Gifted students with coexisting disabilities, also known as twice-exceptional, are increasingly recognized in America’s schools. This increasing awareness needs to be met with equal enthusiasm for empirical investigation into the identification and treatment needs of this group of students. In this article, a 20-year review of the empirical literature examining twice-exceptionality, specifically gifted students with learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, or autism spectrum disorder, was conducted. Research strongly suggests that gifted students can have a coexisting disability and that comprehensive, individualized approaches toward diagnosis are necessary. Less is known about effective treatments and interventions that simultaneously highlight strengths and accommodate for areas of growth. Future research directions are offered that ideally will encourage scholars to discover more about effective diagnostic and intervention techniques for this very important group of gifted learners. Putting the Research to Use The purpose of this article is to provide a comprehensive summary of the last 20 years of empirical research examining gifted students with specific learning disabilities, Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder, or autism spectrum disorders. Scholars can extrapolate from this summary a research agenda that will move the field forward in the pursuit of empirically validated identification and intervention techniques with twice-exceptional learners. Educators are encouraged to use this information when developing gifted identification protocols in schools, accommodation plans for twice-exceptional students, and interventions that target specific strength and growth areas. Finally, parents of twice-exceptional learners can reference the empirical studies summarized as they search for research-based approaches to helping their child.

Clinical writing about psychotherapy clients has long been a part of didactic texts and research articles because it allows new treatments and interventions to be presented in an effective and memorable way. The main ways that clinicians write about their clients include obtaining informed consent, using client disguise, or creating case composites. Although many clinicians use a combination of all three approaches, this article specifically addresses the implications of using clinical writing informed consent. The present article begins with a brief history of clinical writing and an examination of the relevant standards in the current APA Ethics Code and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act; this is followed by a discussion of the benefits of engaging in the clinical writing informed consent process. Subsequently, the limitations of using clinical writing informed consent are explored, including the potentially negative impact on the therapeutic alliance and the client's progress. The article concludes that clinicians should be cautious when deciding to engage in clinical writing informed consent. Recommendations in the form of a checklist are provided to help clinicians identify when it is most appropriate to use client disguise or case composites, and how to do so, as well as when it is appropriate to engage in clinical writing informed consent. Future directions are considered.

Symptom validity tests (SVTs) are often used in neuropsychological assessment; however, recent studies indicate that cognitive impairment/dementia may contribute to failing scores on some effort tests. The purpose of this study was to characterize how individuals with Huntington disease (HD) perform on three SVTs and to examine the relationship between SVT performance and demographic and clinical variables. Results indicate that while the majority of HD patients passed the Repeatable Battery for the Assessment of Neuropsychological Status (RBANS) Effort Index (EI; 82% of n = 121) and the Test of Memory Malingering (92% of n = 36), failure of these SVTs was associated with poorer cognitive and adaptive functioning, and greater motor impairment. Results showed that less than one-third passed the RBANS Effort Scale (ES; 30% of n = 43) and few clinical and demographic variables were correlated with this SVT performance. Although some SVTs may be better suited to HD, cognitive ability should be considered when evaluating effort in HD.

No abstract

No abstract