The Relationship Between Self-Concept,Ability,and Academic Programming Among Twice-Exceptional Youth

Abstract

Researchers investigated the self-concept profiles of twice-exceptional students in relationship to their cognitive ability and participation in educational services. All subjects (N = 64) had high ability (IQ score at or above the 90th percentile) and were diagnosed with either an autism spectrum disorder (ASD; n = 53) or specific learning disability (SLD; n = 11). Self-concept and ability measures were administered as a part of comprehensive evaluations to assess for co-existing high ability and disability. Despite the presence of a disability, overall self-concept profiles were in the average range, suggesting either co-occurring high ability serves as a protective mechanism or a possible positive illusory bias among participants. There was no relationship between ability, educational services, and self-concept, implying that high cognitive ability and related educational interventions are independent of how twice-exceptional students feel about themselves. Findings raise questions about the precision of traditional identification models in selecting twice-exceptional students for participation in gifted education programming.

Keywords

self-concept autism spectrum disorder specific learning disabilities twice-exceptional gifted students

In 2005, the Javits Program (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences [IES], 2005) issued an absolute priority that called for scientifically based research focused on the educational needs of the talented and gifted so that K-12 school systems could meet diverse students’ needs. Coincidentally, the nearly simultaneous reauthorization of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) highlighted, for the first time in its 30-year history, the need to recognize that gifted children may also have disabilities. These two national priorities coincided with increased research attention to the population of gifted learners known as “twice-exceptional” and were the impetus for the current study aimed at discovering more about the learning and social-emotional needs of gifted students with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) or a specific learning disability (SLD).

A review by Foley-Nicpon, Allmon, Sieck, and Stinson (2011) identified a dearth of empirical research about twice-exceptional students. Multiple issues have contributed to this paucity of empirical research: (a) varied definitions for high ability and “giftedness” (e.g., Borland, 2009; Worrell, 2009); (b) vague definitions of twice-exceptionality (Foley-Nicpon, 2013), which often leads to a confounding of the general concept of disability with specific disabilities or diagnoses; (c) and a lack of focus on research-driven best practice when considering the immediate needs of the individual child (Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Colangelo, 2013).

While more attention has been allotted to the cognitive component of twice-exceptionality (Assouline, Foley-Nicpon, & Dockery, 2012; Assouline, Foley-Nicpon, & Whiteman, 2010; Berninger & Abbott, 2013; Foley-Nicpon, Assouline, & Stinson, 2012; Kalbfleisch & Loughan, 2012), markedly less work has considered twice-exceptional students’ self-concept profiles in relationship to ability and academic interventions commonly recommended for twice-exceptional students (i.e., acceleration and enrichment opportunities, and social, behavioral, and academic accommodations). In Foley Nicpon et al.’s (2011) review, only 5 of the 21 articles investigating gifted students with SLD and only 1 of the 5 articles on gifted students with ASD focused on psychosocial factors. Thus, there exists a dearth of research examining the interplay of cognitive ability, disability (ASD or SLD), and academic programming, and how these factors relate to students’ self-concept.

Conceptual similarity between the psychological constructs of self-esteem, self-concept, and well-being are evident (Swann, Chang-Schneider, & McClarty, 2007). Self-esteem, which generally is described as the feelings one has about herself or himself, has both emotional and cognitive elements, as does self-concept, which is generally described as one’s self-beliefs. Empirical discrimination between these descriptive and evaluative components of an individuals’ identity has been difficult (Byrne, 2002), so it appears more appropriate to conceptualize them both as “self-views” (Swann et al., 2007, p. 86) with cognitive and emotional implications that can be examined in relationship to the meaning individuals make of their experience. Thus, even though this study focuses on self-concept as measured by the Piers Harris Self-Concept Scale (Piers, Harris, & Herzberg, 2002), an instrument designed to assess the construct, also reviewed is the relevant self-esteem and general psychosocial development literature for gifted students, students with ASD and/or SLD, and twice-exceptional students.

Self-Concept in Gifted Populations

Scholars have been discussing self-concept in gifted students for almost a century (e.g., Hollingworth, 1926, 1942) and Plucker and Stocking (2001) referred to studies of self-concept in the late 1980s and 1990s, many of which addressed the developmental nature of self-concept (Gross, 1989; Harter, 1982; Marsh, 1992). Others compared gifted and average-ability children’s self-concepts (Hoge & Renzulli, 1993; Karnes & Wherry, 1981; Kelly & Colangelo, 1984; Loeb & Jay, 1987). Well into the 21st century, gifted education leaders continue to discuss students’ social and emotional presentation not only in addition to their cognitive and academic presentation but also within the context of these factors. The 2013 National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC) Convention Presidential Address (Cross, 2014) emphasized the whole child as a priority—expanding the focus beyond intelligence and achievement to include social and emotional development. Pfeiffer commonly writes about developing “strengths of the heart” or social/interpersonal intelligence, in addition to “strengths of the head,” or cognitive intelligence (Pfeiffer, 2013, p. 151). These factors historically have received less emphasis in the gifted education literature (Peterson & Morris, 2010; Yoo & Moon, 2006) potentially to the detriment of examining the gifted child as a whole.

Those who study the self-concept of gifted students have found interesting and variable results, possibly because the construct of self-concept is not always measured consistently. Overall, students who are gifted tend to have a positive sense of well-being (Jones, 2013; S. Lee, Olszewski-Kubilius, & Turner Thompson, 2012), but it appears that examining self-concept and self-esteem is better conducted from specific, rather than global, perspectives. For example, Jones’s recent (2013) meta-analysis of 29 studies that explored the relationship between mental health and psychological well-being concluded gifted students have a small advantage in overall well-being (Cohen’s d = .22) than their non-gifted counterparts. This effect is slightly more so for girls (Cohen’s d = .32). In addition, self-concept may vary among gifted students, with academic aptitude being more highly self-regarded than social aptitude (Jones, 2013; S. Lee et al., 2012; Lewis & Knight, 2000). Educational environment (e.g., pull-out vs. mainstream gifted programming) had negligible influences on student well-being, but others have found that subject acceleration is related to positive interpersonal abilities (S. Lee et al., 2012). Areas of cognitive strength may also matter. For example, researchers (Jones, 2013; S. Lee et al., 2012) have found individuals who are verbally talented are more socially vulnerable than those who are mathematically talented.

