high, tasks are challenging, and reinforcement is rapid.” Again, this sounds like a gifted child who is fascinated with things that interest him, enjoys being challenged, and sees immediate reinforcement.
  
• 
  “Gifted children with AD/HD have difficulty regulating their emotions.” (p. 197) How is this different from Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities of gifted children?
  
• 
  “Children with AD/HD … exhibit annoying and sometimes aggressive behaviors that are disliked by their peers and can lead to social rejection.” Gifted children pass through parallel play into interactive play at an earlier age and sometimes exhibit aggression in response to their frustration that other children to not understand their “rules.” This can lead to social rejection that has nothing to do with AD/HD.
  
• 
  “Gifted children with AD/HD have difficulties sustaining attention to routine tasks, shifting attention, transitioning between tasks, monitoring their progress on long-term projects, keeping track of homework, organizing their desks and lockers, and following directions.” (p. 198) Gifted children do not like routine tasks, get involved in what they are doing and do not want to move on until they are finished, get sidetracked by interesting branches when working on long-term projects, and often don’t consider homework of something they already know or organization of their desks to be important.
  
• 
  The gifted child with AD/HD has a preference for “high-stimulation learning contexts. They like hands-on activities, computer-based instructions, high-interest content, and one-on-one attention from an adult.” (p. 199) How is this description different from that of a gifted child without AD/HD?
  

Moon, S. M., Zentall, S. S., Grskovic, J. A., Hall, A., & Stormont, M. (2001). Emotional

• 
  Participants were 3 boys with AD/HD and giftedness and 6 comparison boys with only one of the two exceptionalities – 3 with AD/HD and 3 GT alone. Data was collected from the boys, their parents, and their teachers. (p. 207)
  
• 
  “Participants with co-occurring giftedness and Ad/HD had difficulties regulating their emotions, problems with peer relationships, and stressed families. Giftedness appeared to exacerbate the social/emotional difficulties associated with AD/HD rather than serve a protective function. The findings suggested that AD/HD is a risk factor for psychosocial adjustment difficulties in young boys who are intellectually gifted.”
  
• 
  “In general, intellectually gifted children have been found to be as well or better adjusted emotionally than children of average intelligence during the elementary school years. … The social/emotional problems that do exist among gifted children are often exogenous in origin, [such as] inappropriate, unchallenging educational contexts.” (p. 209)
  
• 
  “The studies that have been conducted suggest that G/LD students experience internal dissynchrony and high levels of frustration. Such students also have been reported to have problems with their relationships with teachers and peers. At the same time, there is some evidence that parents perceive GLD children positively, finding them easy going and cooperative with adults.” (p. 210)
  
• 
  “Little attention has actually been paid to the characteristics and needs of gifted children ho actually have coexisting AD/HD.” (p. 211)
  
• 
  The first two authors of this study had different theoretical perspectives: Moon specializes in research on GT and Zentall specializes in research on children with AD/HD. “These differing areas of specialization provided theoretical triangulation in the design and analysis stages of our research.” (p. 212)
  
• 
  Participants in study were all enrolled in Midwest school district that “(a) utilized an identification procedure that encouraged the inclusion of students with AD/HD in gifted programming; (b) provided self-contained classes in gifted education with differentiated curricula taught by teachers with certification in gifted education; and (c) served as a statewide model of excellence in programming for gifted students.” (p. 212) In other words, students should be placed in appropriate educational environments.
  
• 
  Data Collection:
  
  • 
    Interviews with children, parents, and teachers
    
  • 
    Rating Scales
    
    • 
      Conners Rating Scale-Revised, Home Situations Questionnaire-Revised, and Family Environment Scale were given to parents
      
    • 
      Teacher form of the Conners Rating Scale-Revised was given to teachers
      
• 
  Analysis of Data:
  
  • 
    Descriptive quantitative analyses
    
  • 
    Case Analyses
    
  • 
    Within-Group Analyses
    
  • 
    Cross-Group Analyses
    
• 
  Findings reported in 3 categories: emotional characteristics, peer relationships, and family process.
  
