Access to this full-text is provided by MDPI.
Content available from Journal of Intelligence (J. Intell.)
This content is subject to copyright.
Citation: Pezzuti, Lina, Morena
Farese, James Dawe, and Marco
Lauriola. 2022. The Cognitive Profile
of Gifted Children Compared to
Those of Their Parents: A Descriptive
Study Using the Wechsler Scales.
Journal of Intelligence 10: 91. https://
doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040091
Received: 30 September 2022
Accepted: 19 October 2022
Published: 24 October 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Intelligence
Journal of
Article
The Cognitive Profile of Gifted Children Compared to Those of
Their Parents: A Descriptive Study Using the Wechsler Scales
Lina Pezzuti 1, Morena Farese 1, James Dawe 1and Marco Lauriola 2, *
1Department of Dynamic and Clinical Psychology and Health Studies, Sapienza University of Rome,
00185 Rome, Italy
2Department of Social and Developmental Psychology, Sapienza University of Rome, 00185 Rome, Italy
*Correspondence: marco.lauriola@uniroma1.it
Abstract:
The manifestation of performance at the top of a given talent distribution constitutes
giftedness. While identifying talented youths based on IQ has been the focus of previous research,
examining their cognitive profile is a new endeavor. The present study assessed the IQ and cognitive
abilities of a sample of gifted Italian children and compared them to their parents using the Wechsler
scales. Fifty-nine gifted children aged 6 to 14 years were administered the WISC-IV while their
parents (N= 53 mothers and N= 55 fathers) took the WAIS-IV. The gifted children (IQ
≥
120)
obtained particularly high scores in verbal comprehension (VCI) and visual-perceptual reasoning
(PRI). More than two-thirds of the mothers and over half of the fathers also achieved an IQ
≥
120.
The gifted children scored significantly higher than both mothers and fathers in VCI and PRI. The
mothers were significantly higher than their children in the processing speed domain. Correlational
analyses highlighted that children’s IQ was positively related to that of their mothers. In keeping
with the literature, the cognitive profile of gifted children was found to vary across cognitive abilities.
It follows that the General Ability Index was the WISC-IV index that best matched the potential
of gifted youths. Consistent with previous research, our study suggests that intellectual abilities,
especially working memory and processing speed, are maintained and presumably passed on from
one generation to the next.
Keywords: giftedness; IQ; cognitive abilities; Wechsler scales; parent-children inheritance
1. Introduction
There is general agreement that giftedness is a complex pattern of genetic, personal,
and behavioral characteristics that result in exceptional abilities manifested in different
ways in one or more areas considered to be prominent at a given point in time in one’s
culture of belonging (e.g., Keating 2009;Pfeiffer 2012;Worrell and Erwin 2011). General
intellectual ability, specific scholastic aptitudes, creative thinking, leadership, and the visual
and performing arts are the major areas of giftedness expression in the Western world.
1.1. The Evaluation of Giftedness in Children
Until recently, a high Intelligence Quotient (IQ) was the only trait thought to distin-
guish gifted individuals in the population. For example, Carman (2013) found that using
a general ability test (often the only measure used) was the most popular way to identify
gifted individuals in 62% of the studies. However, at present, a multi-component view of
giftedness emerged. In addition to high IQ, gifted individuals were found to share other
characteristics, although in varying modalities and intensity, such as having a wide range of
interests, intense curiosity and thirst for knowledge, strong communication skills, intuition,
problem-solving skills, advanced logical skills, imagination and creativity, deep sensitivity,
and empathy (e.g., Zanetti 2017).
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91. https://doi.org/10.3390/jintelligence10040091 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/jintelligence
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 2 of 15
Although IQ represents only a partial expression of giftedness, according to a purely
psychometric view, giftedness is defined by an IQ of 130 or higher, placing gifted individ-
uals at least two standard deviations above the population mean. However, no shortage
of authors extended this range, considering people who have an IQ below 130 as gifted
individuals. For example, Ruf (2005) proposed five levels of giftedness, with individuals
with IQ scores between 117 and 129 being considered “moderately gifted”. Not too dis-
similar to Ruf (2005), Silverman (2009;2018) also proposed five levels of giftedness (i.e.,
mild, moderate, high, exceptional, and profound) starting at a minimum level of 120 IQ
points. Both classifications are based on performance in psychometric tests. However, there
is another reason to lower the IQ cutoff for giftedness below 130. For example, the most
widely used studies on gifted education identify gifted scores in the range of 115–129 IQ
points for students who are non-native English speakers or come from low-education
families (e.g., Crabtree et al. 2019). In countries where linguistic and cultural minorities are
less prevalent or more supported within a public education system, the use of IQ may be
an all-too-fair criterion in screening for and assessing giftedness. However, it appears that
the idea of maintaining a lower threshold than 130 IQ points or differentiating even wider
performance bands is gaining traction. For example, the definition of “high-potential”
individuals with IQ scores between 120 and 129 could be used (Sartori 2019;Zanetti 2017)
precisely because during the assessment they showed the potential to excel while obtaining
an IQ score below 130 on standardized tests.
One of the best-known and most widely used instruments for assessing the cognitive
abilities of children and adolescents is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth
Edition (WISC-IV). Analysis of the WISC-IV cognitive profiles of gifted children revealed
that these children’s greatest cognitive strengths were in verbal reasoning, visual perception,
and fluid reasoning (e.g., Liratni and Pry 2007,2012;Rimm et al. 2008;Silverman 2009). In
contrast, working memory ability and speed of cognitive processing, despite being typically
higher than the general population average, were found to be a “weak” point in the profile
of the gifted (e.g., Morrone et al. 2019;Rimm et al. 2008;Rowe et al. 2014). These findings
have suggested that gifted children’s preference for accuracy over speed may account
for their relatively lower performance in cognitive processing speed tests (Morrone et al.
2019). Indeed, gifted children are thought to work meticulously, implementing frequent
self-monitoring mechanisms that can penalize execution speed.
Discrepancies in the cognitive profiles of the gifted have also led scholars to speculate
that the full-scale IQ is by no means the cognitive index that best captures the complexity
of their intellectual endowment (Morrone et al. 2019;Rimm et al. 2008;Rowe et al. 2014;
Silverman 2009;Sparrow et al. 2005). In place of or in addition to the full-scale IQ, it has
been suggested that the WISC-IV General Ability Index be considered to minimize the
impact of speed and memory subtests in which gifted children tend to perform below their
average (Hagmann-von Arx et al. 2008;Rimm et al. 2008;Silverman 2009;Sparrow et al.
2005). For example, in an Italian study (Toffalini et al. 2017) involving a large sample of
gifted children with a specific learning disorder, giftedness emerged more clearly when the
General Ability Index was used.
However, not all researchers agree. For example, Rowe et al. (2014) maintain that
neither the IQ nor the General Ability Index can capture the complexity of the intellectual
profile of the gifted. As a result, these authors advocated for the use of the WISC-IV broad
abilities, which can explain more than 60% of the variance in the gifted cognitive profile.