Self-Concept in Students With SLD and ASD

There is limited recent research examining the typically variable self-concept profiles in students with learning disabilities and/or high functioning ASD, but what has been discovered is informative (Rothman & Cosden, 1995). Obtaining a learning disability diagnosis, in and of itself, can have positive influences on self-esteem (MacMaster, Donovan, & MacIntyre, 2002). Among those diagnosed, research findings are similar to those with gifted students; academic, not global, self-concept is affected in students with learning disabilities (Bear, Minke, & Manning, 2002; Chapman, 1988; Kistner, Haskett, White, & Robbins, 1987; Shany, Wiener, & Assido, 2013), and assessing specific academic domains may further differentiate the areas of student self-perceptions. That is, some children with learning disabilities may have overall high self-concepts with lower domain-specific self-concepts (Zeleke, 2004). If a child has a high global self-concept, he or she may be better able to cope with domain-specific areas of difficulty (Harter, Whitesell, & Junkin, 1998). Attitudes toward one’s disability as malleable and domain-specific are positively related to overall self-concept, self-esteem (Heyman, 1990; Rothman & Cosden, 1995), and academic performance (Heyman, 1990). Thus, studying self-concept in students with learning disabilities is important given the influence of psychosocial factors on successful academic outcomes.

Though few studies have specifically assessed the self-concept of students with ASD (Schriber, Robins, & Solomon, 2014), qualitative findings suggest overall similarities among students with ASD and students with learning disabilities. A. Lee and Hobson (1998) described overall self-concept as similar between these two groups, but also indicated that adolescents with ASD report fewer references to family and friends. Additional researchers have discovered that students with ASD self-report having fewer people as friends (Bauminger, Shulman, & Agam, 2003; Kasari, Locke, Gulsrud, & Rotheram-Fuller, 2011), poorer friendship quality, and smaller social networks than their peers without ASD (Kasari et al., 2011).

Self-Concept in Twice-Exceptional Populations

Findings from previously described studies reveal the somewhat limited exploration of the confluence among high ability, disability, and self-concept. For twice-exceptional individuals, the gap in the literature concerning the psychosocial dimension is even more pronounced than for the general gifted population (Foley-Nicpon & Assouline, 2015). Because twice-exceptionality represents a diverse group of gifted students, it is challenging to form generalizable themes across studies. Existing findings suggest gifted children have higher overall self-perceptions than do gifted children with a diagnosed learning disability (Kauder, 2009; Zeleke, 2004) or attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Foley-Nicpon, Rickels, Richards, & Assouline, 2012), and better perceptions of their behavior and overall happiness than do gifted children with ADHD (Foley-Nicpon, Rickels, et al., 2012). The self-concepts of gifted students with learning disabilities also tend to vary widely (Assouline et al., 2010).

Less is known about the self-concept of gifted children with ASD. One case study comparison found similarities in self-perceptions between two gifted girls, one with ASD and one without, but possible differences in the level of insight into interpersonal difficulties (Assouline, Foley-Nicpon, & Doobay, 2009). This hypothesis is supported by findings from Foley-Nicpon, Doobay, and Assouline’s (2010) study in which the parents and teachers of gifted children with ASD generally reported observing psychosocial concerns, but the students themselves did not. However, this conclusion is not necessarily consistent with previous findings suggesting children with ASD and higher cognitive ability perceive themselves as less socially competent than those with lower cognitive ability (Capps, Sigman, & Yirmiya, 1995), and social awareness is related to cognitive ability (Williamson, Craig, & Slinger, 2008).

Equivocal findings reported above make salient the need to investigate the intersection of twice-exceptionality and psychosocial difficulties, especially in students with ASD, where social and interpersonal challenges are hallmarks of the disorder. Of special interest is the possibility that gifted individuals’ with ASD or SLD may lack insight into their psychosocial difficulties, regardless of their cognitive ability. For example, children with ADHD commonly have self-perceptions of their social and behavioral performance that are more positive than teachers’ and parents’ perceptions, but the students without ADHD hold self-perceptions that are more consistent with their actual behavior and the perceptions of others (Owens, Goldfine, Evangelista, Hoza, & Kaiser, 2007). This phenomenon, known as positive illusory bias, has been found in populations of students with ADHD (Emeh & Mikami, 2014; Owens & Hoza, 2003), aggression (Hymel, Bowker, & Woody, 1993), ASD (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2010), and learning disabilities (Heath & Glen, 2005) and is generally perceived as self-protective in nature (Emeh & Mikami, 2014; Owens et al., 2007). However, not all children demonstrate these overestimations (McQuade et al., 2011) and some researchers suggest it is the behavioral aspects of ADHD (hyperactivity/impulsivity and inattention), not the cognitive aspects, that are related to positive illusory bias (Scholtens, Diamantopoulou, Tillman, & Rydell, 2012). Whether this is true among gifted students with disabilities is unknown.

