The gifted child.

Pediatrics in Review (Impact Factor: 0.82). 08/2000; 21(7):240-2. DOI: 10.1542/pir.21-7-240
Source: PubMed
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Two studies were conducted to investigate the relationship between several nonintellectual personal attributes and satisfaction with acceleration among intellectually gifted students. First, two cohorts of gifted students (top 1% in ability and separated in age by five years) who had utilized acceleration during the course of their education were surveyed at age 18 and again at age 23. Overall, no strong relationships were found between satisfaction with acceleration and the nonintellectual factors at either age. Second, similar analyses were conducted for a subgroup of subjects, using the Adjective Check List and the Study of Values. Again, few significant correlations were found; the correlations that were statistically significant were small. These findings indicate that some non-intellectual personal attributes, which are often assumed important to the selection of students for acceleration or to the evaluation of participants in accelerative programs, actually may not be appropriate for these purposes.
    Journal of Youth and Adolescence 12/1992; 21(6):699-723. DOI:10.1007/BF01538740 · 2.72 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: After reviewing the debate that raged over Cyril Burt's [Br. J. Psychol. 57 (1966) 137] finding of a correlation of .771 for IQ scores in 53 pairs of monozygotic twins raised apart, this paper provides the transcript of a previously unpublished speech by Burt given on May 2, 1964, at the age of 81, on the occasion of his appointment as Patron to the Association of Educational Psychologists (AEP). Burt's speech is of special interest because it occurred just prior to the publication of a paper later alleged to be built on fraudulent data. Kamin [The Science and Politics of IQ (1974). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum] declared Burt's correlation of .771 to be implausibly high and implausibly invariant from that reported in his 1943 work. Hearnshaw [Cyril Burt: Psychologist (1979). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press] concluded that Burt had made up his data, and the Sunday Times (1976) even alleged that Burt had conjured his research assistants up out of thin air. Then, independent books by Joynson [The Burt Affair (1989). London: Routledge] and by Fletcher [Science, Ideology and The Media: The Cyril Burt Scandal (1991). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction] vindicated Burt (the “missing” research assistants were found and the twin data had not been “cooked”). More recently, Mackintosh [Cyril Burt: Fraud or Framed? (1995). Oxford: Oxford University Press] reiterated Hearnshaw's allegations of fraud, including the claim that Burt did not have access to new data after his retirement in 1950. However, as Fletcher pointed out, Burt was openly requesting educational psychologists to help him locate additional pairs of twins raised apart. Moreover, in the 1964 talk presented here, which allows Burt to speak for himself, Burt describes his wide access to the schools, teachers, and social workers of the London County Council from 1913 onwards and states how, half a century later, analyses were still going on. He describes the “potted history” of educational psychology in Britain, his 1913 appointment as psychologist for the London County Council, and some of his findings as Britain's first educational psychologist. With the whole panoply of his intellectual life on display and no quotes taken out of context, Burt's talk may incline some readers to take him at his word and to dismiss the accusations against him as “not proven.”
    Intelligence 11/2002; 30(6):555-567. DOI:10.1016/S0160-2896(02)00094-6 · 2.67 Impact Factor