A growing body of research concerns twice-exceptional students and particularly those who are gifted and have a learning disability (GLD). A child who is GLD has advanced intellectual gifts that coexist with a specific learning disability that interferes with an aspect of academic achievement. Although no organization collects twice-exceptionality prevalence data, it is estimated that more than 360,000 twiceexceptional children attend school in the United States (National Education Association, 2006). GLD students may experience better outcomes if they are identified as twice exceptional and receive dually differentiated curriculum to support their gifts and disabilities simultaneously (

No abstract

It is important to identify cognitive and achievement characteristics that differentiate students who are twice exceptional because they are gifted and have a learning disability (2e-LD) from gifted and average ability peers because this information informs empirically-based identification and support systems for this population. In this study, I classified school-age participants ( N = 3,865) in the nationally representative standardization sample for the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV) Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement as potentially gifted, 2e-LD, or of average ability based on their WJ IV performance. I compared mean levels of performance, strengths and weaknesses, and intraindividual heterogeneity across 2e-LD, gifted, and average-ability groups. The 2e-LD group demonstrated greater heterogeneity in performance, and their strengths and weaknesses were largely consistent with past research and writing on 2e-LD characteristics. Results support some 2e-LD identification recommendations from the literature and highlight the potential benefits of individualized assessment, dual differentiation, and a de-emphasis of speeded academic tasks.

No abstract

Many psychologists are curious about incorporating computer-assisted assessments into their practices but unsure whether the benefits of this technology will outweigh perceived costs and risks. The goal of this manuscript is to summarize literature related to practical benefits of adopting computer-assisted assessments compared to the limitations of traditional, "paper-and-pencil" measures. Automation of scoring and rote administration tasks can improve the accuracy and efficiency of assessments while reducing the cognitive load placed on the examiner. These direct benefits of computer-assisted assessments also have broader implications, including the potential for broader use of assessment in psychology, higher-quality patient care and experiences, increased cost-effectiveness, and enriched training opportunities. Psychologists who do not yet use assessments in their practice can begin to incorporate assessment more easily with computerassisted assessments, and psychologists who regularly conduct assessments can improve the efficiency and quality of their assessments by prioritizing the switch to computer-assisted assessments for clinical practice and training. We offer several practical suggestions to facilitate the adoption and transition processes. Public Significance StatementComputer-assisted assessments have the potential to reduce errors and save psychologists time and effort; however, most psychologists continue to use paper-and-pencil measures. We highlight the benefits of computer-assisted assessments, including improved patient care, enhanced training experiences, and reduced costs for the broader healthcare system. We also discuss potential barriers that may prevent psychologists from using these tools and practical solutions to overcoming these obstacles.