• 
  Emotional Characteristics:
  
  • 
    G/ADHD – least mature with poorest emotional adjustment of 3 groups
    
  • 
    ADHD – fair to good maturity and emotional adjustment
    
  • 
    G only – rarely over-responded emotionally to situations and were judged to have good to excellent emotional adjustment (pp. 221-224)
    
• 
  Peer Relationships:
  
  • 
    G/ADHD – immature, annoying, and irresponsible behavior, contributed to social rejection in self-contained classrooms for gifted students. Described as “friendless loners in school who were tolerated by their gifted peers, but seldom picked as work or play partners.” (p. 225) They did have some friends in out of school contexts, enjoy imaginative play, creating things. (p. 227)
    
  • 
    ADHD – exhibited many behaviors associated with disorder but with “only minor impact on their social functioning at school. Although described as hyperactive and annoying, outcasts, silly and immature, an oppositional and aggressive, none of the boys in this group appeared to be rejected by their peers at school.” They did participate in organized team sports, which may have contributed to their successful social functioning, since sports participation receives high status among young boys. These boys had friends in their neighborhoods and in school who shared their active play styles and occasionally got into trouble. (pp. 228-229)
    
  • 
    G only – “difficult to characterize the overall social functioning of the three boys in the pure GT group as a group because they were heterogeneous in this area.” (p. 229)
    
    • 
      G-1 was most mature and socially skilled, popular in classroom and in neighborhood, participated in sports as a hobby, a leader, cooperative in class, well-adjusted, empathetic.
      
    • 
      G-2 was tougher, pushy with thoughts and ideas, did have group of friends who “shared his interests in science, space, fantasy, and dramatic play.” (p. 230)
      
    • 
      G-3 liked sports but was not participating in them, having difficulties with peer relationships, had a single good friend, but teacher attributed his difficulties socially as being “too advanced for the other kids when it comes to just being able to relate and play.”
      
• 
  Family Process:
  
  • 
    G/ADHD – unstructured and disorganized family processes, difficulty establishing consistent routines, moderate to high levels of conflict between parents and child (except for G-1 whose family style emphasized autonomy and differentiation over closeness and cohesion but did not fight or yell). Families in this group did not do very many things together as a family unit, compared to the other two groups. (pp. 230-233)
    
  • 
    ADHD – less conflicted and hectic than the families of GH-1 and GH-2, “actively working at developing closeness in their families and created many opportunities for family outings and active, shared activities.” These families valued traditional family sit-down meals, had clear rules, children had chores, routines were reinforced. (pp. 234-235)
    
  • 
    G only – strong interpersonal relationships, well-organized family life, and many shared activities. (p. 235)
    
• 
  Threats to the validity of the study:
  
  • 
    Small number of participants
    
  • 
    Reliance on self, parent, and teacher reports rather than researcher observations
    
  • 
    Missing data.” (p. 236)
    
  • 
    “Intellectually gifted boys with AD/HD placed in heterogeneous classrooms might exhibit different social/emotional characteristics from those placed in special classes for gifted students.” (p. 236)
    
  • 
    “All the participants were white males between the ages of 8 and 10.”
    
• 
  “The families undergoing a current relationship transition were more stressed than both stable single-parent and stable biological-parent families. … Family transitions should be taken into account in future investigations of the characteristics of families of children with giftedness, AD/HD, or both. (p. 238)
  

Zentall, S. S., Moon, S. M., Hall, A. M., & Grskovic, J. A. (2001). Learning and

• 
  “This study compared the academic and learning characteristics of [9] students with (a) Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder (AD/HD), (b) giftedness, and (c) giftedness with AD/HD [in a Midwestern school district].” (p. 499)
  
• 
  G = Gifted only ; GH = Gifted and ADHD; H = ADHD only
  
• 
  Limitations of study: small number of participants, missing data, no additional GH comparison group in the general educational context. (p. 512)
  
• 
  Three different reporting sources were utilized – teachers, parents, and the children in the study. (p. 500)
  
• 
  “The mean age of the nine participating boys … was 9 years, 2 months (range 8 years 4 months to 10 years 6 months).” (p. 501)
  
• 
  Study used a multiple-case design. (p. 502)
  
• 
  Parents and teachers filled out ratings scales (p. 503)
  
• 
  Multiple levels of analysis: case analysis (1-2 hour peer debriefings every 2 weeks for 3 years); within-group, cross-case analyses; cross-group analysis
  
• 
  “All three groups of students (G, GH, H) at this age had difficulties completing tasks requiring lower level skills, which may be characteristic of young boys in general.” (p. 505)
  
• 
  Disorganization was reported by multiple sources in the H and GH groups.
  
• 
  “Students with GH demonstrated creativity through humor, creating games, assembling ideas or things in novel ways, and imaginative expressions.” (p. 506)
  
• 
  “Problems with Specials (art, gym, music) were reported only for the pure H group.”
  
• 
  More gifted children than would be expected by chance, who also met the rating criteria for AD/HD, were placed in a highly creative subgroup within a gifted school program.” (pp. 508-509)
  
• 
  “In contrast to the reported talents and preferences, there was evidence that high intelligence made some of the problems of students with AD/HD more apparent.”
  