1.2. Children’s Giftedness and Parents’ Cognitive Abilities
While studies that have focused on intellectual endowment have multiplied over the
past few decades, there is still very limited knowledge about the cognitive characteristics
of the parents of gifted children. Since earlier anecdotal observations made by Galton, the
implementation and development over the past century of increasingly better-designed
studies with larger and more generalizable samples have allowed researchers to conclude
that about half of the variability in human intelligence can be explained by hereditary
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 3 of 15
factors transmitted from one generation to the next (Deary et al. 2006,2009;Guez et al.
2021). Furthermore, while it would seem more reasonable to expect that the influence
of heredity would diminish as new experiences accumulate over the course of one’s life,
genetic studies have revealed that gene-related variability in intelligence test scores rises
from around 30% in childhood to 80% in adulthood (Deary et al. 2009).
Geneticists believe that the high heritability of intelligence is due to a phenomenon
known as assortative mating, which can be explained as follows: two partners with
similar cognitive abilities are more likely to choose each other than by chance. Data
reported by several studies (Deary et al. 2006;Guez et al. 2021;Plomin and Deary 2015;
Plomin and Spinath 2004) are consistent with this view. For example, when the personality
characteristics of the spouses are analyzed, the correlations between partners are null or
small (r
≈
.10); in contrast, when their cognitive abilities are examined, the correlations are
moderate (up to r
≈
.40) (Deary et al. 2006;Plomin and Deary 2015;Plomin and Spinath
2004).
If about half of the variability in human intelligence can be explained by hereditary
factors (Deary et al. 2006,2009), the remaining part can be due to environmental factors.
Thus, there has been increasing evidence supporting the importance of shared environmen-
tal influence in the development of intellectual abilities (Guez et al. 2021). For example,
when comparing parents and adopted children, the correlations were found to be small
(r
≈
.19), while comparing parents and biological children, the correlation was higher
(r
≈
.41) (Plomin and Spinath 2004). Because adoptive siblings have different genetics,
what undoubtedly made them similar was sharing the same family environment. However,
the many efforts made to identify the specific environmental characteristics that can influ-
ence cognitive development have been unsuccessful, although the contribution of some
socioeconomic variables has not been ruled out (Plomin and Spinath 2004).
When researchers examined the concordance of parents’ cognitive level with that of
their children, the data collected suggested that there is greater consistency in mother-
child dyads than in father-child dyads (Anger and Heineck 2010;Calderon and Hoddinott
2010;Demange et al. 2022;Grönqvist et al. 2010). For example, Anger and Heineck (2010)
showed that the correlations of IQ between parents and children were r
≈
.34 for father-
daughter dyads and r
≈
.48 for mother-daughter dyads. Similarly, Grönqvist et al. (2010)
assessed father-son correlations to be r
≈
.51, while mother-son correlations were found
to be r
≈
.59. The same study also assessed the parent-child similarities in non-cognitive
variables, concluding that mother-child and father-child correlations were more similar
(i.e., r ≈.46).
Recently, researchers coined the term “gene-environment interaction” to combine
genetic data with those that support the influence of the environment on cognitive devel-
opment (Sauce and Matzel 2018). This approach, which led to the abolition of the now
outdated dichotomy between nature and culture, had an even greater benefit: it restored
the vision of humanity not destined to be influenced by genes or social background but
capable, if necessary, of selecting, modifying, or creating from scratch a living environment
in which to express its potential (Plomin and Spinath 2004;Sauce and Matzel 2018).
1.3. The Present Study
The main objective of the present study is to investigate the similarities and differences
in the cognitive profiles of gifted children and their parents in general intellectual ability and
broad cognitive abilities. In particular, the present study takes advantage of the Wechsler
scales (WISC-IV and WAIS-IV), which have been not only widely used to assess giftedness
in children and adults but also have similar structural characteristics and psychometric
properties. Indeed, using the Wechsler scale, one can obtain an IQ, four primary indices
relative to broad abilities (verbal comprehension, perceptual reasoning, working memory,
and processing speed), and two supplementary indices reflecting the general ability and
the cognitive proficiency of the profile.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 4 of 15
First, we assessed the cognitive profile of a sample of children, with an IQ
≥
120 on
the WISC-IV, hypothesizing that their cognitive abilities would be relatively higher in the
domains of verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning while obtaining relatively
lower scores in working memory and processing speed (Morrone et al. 2019;Rimm et al.
2008;Rowe et al. 2014;Silverman 2009). Consequently, we expected the children’s profile
to be characterized by relatively higher general ability than cognitive proficiency (Toffalini
et al. 2017).
In a similar vein, we assessed the cognitive profiles of the parents using the WAIS-
IV. In keeping with previous research using typically developing samples (Deary et al.
2009;Plomin and Spinath 2004;Plomin and von Stumm 2018), we hypothesized that a
large percentage of parents of gifted children would obtain a higher IQ than the general
population as well as primary and supplementary indices scores (especially in verbal
comprehension, perceptual reasoning, and general ability) above the average of the national
standardization sample. To the best ofour knowledge, no previous study surveyed a sample
of parents of gifted children and compared them in the same broad ability areas. Therefore,
the data we presented in this paper represent an element of novelty and have no terms of
comparison in the literature.
Finally, we compared the profile of parents to that of their gifted children. Based on
the reviewed literature (Deary et al. 2006,2009;Plomin and Spinath 2004;Plomin and von
Stumm 2018), we expected a positive, moderate correlation between the corresponding IQ
scores of the WISC-IV and the WAIS-IV. Previous research has not only pointed out that
intellectual abilities are passed on from one generation to the next (Bouchard and McGue
1981;Deary et al. 2006) but also that there is a greater concordance between the cognitive
level of mothers and children than between the cognitive level of fathers and children
(Anger and Heineck 2010;Grönqvist et al. 2010). If any, we expect greater correlations in
mother-child dyads than in father-child ones.
To the best of our knowledge, no previous study has compared gifted children to
their parents in broad cognitive abilities, such as the primary and additional indices of the
Wechsler scales. Therefore, another novel aspect of this study is to analyze and describe the
performance trends in the subdomains of intelligence in parents and gifted children.
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Participants
Participants were recruited through advertisements on the websites of parents’ associ-
ations of gifted children and related social network groups. Upon learning about the study,
all participating families chose to join voluntarily and without compensation. To confirm
that eligible children qualified as moderately gifted or gifted, they had to score between
120 and 129 for the former and 130 or higher for the latter on the FSIQ of the WISC-IV. As
a result, 59 MG or gifted children and adolescents (19 girls and 40 boys) aged between
6 and 14 years (M = 10.03 years; SD = 2.18 years) were identified and recruited for the
present study. Boys (M = 10.40 years; SD = 2.02 years) were older than girls (M = 9.26 years;
SD = 2.35 years), but this difference was not statistically significant (t =
−
1.91, df = 57,
p= .060). Moreover, no gender differences were found in the children’s IQ. All children at-
tended public schools in Italy, and the majority of the sample was comprised of middle-class
families.
The parents of each child were also tested using the WAIS-IV, and data were collected
from 53 mothers and 55 fathers. Mother’s age ranged from 36 to 55 years (M = 43.70 years;
SD = 4.11 years), while father’s age ranged from 36 to 70 years (M = 45.75 years; SD = 5.48 years),
t(48) =
−
3.51, p< .001, Cohen’s d =
−
.50. Mothers were overall more educated than fathers
(t = 6.45, df = 54, p< .001; Cohen’s d = .87), see Table 1for parents’ educational qualifications.