Purpose and Hypotheses

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the self-concept profiles of two groups of twice-exceptional students: gifted students with ASD and gifted students with SLD. This investigation is important because of the limited empirical knowledge about the self-concept of twice-exceptional students, which may vary depending on one’s disability (Foley-Nicpon, 2015). For both gifted students and students with SLD, assessment of domain-specific self-concept appears to be more informative than a global assessment (Chapman, 1988; Kistner et al., 1987; Jones, 2013; S. Lee et al., 2012; Lewis & Knight, 2000; Zeleke, 2004). Researchers therefore sought to examine domain-specific self-concept profiles for gifted students with ASD and gifted students with SLD. In addition, previous research has suggested gifted students’ self-concepts are related to aspects of their ability and academic programming (Jones, 2013; S. Lee et al., 2012), but whether this is true for twice-exceptional students is unknown. Therefore, investigators posed the following research questions and hypotheses in this exploratory study:

Research Question 1: What is the self-concept profile of a sample of high-ability students diagnosed with an autism spectrum or learning disability diagnosis?

Hypothesis 1: The high-ability students with ASD will report higher intellectual and academic self-concepts than the gifted students with SLD; the gifted students with SLD will report higher interpersonal self-concepts than the gifted students with ASD.

Research Question 2: What is the relationship between ability, related educational services/interventions, and self-concept among a sample of high-ability students diagnosed with an autism spectrum or learning disability diagnosis?

Hypothesis 2: Ability and academic service provision will be positively related to intellectual and academic self-concept for both groups of twice-exceptional students.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Participants in this study were all assessed at a university-based clinic and referred through two sources. Fifty-two were a part of a U.S. Department of Education Jacob K. Javits grant where the overall goal was to provide assessment services for high-ability students who demonstrated learning or social impairment difficulties consistent with twice-exceptionality. Twelve participants were assessed in the clinic independently of the Javits grant. Referral questions varied but typically were to assess for high ability and the presence of a co-existing disability. The number of participants who had previously been identified as either high ability or possessing a disability prior to the clinic evaluation is unknown. Institutional review board (IRB) approval was obtained by the principal investigator.

The first author, a licensed psychologist, or another licensed psychologist in conjunction with doctoral students in school or counseling psychology, evaluated all participants in the university-based clinic. Assessments were individualized depending on the referral question, but included the measures of cognitive and psychosocial factors examined in this study. In the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th ed., text rev.; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric Association [APA], 2000), ASDs included autism, Asperger disorder, or pervasive developmental disorder–not otherwise specified (NOS). In the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.; DSM-5; APA, 2013), these three diagnoses are subsumed under the diagnosis ASD. An ASD diagnosis was determined following administration of autism and adaptive functioning diagnostic instruments: The Autism Diagnostic Observation Scale (ADOS; Lord, Rutter, DiLavore, & Risi, 2001), The Autism Diagnostic Inventory–Revised (ADI-R; Rutter, Couteur, & Lord, 2003), and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales–Second Edition (Sparrow, Balla, & Cicchetti, 1984). In the DSM-IV-TR, learning disorders included Reading Disorder, Mathematics Disorder, or Written Language Disorder. In the DSM-5, these three diagnoses are subsumed under the diagnosis Specific Learning Disorder (SLD). An SLD diagnosis was determined following administration of ability, achievement, and neuropsychological assessment measures. Participants met criteria for an ASD or SLD that was consistent with the DSM-IV-TR, which was the most current diagnostic tool at the time.

In addition to meeting diagnostic criteria for an ASD or SLD, inclusion criteria for this study required demonstration of high cognitive ability and/or achievement (standard score of 120 or above). Specifically, 52 participants obtained one or more index score on the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition (WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003) above 120; 5 obtained one or more index score on the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997) above 120; and 7 achieved a standard score of 120 or above on an achievement composite score from the Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement–Third Edition (WJIII; Woodcock, McGrew, & Mather, 2001) or the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition (WIAT-II; Wechsler, 2001). Finally, students had to be older than 6 years of age to be able to complete the self-concept measure. The final sample of participants meeting all inclusion criteria was 64 (53 diagnosed with ASD and 11 diagnosed with SLD).

In the ASD group, participant ages ranged from 5 years 6 months, to 17 years 9 months. Forty-three (81.1%) were male and 10 (18.9%) were female; 47 (88.7%) identified as Caucasian, 3 (5.7%) as Latino, 1 as Asian American (1.9%), and 1 as biracial (1.9%). Nine (17%) were whole-grade accelerated, 24 (45.3%) were subject accelerated, and 36 (67.9%) participated in talented and gifted programming. Nine (17%) received some form of special education services, ranging from pull-out services for social skills to resource room support. Twenty-eight (43%) were prescribed some form of psychotropic medication, mainly stimulants and/or selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, and 6 (9.4%) had comorbid diagnoses of learning disabilities, or ADHD.

In the SLD group, participant ages ranged from 9 years 7 months, to 17 years 5 months. Seven (63.6%) were male and four (36.4%) were female; all identified as Caucasian. None were whole-grade accelerated, one (9.1%) was subject accelerated, and four (3.64%) participated in talented and gifted programming. One (9.1%) received assistance for writing and four (35%) were prescribed psychotropic medication (three stimulant and one multiple medications). Two had secondary diagnoses of ADHD.

Experimental Measures

Cognitive ability

The WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003) is a cognitive ability measure for children ages 6 years 0 months, through 16 years 11 months, that provides an overall ability score (the Full Scale IQ) and scores on four factor indices: verbal comprehension index (VCI), perceptual reasoning index (PRI), working memory index (WMI) and processing speed index (PSI). There is an optional general ability score ( GAI) one can compute if scores among the four factor indices are variable. The GAI is computed by summing scores on the VCI and PRI, which are considered measures of higher order thinking skills and with less influence from the lower order thinking skills demanded from the WMI and PSI. It is commonly used to identify gifted and twice-exceptional children (Assouline & Foley-Nicpon, 2009; Watkinds, Greenawalk, & Marcell, 2002). Scores are reported as Standard Scores with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15. WISC-IV index score reliability coefficients are high (ranging from .88 for Processing Speed to .97 for the Full Scale IQ).