• 
  “GH students were aware of heir teachers’ displeasure and were able to articulate the discrepancy between expectations and performance.”
  
• 
  “Overall, thee was consensus for all the students in that science was the most preferred, especially when there were experiments or projects.”
  
• 
  “The most helpful motivational strategies reported for all three subgroups of students at this age were teachers who gave students individual attention and took personal interest in them.” (p. 510)
  
• 
  The G group preferred to work alone, but the GH and H groups preferred group learning and opportunities for discussion.
  
• 
  Awareness is necessary of the importance of monitoring comprehension rather than the appearance of attention. (p. 511)
  
• 
  The strategy of taking away activities when the child does not do work often makes the situation worse, especially for the GH students. “Withholding activity further reduces stimulation making it harder, not easier, for the child to complete non-meaningful and non-challenging tasks.” (p. 512)
  
• 
  “Both groups with AD/HD (H and GH) were generally described as underachievers.” (p. 513)
  
• 
  A dislike for homework was directly attributable to AD/HD in both gifted and not gifted groups.
  
• 
  “The emotional maturity of students with GH does no appear to be at the same level as their intellectual and imaginational talents, which may contribute to social/emotional adjustment difficulties.” (p. 516)
  

Exceptional Learner, Roeper Review, 22(1), pp. 22-27.

• 
  “According to a Fact Sheet generated by the U.S. Office of Gifted and Talented, it has been estimated that up to 300,000 children in the United States are both gifted and learning disabled.” (p. 22)
  
• 
  Cash suggests that the behaviors associated with autism are merely traits normally perceived as beneficial taken to a higher degree. Robin Clark explains, “The genetic traits that can cause severe disabilities can also provide the giftedness and genius that has produced some of the world’s greatest art and scientific discoveries.”
  
• 
  Standard classifications of autism:
  
  • 
    Asperger Syndrome – normal or near normal development until 18 months, followed by regression. “Poor motor coordination, late mobility, formal speech with pseudo-adult qualities expressed in a monotone voice, strong attachment to places, depression, echolalic speech, routinized obsessive-compulsive behaviors, difficulty in relating to people, poor eye contact, a lack of empathy for others, and poor intuition. They may also engage in untraditional and unorthodox cognitions which can result in creative products.” (p. 23)
    
  • 
    Kanner-type – “characterized by early illness (usually before the first year), a lack of eye contact, late speech, a paucity of interaction with people, stereotyped body movements (repetitive behaviors), a lack of proper pronoun usage, hyperplexic reading, and possible mental retardation.
    
  • 
    Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDDNOS) – “diagnosed when the condition appears atypical, inconsistent, and less severe. … It is associated with aberrant language development, early onset, difficulties with social relationships, and stereotyped and peculiar motor behaviors.”
    
  • 
    Regressive/Epileptic type – “characterized by the absence of receptive speech (the inability to understand others), modality mixing, coordination difficulties, epileptic seizures, abnormal EEG readings, an undersized brain stem, mental retardation, and high anxiety levels.”
    
• 
  “It is often difficult if not impossible to distinguish autism from true genius at an early age.”
  
• 
  Focusing – “their minds take off on journeys that are beyond their control.”
  
• 
  Negative Behaviors – “lists of negative attributes describing gifted students can run parallel to those characterizing autistic learners; they sometimes differ only in their intensity.”
  
• 
  Visual Thinking – Most autistic individuals think in acute visual images.
  
• 
  Friendships – gifted individuals with autism “lack social skills and connectedness, along with their rigidity and affinity to monopolize situations, [leading to] social separateness.”
  
• 
  Hyper-Vigilant Senses – Dabrowski’s theory of overexcitabilities of the gifted applies equally to gifted/autistic individuals. (p. 24)
  
• 
  Family Loading – “studies investigating the families of both autistic and gifted individuals indicate that the history often includes relatives displaying great genius.” Rimland concluded in 1978, “Many seem to have inherited the neurological make-up that permits them to zero in on whatever attracted their attention. But these children lack the capacity to ‘zero out,’ to expand their focus and comprehend the context of whatever they are focusing on.”
  
• 
  Several biographical sketches of twice-exceptional (gifted/autistic) learners were offered.
  