The mothers’ IQ scores were also higher than that obtained by the fathers (t = 2.35, df = 48,
p= .023; Cohen’s d = .34). Wechsler scales were administered specifically for this study, and
data were not obtained via prior records. There were no administration differences due to
setting (e.g., private testing vs. school-based administration). Both children and parents
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 5 of 15
were evaluated under standardized conditions at the psychological testing laboratory of
the Department of Dynamic, Clinical and Health Studies of Sapienza University of Rome.
Before testing, all participants provided written informed consent and were recruited
voluntarily. The study was approved by the local ethical committee at the Department of
Dynamic, Clinical and Health Studies of Sapienza University of Rome.
Table 1. Frequency distribution of Educational qualification in mothers’ and fathers’ samples.
Mothers Fathers
Educational Qualification n % n %
Junior high school - - 5 9.1
High school 10 18.8 24 43.6
Degree 25 47.2 23 41.8
Post-graduate 18 34.0 3 5.5
PhD 4 7.5 1 1.8
Master 9 17.0 1 1.8
Master + PhD 4 7.5 - -
Other qualifications 1 19.0 1 1.8%
Total 53 100.0 55 100.0
2.2. Instruments
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Fourth Edition-Italian version (WISC-IV;
Orsini et al. 2012). The WISC-IV is an instrument aimed at assessing the cognitive abilities
of children and adolescents between the ages of 6 and 16. The scale, through the administra-
tion of 15 subtests-10 basic and 5 supplementary-provides a Full-Scale IQ (FSIQ), putatively
reflecting the g-factor of intelligence, and four primary indices corresponding to broad
cognitive abilities (i.e., Verbal Comprehension Index, or VCI; Perceptual Reasoning Index,
or PRI; Working Memory Index, or WMI; and Processing Speed Index, or PSI). Furthermore,
two supplementary indices can be derived: the General Ability Index (GAI), which is an
estimate of intellectual functioning obtained by six subtests of VCI and PRI only, and the
Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI), which reflects efficient information processing obtained
by four subtests of WMI and PSI (e.g., Kaufman et al. 2006;Rimm et al. 2008;Watkins et al.
2006).
Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-Fourth Edition-Italian version (WAIS-IV; Orsini
and Pezzuti 2013). The WAIS-IV is a clinical tool used to assess the cognitive abilities of
people ranging in age from 16 to 90 years. It consists of the following 15 subtests (10 core
and five supplementary): Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension, Block
Design, Matrix Reasoning, Visual Puzzles, Figure Weights, Figure Completion, Digit Span,
Arithmetic, Letter-Number Sequencing, Symbol Search, Coding, and Cancellation. Like
the previously described WISC-IV, the WAIS-IV yields four primary indices, each of which
corresponds to a broad ability area (i.e., VCI, PRI, WMI, and PSI). Averaging the four
indices, one can obtain the FSIQ, while GAI and CPI can be obtained by subtests of VCI
and PRI, and WMI and PSI, respectively.
2.3. Data Analysis
The frequency distributions of children’s and parents’ Wechsler scale scores were
examined for violations of normality. The Shapiro–Wilk’s test was significant for the
children’s FSIQ (p= .018), the mother’s GAI (p= .017), and the father ’s FSIQ (p= .030),
VCI (p= .004), and GAI (p= .002). However, the distributions were only moderately
asymmetrical, with a skewness between
−
1.0 and 1.0 for all variables. The Kurtosis was
between
−
3 and 3 for all variables, indicating that extreme values were not very different
from those expected according to normal data distribution. Thus, although some significant
deviations from the assumption of normality were observed, none of the variables examined
was of concern.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 6 of 15
To examine the cognitive profile of the research participants, descriptive analyses
were conducted both on continuous IQ scores and by score categories. Because there is no
consensus in the literature on the width of intervals for classifying giftedness, sometimes
resorting to arbitrary intervals of varying widths depending on IQ level (e.g., Wasserman
2013), we used 10-point intervals for the analysis in this study. This decision was made
based on the descriptive classification proposed in the Italian WISC-IV standardization
manual (Orsini et al. 2012), which is referred to in the American WISC-IV technical and
interpretive manual (Wechsler 2003). When using the Wechsler scales, we believe that these
intervals have greater sensitivity than the 15-point intervals for highlighting variability
in children’s cognitive abilities. Therefore, the following four levels of performance were
considered for each of the Wechsler scale scores: (1) Gifted, if the score was greater than or
equal to 130; (2) Moderately Gifted, if the score was between 120 and 129; (3) Above average, if
the score was between 110 and 119; (4) Average, if the score was below 110.
A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the Wechsler scores
in the Children sample, while in the Mothers and Fathers sample, the same analysis
included parental gender as a between-subjects factor. These analyses were aimed to
investigate whether and which ability was relatively higher than others in the cognitive
profile of each participant. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests were calculated to evaluate
within-subjects differences and to compare mothers to fathers on specific IQ scores.
To examine the associations between children’s IQ scores and both mother’s and
father’s scores, a series of paired t-tests analyzed dyadic differences, contrasting mother
and children, and father and children, respectively. Pearson and intraclass correlations
were used to establish the degree of similarity between children and parent dyads.
3. Results
3.1. The Cognitive Profile of Gifted Children
The frequencies with which the seven WISC-IV indices fell in the average, above
average, moderately gifted, and gifted performance ranges were calculated for the entire
sample and reported in Table 2. According to the selection criteria, all participants had an
FSIQ
≥
120. This notwithstanding, the analyses of the WISC-IV primary indices showed
that most participants were just in the average or above average ranges in the working
memory and processing speed indices (WMI and PSI, respectively). Only the distribution
of verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning indices (VCI and PRI) mirrored quite
well that of the FSIQ. As a result, the distribution of scores based on the two supplemental
indices showed that all children had a General Ability Index (GAI)
≥
120, while less than
40% had a Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI) in the moderately gifted or gifted ranges.
Table 2. Frequency distribution of WISC-IV indices by children’s level of performance.
Level of Performance
Indices
Average
(<110)
Above Average
(110–119)
Moderately Gifted
(120–29)
Gifted
(≥130)
n%n%n%n%
FSIQ - - - - 23 39.0 36 61.0
VCI - - 6 10.2 20 33.9 33 55.9
PRI - - 6 10.2 17 28.8 36 61.0
WMI 21 35.6 19 32.2 11 18.6 8 13.5
PSI 28 47.5 12 20.3 13 22.0 6 10.2
GAI - - 1 1.7 13 22.0 45 76.3
CPI 16 27.1 21 35.6 11 18.6 11 18.6
Legend: FSIQ = Full-Scale IQ; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index;
WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cogni-
tive Proficiency Index (CPI). Note: N= 59.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 7 of 15
Figure 1shows the cognitive profile of the children using the WISC-IV primary and
supplementary indices. The within-subject variability of primary indices was statistically
significant (F
3,174
= 63.00; p< .001; partial
η2
= .52). Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests
(reported in Table 3) showed that verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning abilities
were superior to working memory ability and speed of cognitive processes, while verbal
comprehension and perceptual reasoning did not differ from each other (as did working
memory and speed of cognitive processes). Again, these findings suggested that Moderately
Gifted and Gifted children performed better on tasks that require an understanding of
verbal information, thinking and reasoning with words, expressing thoughts as words,
solving nonverbal problems, using eye-hand coordination, and working quickly and
efficiently with visual information (Hagmann-von Arx et al. 2008;Morrone et al. 2019;
Rimm et al. 2008;Rowe et al. 2014). Consequently, the GAI outperformed the CPI in the
children sample (F
3,174
= 109.01; p< .001; partial
η2
= .65). Indeed, the GAI was greater than
130 (i.e., two standard deviations above the average IQ), while the CPI was just around 115
(i.e., one standard deviation above the average IQ).