Self-concept

The Piers Harris-2 (PH-2; Piers et al., 2002) is a 60-item, self-report inventory that measures self-concept in children ages 7 to 18 by providing an overall self-concept score, as well as scores in the following six domains: Physical Appearance and Attributes (11 items) measures physical appearance and leadership attributes; Freedom From Anxiety (14 items) measures self-perceptions of anxiety and dysphoria; Intellectual and School Status (16 items) measures intelligence and achievement self-perceptions; Happiness and Satisfaction (10 items) measures self-perceived happiness and life-satisfaction; Popularity (12 items) measures self-perceived social functioning and ability to make friends; Behavioral Adjustment (14 items) measures self-perceptions of engaging in problematic behaviors. Scores are reported as T-scores with a mean of 50 and a standard deviation of 10. Participants respond to each item “yes” or “no” to indicate agreement or non-agreement with the statement. Scores of 56 or above are considered Above Average, between 40 and 55 are considered Average, and scores at 39 or below are considered Low Range. The overall and domain scores for the PH-2 have internal consistencies from .60 to .93 and concurrent validity was established through comparison with other measures of self-concept (Alexopoulos & Foudoulaki, 2002). Alpha scores for the overall and domain scores for this study are not reported as only standard scores were entered into the database. All six domain scores were used in the current study as dependent variables. The PH-2 is a measure of self-concept that has been used in previous studies of gifted (Karnes & Wherry, 1981; Lewis & Knight, 2000) and twice-exceptional (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2012) populations.

Educational services

As a part of a form that provided background information, participants indicated whether they had received (a) any form of acceleration, (b) enrichment programming, and/or (c) special education services or educational accommodations (i.e., an Individualized Education Plan or 504 Plan). Self-reported answers to these questions were analyzed to assess for participants’ utilization of educational services.

Results

Means and standard deviations for the WISC-IV and PH-2 scores for both groups are provided in Table 1. Mean VCI scores for both groups were in the Superior to Very Superior range. The mean PRI was in the Superior range for the ASD group and the High Average range for the SLD group. The mean WMI score for the ASD group was in the High Average range and the Average range for the SLD group. Finally, PSI mean scores for both groups were in the Average range. Mean values for all the PH-2 Domain scores for both groups were in the Average range, but there was high variability among scores, particularly for the Popularity, Behavioral Adjustment, and Happiness and Satisfaction Domains.

Table 1.

Means and Standard Deviations for the WISC-IV Indices (Standard Scores) and PH-2 (T-scores).

Scale	ASD group (n = 36)		SLD group (n = 10)
Scale	M	SD	M	SD
VCI	125.27	14.69	129.90	5.86
PRI	123.16	12.77	112.10	12.21
WMI	110.80	13.60	102.50	16.37
PSI	98.20	16.33	93.10	12.94
PHBeh	51.57	8.84	53.45	10.20
PHInt	50.74	8.36	51.18	8.62
PHPhy	47.47	8.86	46.91	8.35
PHAnx	51.25	9.17	52.09	8.19
PHPop	43.60	10.79	45.73	10.79
PHHap	49.40	8.95	49.55	9.88

Note. WISC-IV = Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition; PH-2 = Piers Harris-2; VCI = verbal comprehension index; PRI = perceptual reasoning index; WMI = working memory index; PSI = processing speed index; PHBeh = behavioral adjustment; PHInt = intellectual and school status; PHPhy; = physical appearance and attributes; PHAnx= freedom from anxiety; PHPop = popularity; PHHap = happiness and satisfaction.

To test Research Question 1, a MANOVA was conducted with the independent variables being diagnosis (ASD and SLD) and the dependent variables being the PH-2 Domain Scores (Behavioral Adjustment; Intellectual and School Status; Physical Appearance and Attributes; Freedom From Anxiety; Popularity; and Happiness and Satisfaction). Analyses of skewness and kurtosis indicated the data were normally distributed and the observed variance was equal across groups. The results of the MANOVA (Hotelling’s T squared test) indicated there was no difference between groups on the PH-2 Domain scores, F(6, 57) = .213, p = .971, = .022. Because there were no group differences in the self-concept domain scores, we examined Research Question 2 with the ASD and SLD groups combined.

To examine Research Question 2, we first conducted Pearson two-tailed correlations with educational programming, ability (independent variables), and self-concept (dependent variables; see Table 2). Among the ability and educational programming variables, significant positive correlations included whole-grade acceleration with subject acceleration, participation in talented and gifted programming with the VCI; subject acceleration with participation in talented and gifted programming and the WMI; participation in talented and gifted programming with the VCI and WMI; and the PRI with the WMI and PSI. As expected, the self-concept dependent variables were all highly correlated, with the exception of Behavioral Adjustment’s relationship with Popularity and Physical Appearance and Attributes. There was only one significant correlation between the ability and educational intervention variables (independent variables) with the self-concept variables (dependent variables); Popularity was positively correlated with the PSI. No regression analyses were conducted.

Table 2.

Correlations Between Ability Scores and Independent Variables.

