Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37928578›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2023

Neuromyths and knowledge about intellectual giftedness in a highly educated multilingual country.

Anna Schmitt, Rachel Wollschläger, Jérémie Blanchette Sarrasin, Steve Masson, Antoine Fischbach, Christine Schiltz

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Anna SchmittDepartment of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Cognitive Science and Assessment Institute, Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Rachel WollschlägerLuxembourg Centre for Educational Testing (LUCET), Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Jérémie Blanchette SarrasinDépartement de Didactique, Laboratory for Research in Neuroeducation, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Steve MassonDépartement de Didactique, Laboratory for Research in Neuroeducation, Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal, QC, Canada.
Antoine FischbachLuxembourg Centre for Educational Testing (LUCET), Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.
Christine SchiltzDepartment of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences, Cognitive Science and Assessment Institute, Faculty of Humanities, Education and Social Sciences, University of Luxembourg, Esch-sur-Alzette, Luxembourg.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Introduction: Understanding brain functioning and intellectual giftedness can be challenging and give rise to various misconceptions. Nonetheless, there seems to be a widespread fascination and appetite for these subjects among the lay public and diverse professionals. The present study is the first to investigate general knowledge about the brain, neuromyths and knowledge about giftedness in a highly multilingual and educated country. Methods: Starting from and extending two seminal studies on neuromyths, several novel statements on intellectual giftedness have been included in order to explore knowledge and misconceptions concerning giftedness. Our sample ( Results: Despite the size and the unbalanced distribution of the sample, our findings indicate a good level of general knowledge about the brain and learning (71.3% of correct responses in average) which does, however, not preclude the presence of the typically observed original neuromyths. Thus, we replicate the classical finding that misconceptions on Learning Styles (70% of error rate) and the Multiple Intelligence Theory (71.5% of error rate) are the most represented, both in (future and in-service) teachers and other education professionals. Moreover, the present sample also revealed a high presence of misconceptions on intellectual giftedness. Discussion: Limitations and future directions are discussed.

Indexed as

cognitive psychologyintellectual giftednessmisconceptionsneuroeducationneuromyths

Identifiers

PMID37928578
PMCPMC10623439

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.