J.Intell.2022,10,xFORPEERREVIEW7of16
Legend:FSIQ=Full‐ScaleIQ;VCI=VerbalComprehensionIndex;PRI=PerceptualReasoningIn‐
dex;WMI=WorkingMemoryIndex;PSI=ProcessingSpeedIndex;GAI=GeneralAbilityIndex;
CPI=CognitiveProficiencyIndex(CPI).Note:N=59.
Figure1showsthecognitiveprofileofthechildrenusingtheWISC‐IVprimaryand
supplementaryindices.Thewithin‐subjectvariabilityofprimaryindiceswasstatistically
significant(F3,174=63.00;p<.001;partialη²=.52).Bonferroni‐correctedposthoctests(re‐
portedinTable3)showedthatverbalcomprehensionandperceptualreasoningabilities
weresuperiortoworkingmemoryabilityandspeedofcognitiveprocesses,whileverbal
comprehensionandperceptualreasoningdidnotdifferfromeachother(asdidworking
memoryandspeedofcognitiveprocesses).Again,thesefindingssuggestedthatModerately
GiftedandGiftedchildrenperformedbetterontasksthatrequireanunderstandingofver‐
balinformation,thinkingandreasoningwithwords,expressingthoughtsaswords,solving
nonverbalproblems,usingeye‐handcoordination,andworkingquicklyandefficiently
withvisualinformation(Hagmann‐vonArxetal.2008;Morroneetal.2019;Rimmetal.2008;
Roweetal.2014).Consequently,theGAIoutperformedtheCPIinthechildrensample(F3,174
=109.01;p<.001;partialη²=.65).Indeed,theGAIwasgreaterthan130(i.e.,twostandard
deviationsabovetheaverageIQ),whiletheCPIwasjustaround115(i.e.,onestandardde‐
viationabovetheaverageIQ).
(a)(b)
Figure1.ThecognitiveprofileofModeratelyGiftedandGiftedchildrenusing(a)WISC‐IVprimary
indices;(b)WISC‐IVsupplementaryindices.Whiskersrepresentthe95%confidenceinterval(CI),
andcirclesrepresenttheaveragescoreobtainedbythesample.
Table3.Bonferroni‐correctedposthoctestscomparingtheWISC‐IVprimaryindices.
ComparisonMeanDifferenceSEdftpbonferroni
VCI‐PRI−2.731.7458−1.57.737
VCI‐WMI16.411.94588.48<.001
VCI‐ PSI18.952.35588.06<.001
PRI‐WMI19.141.615811.86<.001
PRI‐PSI21.682.145810.11<.001
WMI‐ PSI2.541.99581.281
Legend:FSIQ=Full‐ScaleIQ;VCI=VerbalComprehensionIndex;PRI=PerceptualReasoningIn‐
dex;WMI=WorkingMemoryIndex;PSI=ProcessingSpeedIndex;GAI=GeneralAbilityIndex;
CPI=CognitiveProficiencyIndex(CPI).Note:N=59.
Next,wecountedthenumberofWISC‐IVindicesinwhicheachchildscored≥120.As
showninTable4,allchildrenhadatleastoneindexinthegiftedrange.However,mostof
thesample(47.5%)reachedorexceededascoreof120onlyintwooutoffourindices.Only
ninechildren(15.3%)scoredhigherthanorequalto120inallfourbroadabilityareasofthe
WISC‐IV.Inaddition,while81%ofthesubjectsachievedanIQscore≥120inbothCVIand
Figure 1.
The cognitive profile of Moderately Gifted and Gifted children using (
a
) WISC-IV primary
indices; (
b
) WISC-IV supplementary indices. Whiskers represent the 95% confidence interval (CI),
and circles represent the average score obtained by the sample.
Table 3. Bonferroni-corrected post hoc tests comparing the WISC-IV primary indices.
Comparison Mean Difference SE df t pbonferroni
VCI - PRI −2.73 1.74 58 −1.57 .737
VCI - WMI 16.41 1.94 58 8.48 <.001
VCI - PSI 18.95 2.35 58 8.06 <.001
PRI - WMI 19.14 1.61 58 11.86 <.001
PRI - PSI 21.68 2.14 58 10.11 <.001
WMI - PSI 2.54 1.99 58 1.28 1
Legend: FSIQ = Full-Scale IQ; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index;
WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cogni-
tive Proficiency Index (CPI). Note: N= 59.
Next, we counted the number of WISC-IV indices in which each child scored
≥
120. As
shown in Table 4, all children had at least one index in the gifted range. However, most of
the sample (47.5%) reached or exceeded a score of 120 only in two out of four indices. Only
nine children (15.3%) scored higher than or equal to 120 in all four broad ability areas of
the WISC-IV. In addition, while 81% of the subjects achieved an IQ score
≥
120 in both CVI
and PRI, only 15% achieved the same result in both WMI and PSI. These results represent
further evidence that giftedness does not necessarily involve excellent performance in all
ability areas, at least those examined by the WISC-IV scale.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 8 of 15
Table 4. Count of WISC-IV primary indices with a score ≥120.
Number of WISC-IV Primary Indices (≥120) n%
4 9 15.3
3 15 25.4
2 28 47.5
1 7 11.9
0 - -
Total 59 100
3.2. The Cognitive Profile of Parents of Moderately Gifted or Gifted Children
Replicating Table 2, Table 5reports the frequencies with which the seven WAIS-IV
indices fell in the average, above average, moderately gifted, and gifted performance
ranges for the maternal and paternal samples. Approximately 68% of the mothers and
58% of the fathers had an FSIQ
≥
120. With the only exception of WMI, the percentage of
mothers scoring
≥
120 in the remaining WAIS-IV indices of the scale was higher than the
corresponding percentage of fathers.
Table 5.
Frequency distribution of WAIS-IV indices by (a) mother’s and (b) father ’s level of perfor-
mance.
(a) Mother’s Level of Performance a
Indices
Average
(<110)
Above Average
(110–119)
Moderately Gifted
(120–129)
Gifted
(≥130)
n%n%n%n%
FSIQ 3 5.7 14 26.4 23 43.4 13 24.5
VCI 4 7.5 18 34.0 19 35.8 12 22.6
PRI 9 17.0 16 30.2 20 37.7 8 15.1
WMI 28 52.8 16 30.2 7 13.2 2 3.8
PSI 14 26.4 7 13.2 14 26.4 18 34.0
GAI 4 7.5 14 26.4 22 41.5 13 24.5
CPI 12 22.6 14 26.4 23 43.4 4 7.5
(b) Father’s Level of Performance b
Indices
Average
(<110)
Above Average
(110–119)
Moderately Gifted
(120–129)
Gifted
(≥130)
n%n%n%n%
FSIQ 14 25.5 9 16.4 16 29.1 16 29.1
VCI 15 27.3 10 18.2 26 47.3 4 7.3
PRI 7 12.7 26 47.3 15 27.3 7 12.7
WMI 31 56.4 9 16.4 12 21.8 3 5.5
PSI 20 36.4 17 30.9 9 16.4 9 16.4
GAI 15 27.3 14 25.5 14 25.5 12 21.8
CPI 19 34.5 12 21.8 17 30.9 7 12.7
Legend: FSIQ = Full-Scale IQ; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index;
WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cogni-
tive Proficiency Index (CPI). Note: aN= 53; bN= 55.