Scale	PHBeh	PHInt	PHAnx	PHPop	PHHap	PHPhy	Accel	SubAc	TAG	SpecED	VCI	PRI	WMI	PSI
PHBeh	—
PHInt	.287*	—
PHAnx	.297*	.359**	—
PHPop	.178	.358**	.613**	—
PHHap	.294*	.402**	.600**	.465**	—
PHPhy	.187	.412**	.530**	.669**	.651**	—
Accel	−.171	−.208	−.220	−.142	−.074	−.064	—
SubAc	.051	−.055	.001	−.109	.030	.025	.413**	—
TAG	−.161	−.111	−.017	−.099	.018	−.011	.313*	.488**	—
SpecEd	−.052	.077	−.178	−.160	.037	−.238	.073	−.080	−.022	—
VCI	−.149	−.043	−.070	−.198	−.134	−.035	.380**	−.090	.326*	−.091	—
PRI	.013	−.154	.220	.227	.161	.084	.046	.060	.137	−.162	.009	—
WMI	−.157	−.069	.110	.113	.136	.162	.206	.313*	.485**	.019	.171	.332*	—
PSI	−.112	.100	.101	.329*	−.089	.130	.115	.082	.023	−.071	−.082	.319*	.174	—

Note. PHBeh = behavioral adjustment; PHInt = intellectual and school status; PHAnx = freedom from anxiety; PHPop = popularity; PHHap = happiness and satisfaction; PHPhy; = physical appearance and attributes; Accel = whole-grade acceleration; SubAc = subject acceleration; TAG = talented and gifted programming; SpecEd = special education; VCI = verbal comprehension index; PRI = perceptual reasoning index; WMI = working memory index; PSI = processing speed index.

p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

Discussion

It is notable that education delivery models, like accommodations for disabilities and gifted programming, in addition to having been academically accelerated, had no relationship to the self-concept of our sample of twice-exceptional students. This finding is inconsistent with previous researchers who determined academic interventions and service delivery models are related to self-concept of gifted children (S. Lee et al., 2012). It may be the self-concept of twice-exceptional students is not related to specialized educational programs because of their limited insight into behavioral, interpersonal, and/or environmental circumstances (Foley-Nicpon et al., 2010; Frith, 2004; Woods, Mahdavi, & Ryan, 2013). That is, for a child with narrow insight into contextual factors, such as whether he or she is among a group of students pulled out for an enrichment program, it may have little to no relationship with his or her self-concept. More research is necessary to tease out these variables and determine why academic service delivery models and interventions are positively related to self-concept for some gifted students but not for twice-exceptional students. One way to accomplish this goal would be to examine identity development in gifted and twice-exceptional students through qualitative inquiry. Students could be asked what it means to be identified as both “gifted” and as possessing a disability, and how they perceive involvement in special and/or gifted education programming affects these identities and influences their self-concepts.

While not a research question posed in this investigation, some of the significant correlations among the independent and dependent variables are worth noting. First, academic interventions specific for gifted children were not always correlated with ability measures, which are almost always a part of gifted programming identification criteria (Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children, 2013). For our sample of gifted students with ASD (no students with SLD were whole-grade accelerated), whole-grade acceleration was significantly correlated with one ability measure: verbal comprehension. For all participants, subject-level acceleration was correlated with one ability measure, working memory, and participation in talented and gifted programming was related with two ability measures, verbal comprehension and working memory. Placing a high premium on working memory for subject acceleration and entrance into enrichment activities can be problematic for twice-exceptional students who usually score lower on these measures than gifted students without a disability (Assouline et al., 2012). These surprising relationships among ability and academic interventions suggest comprehensive evaluation is necessary to appropriately understand the academic, cognitive, and psychosocial nuances present in this population so that appropriate programming can be delivered.

A second notable correlation is perceptions of popularity were positively related to processing speed; the higher the processing speed, the better one felt about his or her peer relationships. While this relationship has not previously been found with twice-exceptional students, it may be students who are better able to process the dynamics that occur in social relationships feel more positively about their peer relationships. However, this relationship is not strong and may just be noise in the data. Again, further analysis would be required before generating a conclusion regarding popularity self-concept and processing speed.

Our analysis of potential group differences among twice-exceptional students (ASD and SLD) was non-conclusive, which may have been due to our small sample size. Outcome variability in studies examining the self-concepts of students with SLD is thought to be due to low sample sizes (Bear et al., 2002). However, this finding is mainly consistent with previous examinations among non-gifted populations of students with ASD or SLD where no self-concept differences were detected (A. Lee & Hobson, 1998).

In A. Lee and Hobson’s (1998) study, the authors found students with ASD referenced friends and family relationships less than the students with SLD. In our sample, student-perceived popularity was not significantly different between groups; both groups’ lowest mean domain scores were in Popularity. The reason for this is unclear. Developing and maintaining social relationships, including friendships, is at the heart of an ASD diagnosis (APA, 2013; Woods et al., 2013), but it is not among the diagnostic criteria for SLD (APA, 2013). In addition, students with SLD typically report relatively low academic self-concept but social self-concept is no different from students without SLD (Bear et al., 2002; Chapman, 1988; Kistner et al., 1987; Shany, Wiener, & Assido, 2013). Among college students with SLD, there is a relationship between perceived friendship and social self-concept (Shany et al., 2013) and students with SLD who attend college generally have positive support systems (Cosden & McNamera, 1997). What this means for the high-ability child with SLD is unclear and warrants further investigation utilizing larger sample sizes.

For both groups, all other domain scores on the PH-2 (Behavioral Adjustment, Intellectual and School Status, Physical Appearance and Attributes, Freedom From Anxiety, and Happiness and Satisfaction) were in the Average range. As mentioned, among students with SLD, global, social and behavioral self-concept are generally similar to students without an SLD (Bear et al., 2002), but their academic self-concept is typically lower (Bear et al., 2002; Chapman, 1988; Kistner et al., 1987; Shany et al., 2013). While the present study did not employ a normative comparison group, the group mean T-Score for the gifted students with SLD was average (T = 51.18). This is a positive finding that suggests having high intellectual functioning may serve as a protective factor, or influence how they feel about themselves intellectually. Among gifted students without disabilities, academic self-perceptions are typically higher than social self-perceptions (Jones, 2013; S. Lee et al., 2012; Lewis & Knight, 2000). Further investigation is necessary to determine whether twice-exceptional students perceive their intelligence differently than gifted students without ASD or SLD.

