Parents' perceptions of giftedness
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purpose of this study was to examine parental perceptions of giftedness in young children. Specifically, the process by which parents came to believe that their young child is gifted, how they conceptualized the term giftedness, the impact of having a gifted child, and the concerns that they had were examined. In addition, parental perceptions of giftedness were compared to the results obtained from three other estimates of gifted performance based on the WPPSI-R IQ test, the PRIDE creativity inventory, and expert opinion. A multiple case study was conducted with the participation of six young children and their parents. The participants were self-selected from members or associates of a gifted organization, based upon the belief of at least one parent that their child is gifted. Themes that emerged from the evidence collected from semi-structured interviews were collected and analyzed using grounded theory procedures (Strauss & Corbin, 1990). Results were reported in three ways. Themes that emerged across the cases were grouped into categories, with negative cases and gender differences between the parents noted. An illustrative case study was used to describe how the themes appeared within the context of one family. Parents' perceptions of their child's giftedness were compared to the three measures of giftedness. There were five key findings. First, parents determined their child was gifted by observing him/her and by comparing their child to peers. This judgement also was informed by parents applying three other criteria: a) the child's ability to learn, b) their exceptional memory, and c) their early development. Second, the conceptualization of giftedness was gender based with most mothers stating that giftedness is an integral part of their child and most fathers compartmentalizing giftedness, linking it to having an exceptional memory. Third, the gifted child was perceived to have a much greater impact on the family, demanding more time and nurturing, than a child of average ability. Fourth, five out of six of the children had school adjustment problems. All of the participating parents were concerned about how their child would adjust to the school environment. Fifth, agreement between parental perceptions of giftedness and the three measures of giftedness were mixed. Two children scored above 120 on the WPPSI-R, which is a common criterion for admission to gifted programs; however, the others did not meet this criterion. The results from the WPPSI-R IQ test were called into question, however, because five of the six children did not reach the discontinuation criteria for at least five of the subtests. Four scored high on the PRIDE creativity measure, and three were considered gifted by the expert panel, resulting in five of the six children being found to be advanced by at least one measure. Recommendations for future research included not using the WPPSI-R on the young gifted population, comparing perceptions of parents of the gifted to parents of children of average ability, and examining whether gifted parents are under stress and if so, what their coping mechanisms are. In addition, research on the school adjustment problems of the gifted could target a main focus of concern for the parents in this study, and have practical benefits in helping parents and educators anticipate and perhaps alleviate some of the difficult time these children have in fitting into the school environment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".