Figure 2shows the cognitive profile of the mothers and fathers of moderately gifted
and gifted children using the WAIS-IV primary and supplementary indices. The analysis
of primary indices (Figure 2a) showed that the cognitive profile of mothers was overall
higher than that of fathers (F
1,48
= 5.17; p= .028; partial
η2
= .10), and the within-subject
variability of primary indices was also statistically significant (F
3,144
= 21.78; p<.001; partial
η2
= .52). In contrast, the sample
×
index interaction did not reach the conventional
levels of significance (F
3,144
= 2.19; p= .092; partial
η2
= .04). Both in the mothers’ sample
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 9 of 15
and the fathers’ sample, the verbal comprehension ability and the perceptual reasoning
performance were superior to working memory ability.
J. Intell. 2022, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 15
Legend: FSIQ = Full-Scale IQ; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning In-
dex; WMI = Working Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index;
CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index (CPI). Note: a N = 53; b N = 55.
(a)
(b)
Figure 2. The cognitive profile of mothers and fathers of Moderately Gifted and Gifted children
using (a) WAIS-IV primary indices; (b) WAIS-IV supplementary indices. Whiskers represent the
95% confidence interval (CI), and circles represent the average score obtained by each sample.
Unlike their children’s cognitive profiles, the speed of cognitive processes in both
parent samples was on par with verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning (Table
6, panels a and b). In the mothers’ sample only, the speed of cognitive processes was also
significantly greater than working memory (Table 6a).
Table 6. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests comparing the WISC-IV primary indices.
(a) Mother’s Sample
Comparison
Mean Difference
SE
df
t
pbonferroni
VCI
-
PRI
1.63
1.55
48
1.05
1
VCI
-
WMI
11.39
1.78
48
6.41
<.001
VCI
-
PSI
.20
2.42
48
.08
1
PRI
-
WMI
9.76
1.51
48
6.46
<.001
PRI
-
PSI
−1.43
2.09
48
−.68
1
WMI
-
PSI
−11.18
2.29
48
−4.88
<.001
(b) Father’s Sample
Comparison
Mean Difference
SE
df
t
pbonferroni
VCI
-
PRI
−1.51
1.91
48
−.79
1
VCI
-
WMI
6.84
1.77
48
3.87
.009
VCI
-
PSI
1.86
1.67
48
1.11
1
PRI
-
WMI
8.35
1.92
48
4.34
.002
PRI
-
PSI
3.37
1.75
48
1.93
1
WMI
-
PSI
−4.98
1.95
48
−2.56
.385
Legend: VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working
Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Profi-
ciency Index. Note: N = 49 (listwise)
The analysis of supplementary indices (Figure 2b) confirmed the overall higher eleva-
tion of the Mother’s profile (F1,48 = 5.14; p = .028; partial η2 = .10) as well as the significance of
the within-subject factor, with both superior performances obtained in the GAI than in the
CPI (F1,48 = 27.29; p <.001; partial η² = .36). The sample index interaction was not significant
Figure 2.
The cognitive profile of mothers and fathers of Moderately Gifted and Gifted children
using (
a
) WAIS-IV primary indices; (
b
) WAIS-IV supplementary indices. Whiskers represent the 95%
confidence interval (CI), and circles represent the average score obtained by each sample.
Unlike their children’s cognitive profiles, the speed of cognitive processes in both
parent samples was on par with verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning (Table 6,
panels a and b). In the mothers’ sample only, the speed of cognitive processes was also
significantly greater than working memory (Table 6a).
Table 6. Bonferroni-corrected post-hoc tests comparing the WISC-IV primary indices.
(a) Mother’s Sample
Comparison Mean Difference SE df t pbonferroni
VCI - PRI 1.63 1.55 48 1.05 1
VCI - WMI 11.39 1.78 48 6.41 <.001
VCI - PSI .20 2.42 48 .08 1
PRI - WMI 9.76 1.51 48 6.46 <.001
PRI - PSI −1.43 2.09 48 −.68 1
WMI - PSI −11.18 2.29 48 −4.88 <.001
(b) Father’s Sample
Comparison Mean Difference SE df t pbonferroni
VCI - PRI −1.51 1.91 48 −.79 1
VCI - WMI 6.84 1.77 48 3.87 .009
VCI - PSI 1.86 1.67 48 1.11 1
PRI - WMI 8.35 1.92 48 4.34 .002
PRI - PSI 3.37 1.75 48 1.93 1
WMI - PSI −4.98 1.95 48 −2.56 .385
Legend: VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index;
PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index. Note: N= 49
(listwise)
The analysis of supplementary indices (Figure 2b) confirmed the overall higher eleva-
tion of the Mother’s profile (F
1,48
= 5.14; p= .028; partial
η2
= .10) as well as the significance
of the within-subject factor, with both superior performances obtained in the GAI than in
the CPI (F
1,48
= 27.29; p< .001; partial
η2
= .36). The sample
×
index interaction was not
significant (F
1,48
= 0.03; p= .865; partial
η2
= .00). Consequently, the GAI outperformed the
CPI in the parent samples as well as in the children sample.
3.3. Similarities and Differences in the Cognitive Profile of Parents and Children
A correlational analysis was carried out based on 53 mother-child and 55 father-child
dyads to investigate the similarities between the parents’ cognitive profile and that of their
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 10 of 15
moderately gifted and gifted children. As shown in Table 7, the correlations obtained
from mother-child dyads were either statistically significant or approaching statistical
significance. The intraclass correlations, representing the percentage of variance in the
data accounted for by the dyad, ranged from 10% for VCI and GAI to 25% for PSI. The
similarity in FSIQ between mothers and their children was estimated at 17%. Conversely,
the correlations obtained from father-child dyads were near zero, except for PRI and WMI,
approaching statistical significance only for the latter index. Because the mother’s level
of education, but not that of the father, was found to influence the children’s intellectual
performance (e.g., Kong et al. 2015), we also analyzed the partial correlations obtained from
mother-child dyads controlling for the mother’s years of education. The partial correlations
controlling for mother education were somewhat lower in size than zero-order correlations
and remained statistically significant only for WMI (r= .23, p<.05) and PSI (r= .30, p<.05).
Controlling also for father education, none of the partial correlations remained statistically
significant, albeit approaching the conventional levels.
Table 7. Pairwise correlations between parent WAIS-IV scores and child WISC-IV scores.