Among children with ASD, there is limited research examining self-concept (Schriber et al., 2014), possibly because lack of self-insight is a central characteristic of the disorder (Baron-Cohen, 2003; Frith & Happe, 1999). Foley-Nicpon and colleague’s (2010) examination of psychosocial functioning among gifted students with ASD also found self-perceptions of social and behavioral functioning to be generally average in comparison with the normative sample. It may be gifted students with ASD have difficulty rating their self-perceived psychosocial functioning and/or self-concept due to the general lack of self-insight inherent in the diagnosis symptomology. Furthermore, social awareness in students with ASD could be unrelated to cognitive ability, as has been previously suggested (Williamson et al., 2008).

For both groups of twice-exceptional students, self-perceptions potentially could be different from others-perceptions due to positive illusory bias. Low correlations between parent, teacher, and self-reports of behavior, social, and emotional presentation are common (e.g., Achenbach, McConaughy, & Howell, 1987; Kamphaus & Frick, 2002). It is possible positive illusory bias is present in gifted students with ASD and SLD, similar to what has been observed in children with SLD (Heath & Glen, 2005) and ADHD (Owens et al., 2007; Owens & Hoza, 2003). Again, further research is necessary to determine the extent to which this phenomenon occurs among twice-exceptional populations.

Finally, the majority of the PH-2 Domain scores were highly correlated with each other, which is to be expected (Piers et al., 2002), with one exception. Behavioral Adjustment was highly correlated with Intellectual and School Status, Freedom from Anxiety, and Happiness and Satisfaction, but not with Popularity and Physical Appearance and Attributes. Gifted students with ASD and SLD may have greater insight into their behavioral difficulties (if present) but they do not let these behaviors or perceptions influence how they feel about their peer relationships and physical appearance. A qualitative investigation, where twice-exceptional students could further describe how they feel about themselves within various domains, would be fruitful to better understand these hypothesized relationships.

Limitations

There are several limitations to this study. Most importantly, the sample size for this study was small, which limited the power to detect differences between the two groups of twice-exceptional children and also limited the types of analyses possible. In addition, the sample of twice-exceptional children was not compared with those identified as gifted with no diagnosis, or to those diagnosed with ASD or SLD without co-existing giftedness (i.e., high cognitive ability). Future studies would compare gifted children with and without ASD or SLD on these important developmental variables. A third limitation is this is a clinic-based sample. As noted by Pfeiffer (2013), use of clinical samples is inherently biased, and the problem with most of the existing twice-exceptional research endeavors. This study is no exception and use of a clinical sample makes it impossible to generalize these findings to the larger population of gifted students with ASD and/or SLD.

A final limitation is the diversity of the sample. This was a sample of convenience, those who self-selected to participate in a grant-funded study of high-ability students with ASD and SLD. This limits the ability to generalize findings to other gifted students with ASD or SLD who may not have been willing or able to participate in such a study.

Conclusion

Leaders in the field are asking professionals to pay greater attention to the non-cognitive factors that influence performance in gifted populations (Cross, 2014; Peterson & Morris, 2010; Pfeiffer, 2013; Yoo & Moon, 2006), which includes twice-exceptional students. Professionals (educators, counselors, licensed psychologists, school psychologists, and educational psychologists) who work with this population must be attuned to aspects of students’ abilities and disabilities, and how these may intersect with self-concept. Whether a twice-exceptional child participates in gifted and talented programming, or has accommodations for his or her disability, may not affect self-concept. Being cognitively gifted, or receiving specialized interventions, may not be enough in terms of addressing twice-exceptional students’ psychosocial needs. Alternatively, the students may not perceive the difficulties others perceive, regardless of their intellectual status. A comprehensive assessment that includes multiple measures from multiple informants is necessary to gain an accurate picture of presenting concerns and appropriate interventions. The results provided by the assessment should extend beyond documentation of and recommendations for the cognitive and academic abilities or disabilities to include the implications of the psychosocial factors that are necessary to develop talent domains.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Education Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Program (CFDA 84.206A).

References

Achenbach

T. M.

McConaughy

S. H.

Howell

C. T.

(1987). Child/adolescent behavioral and emotional problems: Implications of cross-informant correlations for situational specificity. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 213-232. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.101.2.213

Alexopoulos

D. S.

Foudoulaki

(2002). Construct validity of the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Psychological Reports, 91, 827-838. doi:10.2466/PR0.91.7.827-838

American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington, DC: Author.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

(2009). NAGC position paper on twice-exceptionality. Retrieved from http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=5094

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

Dockery

(2012). Predicting the academic achievement with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 1781-1789. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1403-x

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

Doobay

(2009). Profoundly gifted girls and autism spectrum disorder: A psychometric case study comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 89-105. doi:10.1177/0016986208330565

Assouline

S. G.

Foley-Nicpon

Whiteman

(2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with specific learning disabilities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 102-115. doi:10.1177/001698620935597

Baron-Cohen

(2003). The essential difference: Men, women and the extreme male brain. London, England: Penguin Books.

10.

Bauminger

Shulman

Agam

(2003). Peer interaction and loneliness in high functioning children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33, 489-507. doi:10.1023/A:1025827427901

11.

Bear

Minke

K. M.

Manning

M. A.

(2002). Self-concept of students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. School Psychology Review, 31, 405-427.

12.

Berninger

V. W.

Abbott

R. D.

(2013). Differences between children with dyslexia who are and are not gifted in verbal reasoning. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 223-233. doi:10.1177/0016986213500342

13.

Borland

J. H.

(2009). Myth 2: The gifted constitute 3% to 5% of the population. Moreover, giftedness equals high IQ, which is a stable measure of aptitude. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 236-238. doi:10.1177/0016986209346825

14.