• 
  Eminent individuals with autistic tendencies:
  
  • 
    Albert Einstein
    
  • 
    Bobby Fischer
    
  • 
    Bill Gates
    
  • 
    Howard Hughes
    
  • 
    Sir Isaac Newton
    
  • 
    Vincent Van Gogh
    
  • 
    Ludwig Wittgenstein
    
  • 
    Mozart
    
  • 
    Bartok (p. 25)
    
• 
  Positive impacts of being labeled autistic/gifted
  
  • 
    Broader spectrum of competencies than autistic individuals whose mental abilities are weak
    
  • 
    Gifts to self and society are more effectively shared and accepted by others
    
  • 
    Parental involvement is key
    
  • 
    More easily “tolerated” by society as they learn behavior modification and metacognitive strategies (p. 26)
    
  • 
    Giftedness allows them to manipulate autistic tendencies
    
• 
  Negative impacts of being labeled autistic/gifted
  
  • 
    Forced to live in two worlds
    
  • 
    Inconsistent combination of strengths and weaknesses confuses uninformed teachers and peers.
    
  • 
    Treated with cruelty by other children
    
  • 
    Social rejection
    
  • 
    Strengths and weaknesses often mask each other
    
  • 
    Schools teach to their weaknesses rather than their strengths
    
• 
  Possible educational interventions for gifted individuals with autism:
  
  • 
    Early identification and screening
    
  • 
    Use of eclectic diagnostic instruments
    
  • 
    Parent support networks
    
  • 
    Coordinated teacher and parent training
    
  • 
    Structured behavior modification programs
    
  • 
    Channeling through islets of ability
    
  • 
    State of the art medical equipment and drugs
    
  • 
    Learning theory reforms
    

Henderson, L. M. (2001). Asperger’s Syndrome in Gifted Individuals, Gifted Child

• 
  DSM-IV Definition is provided for Diagnostic Criteria I, II, and III (p. 29)
  
• 
  “Hans Asperger, an Austriam psychologist, first published his description of a developmental syndrome in Europe in 1944.”
  
• 
  English-speaking psychologists did not recognize the syndrome until after Wing’e paper on Asperger in 1981.
  
• 
  “AS occurs 2-7 times more often in males as in females.” (p. 30)
  
• 
  “It seems as though the prevalence of AS in thee gifted population may have contributed to the mythological stereotype of the socially impaired gifted child.”
  
• 
  “Ehler’s research group (1997) found children with AS to exhibit strengths in verbal IQ, with arithmetic subtest scores lower than those on other verbal subtests.”
  
• 
  Several diagnostic scales are described and weighed against each other. (pp. 30-31)
  
• 
  Characteristics common to people with AS:
  
  • 
    Inefficient sensory system
    
  • 
    Amorphous sense of time
    
  • 
    Difficulty with social/emotional cues
    
  • 
    Cognitive inflexibility
    
  • 
    Attentional problems
    
  • 
    Problems with perspective taking
    
  • 
    High-level pragmatic communication deficits
    
  • 
    Difficulty with sense making as a result of very literal thinking
    
  • 
    Difficulty with perceiving and abiding by socially expected communication behaviors (pp. 31-32)
    
• 
  “The focused nature of academia or research can be a good career fit for persons dedicated to compiling an exhaustive database on any particular subject.”
  
• 
  Other good career fits: science or computer-related vocations, fact and detail-based jobs.
  
• 
  “Even though they long for peer companionship, many children with AS are more comfortable talking with adults. … Then again, preference for adults is often noted in gifted individuals.” (p. 33)
  
• 
  Teachers and adults working with students who are intellectually gifted and have AS must:
  
  • 
    Be sincere
    
  • 
    Respect individual differences
    
  • 
    Use a neutral tone of voice, showing no irritation
    
  • 
    Protect student from bullying by educating peers
    
  • 
    Work as a team with parents
    
  • 
    Seek information about AS and giftedness
    
  • 
    Involve personnel who have expertise in meeting both the gifted and AS needs of the student
    

McMullen, P. (2000). The Gifted Side of Autism, Focus on Autism and Other

• 
  Article is the author’s story of her life as an active autistic person (autism/pervasive developmental disorder)
  
• 
  Symptoms she experienced:
  
  • 
    Rocking
    
  • 
    Squirmed when held
    
  • 
    Tantrums
    
  • 
    Expressing herself in “odd” ways
    
  • 
    Clothes felt scratchy
    
  • 
    Couldn’t stand cigarette smoke (before it was ok to say so)
    
  • 
    Watched people’s lips when they talked
    
  • 
    Bothered by others’ perfume
    
  • 
    Understood students with LD—they made sense to her
    
  • 
    Heightened sensory awareness
    
• 
  Assets of Autism:
  
  • 
    Acute senses
    
  • 
    Some children with autism draw in 3-D perspectives at young age
    
  • 
    Some young autistic children are expert at swiftly putting together puzzles
    