(a) Mother-Child Correlations 1(b) Father-Child Correlations 2
r p ICC CI 90% r p ICC CI 90%
FSIQ .26 (.029) .17 [.01; .32] −.01 (.514) .00 [−.09;.10]
VCI .16 (.124) .10 [−.02; .23] .08 (.271) .04 [−.05; .14]
PRI .25 (.034) .14 [−.01; .28] .15 (.132) .08 [−.03; .19]
WMI .22 (.058) .22 [.07; .37] .21 (.061) .19 [.03; .34]
PSI .31 (.013) .25 [.10; .40] −.05 (.644) .00 [−.17; .17]
GAI .24 (.045) .10 [−.02; .23] −.01 (.518) .00 [−.06; .08]
CPI .22 (.056) .23 [.07; .38] .01 (.460) .01 [−.15; .18]
Legend: FSIQ = Full-scale IQ; VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Work-
ing Memory Index; PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency
Index. ICC = Intraclass correlations. CI 90% = 90% confidence interval of the intraclass correlations. r = Pearson
correlation. p = one-tailed significance level of Pearson correlation. Note: 1N= 53 dyads. 2N= 55 dyads.
Subsequent analyses compared mother-child dyads to highlight discrepancies in the
cognitive profile. As shown in Table 8, the largest differences were found in the VCI,
PRI, GAI, and FSIQ, where the children outperformed their mothers by about 1SD in IQ
points. In the PSI, mothers obtain significantly higher average scores than their children.
Conversely, the cognitive profile of mothers and children was less discrepant in WMI and
CPI.
Table 8.
Descriptive statistics and tests of significant differences between WAIS-IV and WISC-IV
scores in mother-child dyads.
Children Mothers Tests of Significant Differences
M SD M SD Diff. t(52) p
FSIQ 132.36 7.74 123.38 9.49 8.98 6.19 <.001
VCI 131.66 8.86 120.81 9.64 10.85 6.59 <.001
PRI 133.00 10.72 119.32 10.46 13.68 7.70 <.001
WMI 114.15 9.82 109.68 10.65 4.47 2.54 .014
PSI 111.83 14.00 121.09 13.83 −9.26 −4.11 <.001
GAI 136.38 8.37 122.55 9.57 13.83 9.04 <.001
CPI 116.25 11.96 118.19 10.72 −1.94 −1.00 .323
Legend: VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index;
PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index. Note: N= 53.
As we compared father-child dyads (Table 9), we found even larger discrepancies in
VCI, PRI, GAI, and FSIQ. Like the analysis of mother-child dyads, WMI, PSI, and CPI were
noteworthy comparable in father-child dyads, where no statistical differences were found.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 11 of 15
Table 9.
Descriptive statistics and tests of significant differences between WAIS-IV and WISC-IV
scores in father-child dyads.
Children Fathers Tests of Significant Differences
M SD M SD Diff. t(52) p
FSIQ 133.38 8.22 119.42 13.12 13.96 6.67 <.001
VCI 132.07 9.11 116.00 13.29 16.07 7.71 <.001
PRI 134.15 10.99 118.73 11.53 15.42 7.80 <.001
WMI 114.62 10.80 110.64 15.15 3.98 1.77 .082
PSI 112.95 14.09 114.31 12.25 −1.36 −.53 .599
GAI 137.24 8.46 119.55 11.82 17.69 9.00 <.001
CPI 117.22 12.60 114.69 14.23 2.53 .99 .325
Legend: VCI = Verbal Comprehension Index; PRI = Perceptual Reasoning Index; WMI = Working Memory Index;
PSI = Processing Speed Index; GAI = General Ability Index; CPI = Cognitive Proficiency Index. Note: N= 55.
4. Discussion
The first objective of the present study was to examine the cognitive profile of gifted
children, looking for discrepancies between the various skill areas. All children had at
least one primary WISC-IV index in the moderately gifted or gifted range. However, only
15.3% of these children scored equal to or above 120 in all four broad abilities areas. Our
study has shown that gifted children have a cognitive advantage in verbal comprehension
and visual-perceptual domains. This result supports our hypotheses and adds to the
existing knowledge about the intellectual talent of children and adolescents (Kaufman et al.
2006;Liratni and Pry 2007,2012;Morrone et al. 2019;Rimm et al. 2008;Rowe et al. 2014;
Silverman 2009). It is worth noting, however, that this general conclusion does not apply to
all children in our sample. Some of them were found to obtain excellent working memory
and processing speed performance. Future research should investigate the heterogeneity of
the cognitive profile to verify the existence of different subpopulations of gifted children.
The literature also pointed out that processing speed is the relative-worst performance
in the profile of gifted children, whereas the working memory ability, while not reaching the
excellence of verbal and perceptual reasoning skills, is still far above average (e.g., Morrone
et al. 2019). Working memory and processing speed did not show statistically significant
differences in our study. Thus, our study is only partly consistent with Toffalini et al. (2017).
However, in that study, gifted children were discovered among patients with a specific
learning disorder whose working memory and processing speed were impaired, but not
GAI, which was still excellent. Thus, a possible explanation for the discrepancy in the
cognitive profile of the gifted children enrolled in our study and in previous research could
be the different presence of “twice exceptional” children: i.e., gifted children with a specific
learning disorder (Toffalini et al. 2017). Indeed, twice-exceptional children may show
fragility in executive functions and working memory (Toffalini et al. 2017). Unfortunately,
our study did not assess whether the eligible children (and their parents) received a learning
disability disorder diagnosis. Thus, future research should consider a specific impairment
in learning abilities as a condition that might account for the heterogeneity of the cognitive
profile of the gifted.
Consistent with previous research (Hagmann-von Arx et al. 2008;Rimm et al. 2008;
Silverman 2009;Sparrow et al. 2005), our study found that the GAI was higher than the
FSIQ. Thus, while IQ could be useful as a psychometric standard to screen for gifted
children, our study suggests that the GAI is more capable of highlighting the multiple skills
and resources possessed by gifted individuals during an assessment, even when there may
be dual or multiple exceptionalities.
The second goal of our research was to examine the cognitive profiles of parents of
gifted children. First, it is worth noting that although all the children in our sample were
selected based on an FSIQ
≥
120, only 68% of mothers and 58% of fathers achieved the
same criterion. Again, it is worth mentioning that using the GAI instead of the FSIQ, the
similarities between the cognitive level of parents and their children increased, and even the
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 12 of 15
average of the maternal sample far exceeded the 120 IQ point threshold, while that of the
fathers’ sample came very close to the giftedness threshold. In the absence of comparative
data in the literature, our results seem overall consistent with the results of genetic studies
concluding that about half of the variability in human intelligence can be explained by
hereditary factors (e.g., Deary et al. 2006,2009;Plomin and Deary 2015).
Analysis of broad abilities using the primary and supplementary indices of the Wech-
sler scales showed that the cognitive profile of mothers was overall more elevated than
that of fathers. In the mothers’ sample, the processing speed was significantly greater than
working memory, placing itself on the same level as verbal comprehension and perceptual
reasoning abilities. In the fathers’ sample, working memory was also a weakness in the
cognitive profile. However, unlike mothers, the processing speed was not significantly
different from working memory, although the latter was below verbal comprehension and
perceptual reasoning abilities.
