ReviewHeliyon2024
Unpacking the underachievement of gifted students: A systematic review of internal and external factors.
Review in Heliyon, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Motivational Self-Regulation Strategies and Their Relationship with Academic Adjustment Across Adolescent High-Ability, Learning-Disability, and Regular Students.Journal of Intelligence · 2026Article
- Leveraging TIS-Enhanced Crayfish Optimization Algorithm for High-Precision Prediction of Long-Term Achievement in Mathematical Elite Talents.Biomimetics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2026Article
- Profiles of gifted students through the eyes of their teachers: identifying students at risk for underachievement.Frontiers in child and adolescent psychiatry · 2026Article
- Perfectionism and psychological well-being in adolescents with high intellectual abilities.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
In recent years, there has been a substantial research and numerous reviews on the subject of gifted students. The current systematic review is dedicated to explore the underachieving in gifted students, aiming to identify and classify the internal and external factors contributing to this phenomenon. In this study, 282 research articles published from 2010 to 2024 were reviewed using three databases including Google Scholar, ERIC, and Science Direct. Applying specific inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33 articles were selected among the total ones and then a narrative synthesis approach was applied. In this regard, a theoretical model was developed, the observed patterns were described, intersections among studies were explored, and the synthesis was evaluated in light of the theoretical background. The analysis revealed that internal factors such as motivational, emotional-social, and demographic factors, as well as external factors including environmental perception, family, peers, and socio-economic/cultural factors, play significant roles in the underachievement of gifted students. The study underscores the importance of understanding and addressing these factors in all stages of a gifted student's educational journey, from screening and assessment to identification, planning, and rehabilitation. It highlights the need for a comprehensive strategy that goes beyond solely focusing on the psychological empowerment of students. The study emphasizes the critical role of considering contextual factors, including the influence of the parents, teachers, and peers relationships. Recognizing the multifaceted nature of underachievement in gifted students is essential to prevent this phenomenon and by considering a holistic approach that considers both internal and external factors, educational stakeholders can develop more effective interventions and support systems.
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.