Byrne

(2002). Validating the measurement and structure of self-concept: Snapshots of past, present, and future research. American Psychologist, 57, 897-909. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.57.11.897

15.

Capps

Sigman

Yirmiya

(1995). Self-competence and emotional understanding in high functioning children with autism. Development and Psychopathology, 7, 137-149. doi:10.1017/S0954579400006386

16.

Chapman

J. W.

(1988). Learning disabled children’s self-concepts. Review of Educational Research, 58, 347-371. doi:10.2307/1170259

17.

Cosden

McNamera

(1997). Self-concept and perceived social support among college students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 20, 2-12. doi:10.2307/1511087

18.

Cross

T. L.

(2014). All for one and one for all. 2013 NAGC presidential address. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58, 95-97. doi: 10.1177/0016986214523313

19.

Council of State Directors of Programs for Gifted & National Association for Gifted Children. (2013). 2012-2013 state of the states in gifted education: National policy and practice data. Washington, DC: National Association for Gifted Children.

20.

Emeh

C. C.

Mikami

A. Y.

(2014). The influence of parent behaviors on positive illusory bias in children with ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders, 18, 456-465. doi:10.1177/1087054712441831

21.

Foley-Nicpon

(2013). Gifted Child Quarterly’s special issue on twice-exceptionality: Progress on the path of empirical understanding. Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 207-208. doi:10.1177/0016986213501195

22.

Foley-Nicpon

Allmon

Sieck

Stinson

R. D.

(2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 3-17. doi:10.1177/001698621038257

23.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

(2015). Counseling considerations for the twice-exceptional client. Journal of Counseling & Development, 93, 202-211. doi:10.1008/j.1556-6676.2015.00196.x

24.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Colangelo

(2013). Twice-exceptional learners: Who needs to know what? Gifted Child Quarterly, 57, 169-180. doi:10.1177/0016986213490021

25.

Foley-Nicpon

Assouline

S. G.

Stinson

R. D.

(2012). Cognitive and academic distinctions between gifted students with autism and Asperger syndrome. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 77-89. doi:10.1177/0016986211433199

26.

Foley-Nicpon

Doobay

Assouline

S. G.

(2010). Teacher, parent, and self-perceptions of psychosocial functioning in intellectually gifted children and adolescents with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 40, 1028-1038. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-0952-8

27.

Foley-Nicpon

(2015). The social and emotional development of twice-exceptional children. In Neihart

Pfeiffer

Cross

T. L.

(Eds.), Social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know (pp. 103-118). Waco, TX: Prufrock.

28.

Foley-Nicpon

Rickels

Richards

Assouline

S. G.

(2012). Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students with ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35, 220-240. doi:10.1177/0162353212451735

29.

Frith

(2004). Emanuel Miller lecture: Confusions and controversies about Asperger syndrome. Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychology and Psychiatry, 45, 672-686. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00262.x

30.

Frith

Happe

(1999). Theory of mind and self-consciousness: What is it like to be autistic?. Mind & Language, 14, 1-22. doi:10.111/1468-0017.00100

31.

Gross

M. U.

(1989). The pursuit of excellence or the search for intimacy? The forced-choice dilemma of gifted youth. Roeper Review, 11, 189-194. doi:10.1080/02783198909553207

32.

Harter

(1982). The Perceived Competence Scale for Children. Child Development, 53, 87-97. doi:10.2307/1129640

33.

Harter

Whitesell

N. R.

Junkin

L. J.

(1998). Similarities and differences in domain-specific and global self-evaluations of learning-disabled, behaviorally disordered, and normally achieving adolescents. American Educational Research Journal, 51, 653-680. doi:10.3102/00028.12035004653

34.

Heath

Glen

(2005). Positive illusory bias and the self- protective hypothesis in children with learning disabilities. Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 34, 272-281. doi:10.1207/s15374424jccp3402_6

35.

Heyman

W. B.

(1990). The self-perception of a learning disability and its relationship to academic self-concept and self-esteem. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 23, 472-475. doi:10.1177/002221949002300804

36.

Hoge

R. D.

Renzulli

J. S.

(1993). Exploring the link between giftedness and self-concept. Review of Educational Research, 63, 449-465. doi:10.2307/1170496

37.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1926). Gifted children: Their nature and nurture. New York, NY: Macmillan.

38.

Hollingworth

L. S.

(1942). Children above 180 IQ. New York, NY: World Book.

39.

Hymel

Bowker

Woody

(1993). Aggressive versus withdrawn unpopular children: Variations in peer and self-perceptions in multiple domains. Child Development, 64, 879-896. doi:10.2307/1131224

40.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act. 20 U.S.C. § 1400. (2004).

41.

Jones

T. W.

(2013). Equally cursed and blessed: Do gifted and talented children experience poorer mental health and psychological well-being? Educational and Child Psychology, 30(2), 44-66.

42.

Kalbfleisch

Loughan

(2012). Impact of IQ discrepancy on executive function in high-functioning autism: Insight into twice exceptionality. Journal of Developmental Disorders, 42, 390-400. doi:10.1007/s10803-011-1257-2

43.

Kamphaus

R. W.

Frick

P. J.

(2002). Clinical assessment of child and adolescent personality and behavior. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

44.

Karnes

F. A.

Wherry

J. N.

(1981). Self-concepts of gifted students as measured by the Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale. Psychological Reports, 49, 903-906. doi:10.2466/pr0.1981.49.3.903

45.

Kasari

Locke

Gulsrud

Rotheram-Fuller

(2011). Social networks and friendships at school: Comparing children with and without ASD. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 41, 533-544. doi:10.1007/s10803-010-1076-x

46.

Kauder

J. K.

(2009). The impact of twice-exceptionality on self-perceptions (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://ir.uiowa.edu/etd/301

47.