Although not all parents reached the giftedness threshold, their cognitive profile was
similar to the intellectual profiles of gifted adults and elderly people, whose strength was
in their high processing speed (Lang et al. 2019;Pezzuti et al. 2022). On the other hand,
the cognitive profile of parents, and especially of mothers, was very dissimilar to that of
their children precisely in relation to processing speed. Like their children, the parents
also showed relatively lower performance in working memory ability. Just as we have
discussed the drop in working memory in gifted children in relation to the literature on
twice-exceptionality (Toffalini et al. 2017), similarly, we might hypothesize that a learning
disorder related to executive functions may also be present but undiagnosed among parents.
The last goal of the present study was to identify similarities and differences in the
cognitive profiles of parents and gifted children. The correlations obtained from the
mother-child dyads were statistically significant or close to statistical significance and were
higher than for the father-child dyads. In general, the correlations estimated in our study
were somewhat lower than those typically reported in previous research with nongifted
community samples (Anger and Heineck 2010;Calderon and Hoddinott 2010;Demange
et al. 2022;Grönqvist et al. 2010). One factor that may have limited the magnitude of the
correlations in our study might be traced to the rank restriction of total IQ, which we used as
an entry criterion in the study. In contrast, the above research was conducted on large and
representative samples of the population, with greater variability in general intelligence or
in specific cognitive abilities. This notwithstanding, the similarity in FSIQ between mothers
and children was estimated at 17%, while the correlations obtained from father-child dyads
were near zero. These results appear to be consistent with data reported in the literature
that compared the cognitive abilities of mothers and fathers with those of their typically
developing children. More specifically, it was found that mothers’ cognitive abilities (e.g.,
executive functioning, working memory, verbal IQ) correlated with children’s cognitive
abilities, whereas fathers’ non-cognitive abilities (e.g., academic motivation, perseverance,
mindsets, learning strategies, and social skills) correlated with their children’s cognitive
abilities (e.g., Demange et al. 2022;Grönqvist et al. 2010).
Inevitably, the current study has some limitations that, while necessitating caution
in interpreting the findings, may aid in the development of new proposals for future
research. First, we lack a control group of children with average IQs to compare to families
with gifted children. This prevented us from ruling out other characteristics that might
differentiate Italian-gifted children from their normal peers beyond IQ. Furthermore, it
does not allow us to understand whether the profile of parents of gifted children is similar
or different from that of parents of children with typical development, controlling for
possible confounding factors such as the socioeconomic status of the families, the presence
of possible cognitive impairment, and so forth. A follow-up to this research could be the
recruitment of a control group of gifted families as similar as possible to those already
recruited for the present research. Second, our study focused exclusively on the FSIQ
of the WISC-IV, while in the gifted education literature, there are other criteria, such as
qualitative judgments of giftedness or curriculum-based measures (e.g., Cao et al. 2017).
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 13 of 15
Different results might emerge by identifying giftedness using different or alternative
criteria than traditional psychometric methods. Other limitations are related to sampling
and self-selection. Although all the children attended Italian public schools (in which
no special curricula are directed to gifted children) and most of the families were of the
middle class, we did not assess other specific environmental characteristics that—beyond
parents’ education—can influence cognitive development (e.g., family income, family size,
city neighborhood, etc.). For this reason, any bias due to socioeconomic variables cannot
be ruled out. In addition, such analysis would be based on a very small total number
of families and including parents who voluntarily participated in the present study. It is
hoped that in the future, an attempt will be made to replicate this type of research with
a larger and more widely distributed control and experimental sample. This could allow
the identification of key variables that can help in defining different subgroups of gifted
children with different cognitive profiles.
5. Conclusions
The identification of significant strengths (related to the verbal and visual-perceptual
domains), as well as potential individual weaknesses in gifted children, can play a critical
role in the proper implementation and planning of educational and support interven-
tions. It is clear, in fact, how these children’s high levels of verbal comprehension and
visual-perceptual skills may lead them to prefer specific learning methods in which new
information is provided primarily through visual aids—such as tables, diagrams, and
charts—accompanied by possible explanations and comments. Such approaches could
allow moderately gifted and gifted learners to cope better with the proposed tasks and to
maintain adequate levels of involvement in the required activities.
In terms of parental characteristics, the practical implications of this study are pri-
marily concerned with the possibility of contributing to a better understanding of the
relationship between parents and gifted children, as well as the possible implementation
of specific parenting support paths. The high proportion of moderately gifted or gifted
individuals among the parents explains why these families are frequently able to provide
their children with a stimulating environment that nurtures their desire for knowledge,
provides meaningful opportunities for growth, and respects their passions and interests.
Finally, one of the main strengths of this paper is that it has attempted to draw attention
to certain cognitive aspects of parents that, if properly assessed and recognized, can instead
become valuable allies in supporting all professionals involved in parenting support.
Author Contributions:
Conceptualization, L.P. and M.F.; methodology, M.L.; software, M.L.; vali-
dation, J.D.; formal analysis, J.D.; investigation, M.F.; resources, M.F.; data curation, J.D.; writing—
original draft preparation, L.P., M.F., J.D. and M.L.; writing—review and editing, L.P., M.F. and M.L.;
supervision, L.P.; project administration, L.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published
version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement:
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration
of Helsinki and approved by the Ethics Committee of the Department of Dynamic and Clinical
Psychology and Health Studies (protocol code 0001542, 11 October 2021).
Informed Consent Statement: Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.
Data Availability Statement:
The data presented in this study are openly available from 30 Septem-
ber 2022, from OSF at https://osf.io/th3sq.
Acknowledgments:
The authors also express sincere gratitude to all children and their parents for
participating in this study.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 14 of 15
References
Anger, Sike, and Guido Heineck. 2010. Do smart parents raise smart children? The intergenerational transmission of cognitive abilities.
Journal of Population Economics 23: 1105–32. [CrossRef]
Bouchard, Thomas J., and Matthew McGue. 1981. Familial Studies of Intelligence: A Review. Science 212: 1055–59. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Calderon, Maria Cecilia, and John Hoddinott. 2010. The Inter-Generational Transmission of Cognitive Abilities in Guatemala, Retrieved
August 6, 2010 from SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
Cao, Thuy Hong, Jae Yup Jung, and Jihvun Lee. 2017. Assessment in Gifted Education: A Review of the Literature From 2005 to 2016.
Journal of Advanced Academics 28: 163–203. [CrossRef]
Carman, Carol A. 2013. Comparing Apples and Oranges. Journal of Advanced Academics 24: 52–70. [CrossRef]
Crabtree, Lenora M., Sonyia C. Richardson, and Chance W. Lewis. 2019. The Gifted Gap, STEM Education, and Economic Immobility.
Journal of Advanced Academics 30: 203–31. [CrossRef]
Deary, Ian J., Frank M. Spinath, and Timothy C. Bates. 2006. Genetics of intelligence. European Journal of Human Genetics 14: 690–700.
[CrossRef]
Deary, Ian J., Wendy Johnson, and Lorna M. Houlihan. 2009. Genetic foundations of human intelligence. Human Genetics 126: 215–32.
