ReviewThe British journal of educational psychology2022
The identification of gifted underachievement: Validity evidence for the commonly used methods.
Review in The British journal of educational psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Underachievement Risks and Profiles of Psychological Variables Among High-Ability Adolescents from Hong Kong, The Netherlands, Taiwan, and The United Kingdom.European journal of investigation in health, psychology and education · 2025Article
- Understanding How Intelligence and Academic Underachievement Relate to Life Satisfaction Among Adolescents with and Without a Migration Background.Journal of Intelligence · 2025Article
- Exploring the genetic prediction of academic underachievement and overachievement.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMuch confusion exists about the underachievement of gifted students due to significant variations in how the phenomenon has been identified. From a review of the literature, five methods were found to be commonly used to identify gifted underachievement.
aimsThe purpose of the study was to assess the equivalence of the commonly used methods to identify gifted underachievement, and to determine which of these methods may be optimal. SAMPLE: Data were collected from a school in Sydney, Australia.
methodThree measures of convergence (i.e., difference in proportions, phi association, and kappa agreement) were used to assess the equivalence of the identification methods, while latent class analysis was used to determine the optimal identification method.
resultsThe convergence evidence suggested that the commonly used identification methods may not be considered convergent, while the criterion evidence indicated that one of the five identification methods may have strong levels of criterion validity.
conclusionsA conclusion was reached that the simple difference method may be the most valid method to identify gifted underachievement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.