Aurora-a Assessment Battery--Dutch Version

Do Students in Gifted Programs Perform Better? Linking Gifted Program Participation to Achievement and Nonachievement Outcomes

“…Measurement issues such as the fact that attendance is captured on an ordinal scale in the ECLS-K:2011 weaken these results. Moreover, researchers have suggested that the chief benefits of gifted education may be attitudinal ones, such as academic selfconcept, which we do not measure (Gubbels et al, 2014;Hoge & Renzulli, 1993). We do capture a measure of student engagement, but only in two grades.…”

“…Unfortunately, previous studies examining the effects of different service delivery models on achievement and nonachievement outcomes generally do not apply research designs that allow for causal inference (for reviews, see Assouline et al, 2015;Delcourt et al, 2007;Goldring, 1990;Steenbergen-Hu et al, 2016;Steenbergen-Hu & Moon, 2011;Vaughn et al, 1991). In studies where an experimental design was applied (e.g., Callahan et al, 2015;Gavin et al, 2009;Gubbels et al, 2014), the focus has been on the efficacy of a particular curriculum or enrichment program relative to the counterfactual of participation in a "business as usual" gifted program, not participation relative to nonparticipation. Critically, we do not have rigorous national estimates of the relationship between receiving gifted services at the elementary level and student academic and nonacademic outcomes.…”

Emotional intelligence and giftedness.

“…SEL programs may also be specifically geared toward the aptitudes and needs of gifted children (e.g., Gubbels, Segers, & Verhoeven, 2014), although such efforts are in their infancy. It is important also to factor in the social context for the development of emotional competencies.…”