[CrossRef]
Demange, Perline A., Jouke Jan Hottenga, Abdel Abdellaoui, Espen M. Eilertsen, Margherita Malanchini, Benjamin W. Domingue,
Emma Armstrong-Carter, Eveline L. de Zeeuw, Kaili Rimfeld, Dorret I. Boomsma, and et al. 2022. Estimating effects of parents’
cognitive and non-cognitive skills on offspring education using polygenic scores. Nature Communications 13: 4801. [CrossRef]
Grönqvist, Erik, Bjorn Ockert, and Jonas Vlachos. 2010. The Intergenerational Transmission of Cognitive and Non-Cognitive Abilities,
Retrieved June 21, 2010 from SSRN Electronic Journal. [CrossRef]
Guez, Ava, Hugo Peyre, Camille Williams, Ghislaine Labouret, and Franck Ramus. 2021. The epidemiology of cognitive development.
Cognition 213: 104690. [CrossRef]
Hagmann-von Arx, Priska, Christine Sandra Meyer, and Alexander Grob. 2008. Assessing Intellectual Giftedness with the WISC-IV
and the IDS. Zeitschrift Für Psychologie/Journal of Psychology 216: 172–79. [CrossRef]
Kaufman, Alan S., Dawn P. Flanagan, Vincent C. Alfonso, and Jennifer T. Mascolo. 2006. Test Review: Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
Children, Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 24: 278–95. [CrossRef]
Keating, Daniel P. 2009. Developmental science and giftedness: An integrated life-span framework. In The development of Giftedness and
Talent across the Life Span. Edited by Frances Degen, Ed Horowitz, Rena F. Subotnik and Dona J. Matthews. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association, pp. 189–208. [CrossRef]
Kong, Feng, Zhencai Chen, Song Xue, Xu Wang, and Jia Liu. 2015. Mother’s but not father’s education predicts general fluid intelligence
in emerging adulthood: Behavioral and neuroanatomical evidence. Human Brain Mapping 36: 4582–91. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Lang, Margherita, Michael Matta, Laura Parolin, Cristina Morrone, and Lina Pezzuti. 2019. Cognitive Profile of Intellectually Gifted
Adults: Analyzing the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. Assessment 26: 929–43. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Liratni, Medhi, and RenéPry. 2007. Psychométrie et WISC IV: Quel avenir pour l’identification des enfants àhaut potentiel intellectuel?
Neuropsychiatrie de l’Enfance et de l’Adolescence 55: 214–19. [CrossRef]
Liratni, Medhi, and RenéPry. 2012. Profils psychométriques de 60 enfants àhaut potentiel au WISC IV. Pratiques Psychologiques 18:
63–74. [CrossRef]
Morrone, Cristina, Lina Pezzuti, Margherita Lang, and Maria Assunta Zanetti. 2019. Analisi del profilo WISC-IV in un campione
italiano di bambini e adolescenti intellettualmente gifted. Psicologia Clinica Dello Sviluppo 1: 71–96.
Orsini, Arturo, and Lina Pezzuti. 2013. WAIS-IV: Contributo alla taratura Italiana (WAIS-IV Italian ed.). Florence: Giunti O.S.
Orsini, Arturo, Lina Pezzuti, and Laura Picone. 2012. WISC-IV: Contributo alla taratura Italiana (WISC-IV Italian ed.). Florence: Giunti
O.S.
Pezzuti, Lina, Clara Michelotti, James Dawe, and Margherita Lang. 2022. Intellectual giftedness in elderly people assessed by Wechsler
Adult Intelligence Scale–Fourth Edition: What specific features? Educational Gerontology, 1–11. [CrossRef]
Pfeiffer, Steven I. 2012. Serving the Gifted. London: Routledge. [CrossRef]
Plomin, Robert, and Ian J. Deary. 2015. Genetics and intelligence differences: Five special findings. Molecular Psychiatry 20: 98–108.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plomin, Robert, and Frank M. Spinath. 2004. Intelligence: Genetics, Genes, and Genomics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 86:
112–29. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Plomin, Robert, and Sophie von Stumm. 2018. The new genetics of intelligence. Nature Reviews Genetics 19: 148–59. [CrossRef]
Rimm, Sylvia, Barbara J. Gilman, and Linda K. Silverman. 2008. Nontraditional Applications of Traditional Testing. In Alternative
Assessments with Gifted and Talented Students. Edited by Joyce Van Tassel-Baska. Austin: Prufrock Press, pp. 175–202.
Rowe, Ellen W., Jessica Dandridge, Alexandra Pawlush, Dawna F. Thompson, and David E. Ferrier. 2014. Exploratory and confirmatory
factor analyses of the WISC-IV with gifted students. School Psychology Quarterly 29: 536–52. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Ruf, Debora L. 2005. Losing Our Minds: Gifted Children Left Behind. Tucson: Great Potential Press Inc.
Sartori, Laura. 2019. Plusdotazione, giftedness, alto potenziale cognitivo, talento. In Gifted. Conoscere e Valorizzare i Giovani Plusdotati e
di Talento Dentro e Fuori la Scuola. Edited by Laura Sartori and Maria Cinque. Rome: Edizioni Magi, pp. 31–42.
Sauce, Bruno, and Louis D. Matzel. 2018. The paradox of intelligence: Heritability and malleability coexist in hidden gene-environment
interplay. Psychological Bulletin 144: 26–47. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
J. Intell. 2022,10, 91 15 of 15
Silverman, Linda Kreger. 2009. The Measurement of Giftedness. In International Handbook on Giftedness. Edited by Larisa V. Shavinia.
Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 947–70. [CrossRef]
Silverman, L. K. 2018. Assessment of giftedness. In Handbook of Giftedness in Children: Educational Theory, Research, and Best Practices,
2nd ed. Edited by Steven I. Pfeiffer. New York: Springer Science, pp. 183–207. [CrossRef]
Sparrow, Sara S., Tina M. Newman, and Steven I. Pfeiffer. 2005. Assessment of Children Who Are Gifted with the WISC-IV. In WISC-IV
Clinical Use and Interpretation. Edited by Aurelio Prifitera, Donald H. Saklofske and Lawrence G. Weiss. Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp.
281–98. [CrossRef]
Toffalini, Enrico, Lina Pezzuti, and Cesare Cornoldi. 2017. Einstein and dyslexia: Is giftedness more frequent in children with a specific
learning disorder than in typically developing children? Intelligence 62: 175–79. [CrossRef]
Wasserman, John D. 2013. Identification of gifted learners: Traditional assessment models. In Off the Charts: Asynchrony and the Gifted
Child. Edited by Christine S. Neville, Michael M. Piechowski and Stephanie S. Tolan. Unionville: Royal Fireworks Press, pp.
292–346.
Watkins, Marley W., Sharise M. Wilson, Kasey M. Kotz, Maria C. Carbone, and Teresa Babula. 2006. Factor Structure of the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition Among Referred Students. Educational and Psychological Measurement 66: 975–83.
[CrossRef]
Wechsler, David. 2003. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV). Technical and Interpretive Manual. San Antonio:
The psychological Corporation.
Worrell, Franck C., and Jesse O. Erwin. 2011. Best Practices in Identifying Students for Gifted and Talented Education Programs. Journal
of Applied School Psychology 27: 319–40. [CrossRef]
Zanetti, Maria Assunta. 2017. Alto potenziale. In Bambini e Ragazzi ad Alto Potenziale: Una Guida per Educatori e Famiglie. Edited by
Maria Assunta Zanetti. Rome: Carocci, pp. 19–69.
Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