Kelly

K. R.

Colangelo

(1984). Academic and social self-concepts of gifted, general, and special students. Exceptional Children, 50, 551-554. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Publications/CEC-Journals/Exceptional-Children?sc_lang=en

48.

Kistner

Haskett

White

Robbins

(1987). Perceived competence and self-worth of LD and normally achieving students. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 37-44. doi:10.2307/1510753

49.

Lee

Hobson

R. P.

(1998). On developing self-concepts: A controlled study of children and adolescents with autism. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 39, 1131-1144. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00417

50.

Lee

Olszewski-Kubilius

Thomson

D. T.

(2012). Academically gifted students’ perceived interpersonal competence and peer relationships. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 90-104. doi:10.1177/0016986212442568

51.

Lewis

J. D.

Knight

H. V.

(2000). Self-concept in gifted youth: An investigation employing the Piers–Harris subscales. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 45-53. doi:10.1177/001698620004400105

52.

Loeb

R. C.

Jay

(1987). Self-concept in gifted children: Differential impact in boys and girls. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1, 9-14. doi:10.1177/001698628703100102

53.

Lord

Rutter

DiLavore

Risi

(2001). Autism diagnostic observation schedule (ADOS) manual. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

54.

MacMaster

Donovan

L. A.

MacIntyre

P. D.

(2002). The effects of being diagnosed with a learning disability on children’s self-esteem. Child Study Journal, 32, 101-108.

55.

Marsh

H. W.

(1992). Content specificity of relations between academic achievement and academic self-concept. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 35-42. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.1.35

56.

McQuade

J. D.

Tomb

Hoza

Waschbusch

D. A.

Hurt

E. A.

Vaughn

A. J.

(2010). Cognitive deficits and positively biased self-perceptions in children with ADHD. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 39, 307-319.

57.

Owens

J. S.

Goldfine

M. E.

Evangelista

N. M.

Hoza

Kaiser

N. M.

(2007). A critical review of self-perceptions and the positive illusory bias in children with ADHD. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, 10, 335-351. doi:10.1007/s10567-007-0027-3

58.

Owens

J. S.

Hoza

(2003). The role of inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity in the positive illusory bias. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 680-691. doi:10.1037/0022-006X.71.4.680

59.

Peterson

J. S.

Morris

C. W.

(2010). Preparing school counselors to address concerns related to giftedness: A study of accredited counselor preparation programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 33, 311-336. Retrieved from http://jeg.sagepub.com/

60.

Pfeiffer

S. I.

(2013). Serving the gifted: Evidence-based clinical and psychoeducational practice. New York, NY: Routledge.

61.

Piers

E. V.

Harris

D. B.

Herzberg

D. S.

(2002). Piers–Harris Children’s Self-Concept Scale (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

62.

Plucker

J. A.

Stocking

V. B.

(2001). Looking outside and inside: Self-concept development of gifted adolescents. Exceptional Children, 67, 535-548. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/Publications/CEC-Journals/Exceptional-Children?sc_lang=en

63.

Rothman

H. R.

Cosden

(1995). The relationship between self-perception of a learning disability and achievement, self-concept, and social support. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 203-212. doi:10.2307/1511043

64.

Rutter

Couteur

Lord

(2003). Autism Diagnostic Interview–Revised. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

65.

Scholtens

Diamantopoulou

Tillman

C. M.

Rydell

A. M.

(2012). Effects of symptoms of ADHD, ODD, and cognitive functioning on social acceptance and the positive illusory bias in children. Journal of Attention Disorders, 16, 685-696. doi:10.1177/1087054711417398

66.

Schriber

R. A.

Robins

R. W.

Solomon

(2014). Personality and self-insight in individuals with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 4112-4130. doi:10.1037/a0034950

67.

Shany

Wiener

Assido

(2013). Friendship predictors of global self-worth and domain-specific self-concepts in university students with and without learning disability. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 46, 444-452. doi:10.1177/0022219412436977

68.

Sparrow

Balla

Cicchetti

(1984). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

69.

Swann

W. B.

Chang-Schneider

McClarty

K. L.

(2007). Do people’s self-views matter? Self-concept and self-esteem in everyday life. The American Psychologist, 62, 84-94. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.62.2.84

70.

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences. (2005). Jacob K. Javits gifted and talented program—National Research and Development Center. Retrieved from http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2005-08-23/pdf/05-16722.pdf

71.

Watkins

M. W.

Greenawalt

C. G.

Marcell

C. M.

(2002). Factor structure of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Third Edition among gifted students. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 164-172. doi:10.1177/0013164402062001011

72.

Wechsler

(1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale–Third Edition. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.

73.

Wechsler

(2001). Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

74.

Wechsler

(2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children–Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.

75.

Williamson

Craig

Slinger

(2008). Exploring the relationship between measures of self-esteem and psychological adjustment among adolescents with Asperger syndrome. Autism, 12, 391-402. doi:10.1177/1362361308091652

76.

Woodcock

R. W.

McGrew

K. S.

Mather

(2001). Woodcock–Johnson Tests of Achievement–Third Edition. Rolling Meadows, IL: Riverside.

77.

Woods

A. G.

Mahdavi

Ryan

J. P.

(2013). Treating clients with Asperger’s syndrome and autism. Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health, 7, 7-32. doi:10.1186/1753-2000-7-32

78.

Worrell

F. C.

(2009). Myth 4: A single test score or indicator tells us all we need to know about giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 242-244. doi:10.1177/0016986209346825

79.

Yoo

J. E.

Moon

S. M.

(2006). Counseling needs of gifted students: An analysis of intake forms at a university-based counseling center. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 52-61. doi:10.1177/001698620605000106

80.

Zeleke

(2004). Differences in self-concept among children with mathematics disabilities and their average and high achieving peers. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 253-269. doi:10.1080/1034912042000259224