  • 
    Most can visualize things as a whole easily
    
  • 
    Attentive to detail
    
  • 
    Some have savant math skills
    
  • 
    Almost compulsively tell the truth
    
  • 
    Generally good hearted and trusting
    
  • 
    Somewhat more psychic
    
  • 
    Possess perseveration (one-track mind)
    
  • 
    Deeply spiritual
    

Neihart, M. (2000). Gifted Children With Asperger’s Syndrome, Gifted Child Quarterly,

• 
  Asperger’s “is characterized by serious impairment in social interaction skills and repetitive behaviors and is believed to be the result of a specific brain anomaly.” (p. 222)
  
• 
  “It can be challenging to determine whether a child’s unusual development is a result of giftedness, a learning disability, or AS, especially among highly gifted children.”
  
• 
  Although Hans Asperger, the Austrian physician who first identified the syndrome in 1944 believed that it was more likely to be observed in “children of high intelligence and special abilities,” clinical research on AS has “focused on average or low-average intelligence. There has been surprisingly little examination of AS among gifted children.” (pp. 222-223)
  
• 
  AS is more common in boys than in girls.
  
• 
  Identifying characteristics:
  
  • 
    Little or no empathy
    
  • 
    Monotonous speech patterns
    
  • 
    Highly idiosyncratic and intense interests
    
  • 
    Social isolation as a result of inappropriate social communication
    
  • 
    Inflexible thoughts and habits
    
  • 
    No evidence of delayed speech
    
  • 
    Onset of difficulties is somewhat later than for other autism spectrum disorders
    
  • 
    More commonly experience motor deficits
    
  • 
    Eye contact is often odd. They may seem to gaze off or stare straight through those with whom they are conversing.
    
  • 
    Express some interest in people as they get older
    
  • 
    Speak before age 5
    
  • 
    Can become well adapted as adults, and even successful
    
  • 
    Some demonstrate unacceptable habits, such as eating odd things, inappropriate touching, gnashing their teeth, and aggressive actions
    
• 
  Characteristics common to gifted children and to children with AS:
  
  • 
    Verbal fluency or precocity
    
  • 
    Excellent memory
    
  • 
    Fascination with numbers or letters and enjoy memorizing factual information at an early age
    
  • 
    Demonstrate absorbing interest in a specialized topic
    
  • 
    Annoy peers with limitless talk about their interests
    
  • 
    May ask endless questions or give such lengthy and elaborately specific responses to questions that it seems they are unable to stop
    
  • 
    Hypersensitivity
    
  • 
    Range of abilities
    
  • 
    Uneven development – asynchronous development (p. 223)
    
• 
  Distinguishing characteristics:
  
  • 
    Speech Patterns: normal or stilted in GT vs. pedantic or seamless
    
  • 
    Response to Routines: passive resistance, followed by agreement in GT vs. agitation and aggression in AS
    
  • 
    Awareness of Differences: know they’re different/external disturbance in GT vs. little or no awareness of difference/internal disturbance in AS
    
  • 
    Humor: socially reciprocal humor in GT vs. word play but no understanding of socially reciprocal humor in AS
    
  • 
    Motor Clumsiness: not a characteristic of GT vs. 50 – 90% AS children
    
  • 
    Inappropriate Insight: not a characteristic of GT vs. nearly always observed in AS
    
  • 
    Insight: usually good in GT vs. usually remarkably absent in AS
    
  • 
    Stereotypy: not characteristic of GT vs. may be present in AS (p. 224)
    
• 
  Table of specific American Psychological Association diagnostic criteria used to diagnose AS (p. 226)
  
• 
  “AS children typically have difficulties in three areas: learning, socializing, and behaviors. [Gifted] AS students can benefit by learning compensatory strategies, just as gifted students with learning disabilities do.” These strategies for the AS student must take into account the AS brain – visual, thinking in concrete, literal pictures.
  
• 
  
  
  Directory: media
  media -> Acronyms 3 Mission Context and Background 5
  media -> Comemmoration of the bill for the abolition of the slave trade
  media -> Reflections on the 20
  media -> Chapter eleven: the presidency
  media -> Ma history Module Information ‘American Foreign Relations’ Synopsis
  media -> Assumptions of Asian American Similarity: The Case of Filipino and Chinese American Students
  media -> Latin America and the Caribbean in the Age of Revolution
  media -> Cecelia Quinn Dissertation Research
  media -> United States History Assessments Ninth Grade
  
  
  
  Download 240.14 Kb.
  
  Share with your friends: