http://gcq.sagepub.

com/

Gifted Child Quarterly

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/54/2/102
The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/0016986209355974
2010 54: 102 originally published online 15 January 2010 Gifted Child Quarterly
Susan G. Assouline, Megan Foley Nicpon and Claire Whiteman
Cognitive and Psychosocial Characteristics of Gifted Students With Written Language Disability

Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:

National Association for Gifted Children

can be found at: Gifted Child Quarterly Additional services and information for

http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:

http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/54/2/102.refs.html Citations:

by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from

Gifted Child Quarterly
54(2) 102 115
2010 National Association for
Gifted Children
Reprints and permission: http://www.
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0016986209355974
http://gcq.sagepub.com
Cognitive and Psychosocial Characteristics
of Gifted Students With Written Language
Disability
Susan G. Assouline,
1
Megan Foley Nicpon,
1
and Claire Whiteman
1
Abstract
Gifted and talented students who also have a specific learning disability (SLD) are typically referred to as twice-exceptional and are
among the most underserved students in our schools. Previous special education laws promoted a wait-to-fail approach; therefore,
gifted students with SLD often were overlooked because their average academic performance was not failure enough. The flip
side to this was the fact that students giftedness, as measured by general ability tests, often was masked by average, yet relatively
weak, academic achievement. They were not only waiting to fail, they were failing to flourish. The authors present the data gathered
from 14 gifted students with SLD, specifically a disorder of written expression. Students were determined to be gifted if they earned
a score of 120 (Superior) on the Verbal Scale of a cognitive ability test. They were considered to have a written language disability
through an evaluation of their written language skills. The average Verbal IQ for the group was close to a standard score of 130,
whereas the average Written Language Score was close to a standard score of 99. In addition to the cognitive profile for these
students, the authors obtained measures of their psychosocial functioning. On average, parents, teachers, and students reported
typical adaptive behavior, yet group elevations also were present on several clinical scales. The authors main conclusion is that
a comprehensive assessment plays a critical role in (a) determining whether a student is twice-exceptional, (b) identifying the
possibility of psychosocial concerns, and (c) developing educational recommendations.
Putting the Research to Use
The results from our empirical study suggest that only through a comprehensive evaluation, which includes both individualized
achievement and ability tests and allows for an analysis of the performance discrepancy between the two, is it possible to discover
cognitively gifted students with a disorder of written expression. Diagnostic/identification procedures that do not include
a comprehensive evaluation place gifted students at serious risk for missed diagnosis and ultimately, missed opportunity for
intervention. The missed diagnosis arises from the observation that their written work is average relative to that of their peers.
Equally important is the concern that some very capable students may be over-looked for screening for gifted programming because
their achievement is average. Educators of students who appear to have high verbal ability while simultaneously demonstrating
difficulty completing written assignmentsand may even appear to be lazy or unmotivatedhave a responsibility to further investigate
the students difficulties and strengths.
Keywords
gifted students, disorder of written expression, specific learning disabilities
Introduction
Students who are gifted and have a disability are twice-
exceptional. Because they simultaneously display academic
strengths and learning difficulties, they baffle their parents
and teachers and commonly are accused of being lazy and/
or underachievers. For example, gifted students with learn-
ing disabilities are typically highly verbal and can explain
complex concepts on a variety of topics, yet they have dif-
ficulty writing or completing assignments. The result is
unpredictable classroom performance and equally frustrated
students and teachers. Another issue that confounds the
1
The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA, USA
Corresponding Author:
Susan G. Assouline, The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International
Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development, 600 Blank Honors
Center, The University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
Email: susan-assouline@uiowa.edu
problem is that many educators do not believe that gifted
students can actually have diagnosable learning disabilities.
Also, recent trends in the field of learning disabilities have
discouraged the diagnosis of a specific learning disability
(SLD) through an abilityachievement discrepancy model,
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 103
which refers to a significant difference between the stu-
dents cognitive ability and achievement. For example,
students with average cognitive ability are expected to have
average achievement; therefore, a student with average cog-
nitive ability who has achievement levels that are
significantly discrepant from his or her general ability level
may have a learning disability. However, attaining levels of
achievement that are low enough relative to cognitive abil-
ity often have resulted in the wait-to-fail situation. Thus,
recent perspectives about the abilityachievement discrep-
ancy model include the notion that
no single method for identifying SLD has been demon-
strated to be sufficient or superior. It is clear, however,
that the abilityachievement discrepancy approach
which has carried the most weight since being installed
in federal special education regulations in 1977is inad-
equate, and warrants being de-emphasized in favor of
alternative approaches. (Lichtenstein, 2008)
Lichtenstein (2008) describes response to intervention (RtI),
which is an approach that features remediation through classroom
intervention, as a specific example of an applicable alternative
approach. Furthermore, the abilityachievement discrepancy
model was typically applied by psychologists who conducted
both the cognitive ability and achievement assessments, whereas
the RtI model relies heavily on the classroom teacher. Because
of this specific change in diagnostic philosophy (Lovett &
Lewandowski, 2006), it has become even more difficult to
provide evidence of the coexistence of giftedness with a
learning disability.
This is a disheartening situation for gifted students with
learning difficulties, and the parents of many have turned away
from the school to university-based gifted education assess-
ment centers for comprehensive evaluations by psychologists
and recommendations based on the assessment. Multiple times
we have observed the struggles that twice-exceptional students
endure because of this bias, which motivated us to systemati-
cally research their cognitive and psychosocial profiles.
Prior to 2005, professionals interested in further understand-
ing this unique group of students relied primarily on research
reviews or case studies (Baum, 1988; Brody & Mills, 1997;
Reis, Neu, & McGuire, 1995; Silverman, 2003). Case study
analysis is an excellent way to document and describe phenom-
ena, but additional, more generalizable methods of empirical
investigation are needed to support the existence of SLD among
talented youth. The 2004 reauthorization of the 1997 Individu-
als with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA-2004; U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Special Education Pro-
grams, 2006) presented a unique opportunity to move forward
the field of twice-exceptional students, especially gifted stu-
dents with specific learning disabilities. IDEA-2004, in and of
itself, was not a remarkable event because there were no signifi-
cant changes in the definitions of the 13 disability categories
(see Table 1 for a listing of the categories and the most currently
available percentages of students in each category who qualify
for Special Education, the IDEA-2004 definition of Specific
Learning Disability, and the DSM-IV-TR diagnostic criteria for
Disorder of Written Expression).
Nonetheless, for the field of gifted education, there was
most definitely a historic component to this legislation as it
offered first-time recognition of the need to support research
on gifted students with SLD. This federal initiative led to a
collaborative effort between the Iowa Department of Educa-
tion and the University of Iowa Belin-Blank Center for Gifted
Education to obtain funding via The Jacob K. Javits Gifted
and Talented Act for a 3-year, federally supported project to
investigate twice-exceptional students. A major component
of the project involved conducting comprehensive assess-
ments as a way to further the field with respect to empirical
documentation of the relevance of a comprehensive evalua-
tion process for twice-exceptional students.
Although the definition of SLD did not change with the
reauthorization, there have been qualitative changes, espe-
cially with respect to options for identification. In an effort to
eliminate the wait-to-fail system of the past, the legislators
who crafted IDEA-2004 conceptualized an identification
procedure that was not dependent on the long-standing (i.e.,
since 1975) discrepancy model. This identification/intervention
procedure occurs within a multitiered service delivery system
within the regular classroom. At first blush, this system might
be viewed positively for gifted students with learning dis-
abilities because most of their academic experience is within
the regular classroom. In reality, a multitiered assessment
system that is implemented primarily in the regular class-
room is likely to increase the probability that these students
specialized needs will remain masked. The main reason is
because of the deemphasis on the administration of nation-
ally normed standardized tests, including individual tests of
intelligence, which means that the advanced ability of gifted
students with learning disabilities is far less likely to be
revealed. Even in settings where standardized testing is still
a component of the gifted education identification process,
gifted students with SLD may be at a disadvantage in identi-
fication for giftedness, because their disability may mitigate
their overall academic progress and result in not being iden-
tified for gifted programming. This phenomenon, known as
masking (Silverman, 2003), was first described in Daniels
1983 volume Teaching the Gifted/Learning Disabled Child
(cited in Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006). The flip side to this
phenomenon is that the achievement scores earned by the
gifted child with a learning disability often are within the
average range of performance based on grade placement, yet
are relatively weak compared with their general ability, and
this average performance is not failure enough to be consid-
ered a disability. Nearly 25 years later, the issues of masking
and comparison of achievement with a global intelligence score
remain at the heart of debates about whether giftedness and a
learning disability can occur in the same individual (Lovett
& Lewandowski, 2006).
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
104 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
Lovett and Lewandowski (2006) thoroughly reviewed sev-
eral major publications (see Brody & Mills, 1997; McCoach,
Kehle, Bray, & Siegle, 2001; Silverman, 2003) to analyze these
authors recommendations and approaches to assessment of
gifted students with learning disabilities, and they concluded that
we currently do not have empirical evidence to support
the practice of profile analysis for G/LD [gifted/learning
disabled] or to inform clinicians on how to conduct such
analyses. As such, profile analysis, like scatter analysis,
tends to be applied to individual cases using clinical intu-
ition and interpretation, which in turn is used, improperly
[italics added], to justify a diagnosis of LD or G/LD.
(Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006, p. 520)
A profile analysis refers specifically to the students performance
across the indexes and corresponding subtests of the ability and
achievement measures. Thus, a psychologist who is trying to
determine the presence of a learning disorder would look
carefully at the students performance on the indexes and
subtests related to the concern. One purpose of our research
was to generate evidence in order to respond to the idea that
this is an improper process for gifted students.
In actuality, significant equivocation regarding the concept of
a gifted LD profile (Cohen & Vaughn, 1994; Ferri, Gregg, &
Heggoy, 1997; Hu Hurley & Levinson, 2002; Maller &
McDermott, 1997; Mayes & Calhoun, 2005; Vaughn, 1989;
Watkins, Kush, & Schaefer, 2002; Worrell, 2000) exists and
much of the uncertainty seems to be based on two main
issues that are also somewhat related. The first, which was
discussed above, has to do with the validity of a cognitive
profile that is focused on an abilityachievement discrep-
ancy for any student with an SLD. The second is concerned
with the numbers of students who are appropriately or inap-
propriately identified as SLD.
These issues became related several decades ago when
the 1977 federal special education regulations introduced the
abilityachievement discrepancy, which results in a cogni-
tive abilityachievement profile, as a system for controlling
the ever-increasing SLD prevalence rates (Lichtenstein &
Klotz, 2007). However, the authors expressed concern that
the abilityachievement discrepancy, especially if applied to
gifted students, may actually result in greater numbers of
students being identified (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006).
The implication is that the abilityachievement discrepancy
in a gifted student is not necessarily a valid indicator of an
Table 1. Number of Students (Aged 6-21) Served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2001 by Disability
Category, Definition of Specific Learning Disability,
a
and DSM-IV-TR Diagnostic Criteria for Disorder of Written Expression
b
Percentage of U.S. Student
Disability Number of Children Percentage of IDEA, Total Population (Aged 6-21)
Specific learning disabilities 2,886,679 49.2 6.0
Speech or language impairments 1,091,306 18.6 2.3
Mental retardation 604,325 10.3 1.2
Emotional disturbance 475,246 8.1 1.0
Multiple disabilities 129,079 2.2 0.3
Hearing impairments 70,407 1.2 0.1
Orthopedic impairments 76,274 1.3 0.2
Other health impairments 340,299 5.8 0.7
Visual impairments 23,469 0.4 0.0
Autism 99,743 1.7 0.2
Deaf-blindness 0.0 0.0
Traumatic brain injury 23,469 0.4 0.0
Developmental delay 46,938 0.8 0.1
All disabilities 5,867,234 100.0 12.1
Source: Adapted from the U.S. Department of Education (2006); Number of students (aged 6-21) served under IDEA in 2001 (Sattler, 2008).
a. Specific Learning Disability means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken
or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The term includes
conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. The term does not include learning
problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities; of mental retardation; of emotional disturbance; or of environmental, cultural,
or economic disadvantage.
b. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth Edition, Text Revision; DSM-IV-TR) diagnostic criteria for 315.2 Disorder of Written
Expression
A. Writing skills, as measured by individually administered standardized tests (or functional assessments of writing skills), are substantially below
those expected given the persons chronological age, measured intelligence, and age-appropriate education.
B. The disturbance in Criterion A significantly interferes with academic achievement or activities of daily living that require the composition of
written texts (e.g., writing grammatically correct sentences and organizing paragraphs).
C. If a sensory deficit is present, the difficulties in writing skills are in excess of those usually associated with it (p. 56, DSM-IV-TR; American Psychiatric
Association, 2000).
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 105
SLD. Despite evidence that the achievementability discrep-
ancy does not overpredict in samples of students with high
IQs (Mayes & Calhoun, 2005), Lovett and Lewandowski
(2007) cavalierly assert that an uneven profile does not nec-
essarily indicate unevenness in any latent capacities residing
within the child; it is just as likely to be the result of motivation,
past learning experiences, or measurement error (p. 522).
A major goal of our research was to determine the effec-
tiveness of cognitive and behavioral profiles in understanding
the multifaceted needs of gifted students with learning diffi-
culties. Professional psychologists are taught that comprehensive
psychoeducational assessments are conducted to answer ques-
tions about a student (Sattler, 2008). The assessment results
inform diagnostic and placement decisions, as well as pro-
vide intervention recommendations. For our sample of students
the question was twofold: Is the student academically gifted
and does the student have a learning disability?
Assessment of Giftedness: Is the
Student Academically Gifted?
This is a short question with a long answer. One resource used
to generate our response is the 2006-2007 State of the States in
Gifted Education (National Association for Gifted Children,
2007), a document based on an annual survey distributed to all
states and U.S. territories. Respondents had various formats for
completing the survey; 43 states responded, although not all
questions on the survey were answered. The survey was
designed to cover multiple areas in gifted education, including
definition and identification. Out of 42 states responding to the
survey question about definition and identification, 37 indicated
that there is a definition in their state; however, only 29 reported
that the local districts were req uired to follow that definition. A
review of the various definitions used reveals that most of them
are related to the federal definition of giftedness, which can be
found in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The fed-
eral definition is broad in nature and states that gifted and
talented students are
students, children, or youth who give evidence of high
achievement capability in areas such as intellectual,
creative, artistic, or leadership capacity, or in specific
academic fields, and who need services and activities
not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully
develop those capabilities. (U.S. Department of Edu-
cation, 2002)
By design, the federal definition lacks specificity. This lack of
specificity at the federal level translated to nonuniformity at the
local level. The variety of criteria (e.g., achievement, IQ, state-
based assessments) precluded us from relying on a schools
definition, because it would have resulted in a heterogeneous
group of gifted students that would have made the
interpretation of results quite difficult. For that reason, we
designated as academically gifted those students in our sample
who had at least one IQ score (e.g., Verbal, Perceptual
Reasoning, or General Ability Index) at 120 or above, which
represents a Superior level of performance. Such a specific
approach permitted consistency of data collection and assured
a certain level of standardization of our sample. Furthermore,
because the nature of the students disability was academic, we
sought to identify those who likewise possessed advanced
reasoning skills. In addition to the federal definition of
giftedness, there are multiple definitions (see the NAGC Web
site at http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=574&an for descri-
ptions of other definitions) in the K-12 educational system that
have resulted in multiple applications of programs and program
identification systems. When this multiplicity is combined with
the fact that university-based programs typically rely on a
model of above-level testing, which is not usually an aspect of
the K-12 system, the result has sometimes led to confusion
inside, as well as outside, of the field of gifted education.
Assessment of Learning Disabilities: Does the
Student Have a Learning Disability?
This is a multifaceted question because of several recent deve-
lopments in the diagnostic and intervention process for learning
disabilities, especially the highly touted RtI (Gresham, 2002).
Briefly, RtI is an approach to remediation of learning diffi-
culties that is intended to provide early intervention when
students are first identified as experiencing academic prob-
lems (National Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005).
With an RtI model, both the identification of difficulties and
the intervention for the difficulties are implemented in the
regular classroom; therefore, an underlying assumption is
that it will lead to the improvement of achievement of all
students, including those with an SLD. RtI is now one of the
options available to districts in states that have opted out of
the traditional abilityachievement discrepancy (Lichtenstein,
2008); the backlash to no longer needing to demonstrate a
difference between cognitive ability and academic achieve-
ment is that individualized, standardized testing is no longer
mandatory and often has been eliminated (Wodrich, Spencer,
& Daley, 2006). This creates a paradox because the federal
definition (see Table 1) indicates that a learning disability is
a disorder [not further specified] of basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language,
spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do math-
ematical calculations. It seems logical that some assessment
of both ability and achievement is necessary to measure the
basic psychological processes.
Indeed, an evaluation where both ability and achievement
are measured appears to be the one commonality between the
questions related to the presence of a learning disability and/or
the presence of giftedness. Despite the IDEA-2004 language,
which implies support for alternative ways (e.g., RtI) to identify
an SLD, a comprehensive evaluation is required before a stu-
dent can be diagnosed with an SLD (for a comprehensive
discussion of the IDEA requirements to identify SLD, see the
National Association of School Psychologists [NASP, 2007]
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
106 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
position statement on Identification of Students with Specific
Learning Disabilities, July 2007).Once a comprehensive evalu-
ation is conducted, the answers become fairly straightforward.
In contrast to the implication that gifted students are being over-
identified as having specific learning disabilities and therefore
depleting the limited educational resources (Gordon, Lewan-
dowski, & Keiser, 1999), we propose that these are highly able
students who are not doing well in school and are having prob-
lems that extend beyond not achieving to their fullest potential.
The extent of these problems and what to do about them is only
evident with a comprehensive evaluation. The purpose of this
article is to describe the cognitive, academic, and psychosocial
profiles of academically gifted students with SLD. In addition,
we will discuss the implications for this information on the
referral and intervention processes.
Method
The sample of students was recruited over an 18-month period
and was obtained through extensive distribution of announce-
ments inviting participation of gifted students with learning
problems or severe social impairments to participate in the
study. Therefore, two major categories of disability were sought:
(a) students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) and (b)
students with an autism spectrum disorder (ASD). The grant
allowed for a maximum of 75 students to be assessed; how-
ever, we were able to include two additional students in the
subject pool. The results of the assessments of students with
ASD are reported elsewhere (Assouline, Foley Nicpon, &
Doobay, 2009; Foley Nicpon, Assouline, Amend, & Schuler,
in press). This article focuses on the results from the sample
of gifted students with SLD.
To participate in the study, students needed to be residents of
the state of Iowa. Participation was at no cost to the family, and
parents/guardians who traveled from out of town received a
small stipend for expenses. Each student was individually ass-
essed by one or more members of the research team, which
consisted of two licensed psychologists, three certified psy-
chologists, and two doctoral-level practicum students. The
assessment included a comprehensive battery of standardized
intellectual, achievement, and socialemotional measures. The
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (Fourth
Edition, Text Revision; DSM-IV-TR; American Psychological
Association, 2000) was used as the primary guideline in deter-
mining the presence of an SLD. The DSM-IV definition is based
on the discrepancy model of identifying SLDs such that the
identified area of achievement (reading, math, or written lan-
guage) is significantly below expectations based on the students
age, ability, and education experiences. The results were entered
into a database, and descriptive analyses were conducted.
Sampling Procedures
A flier outlining the requirements for participation in the
research study was distributed electronically on a Listserv
designed for gifted and talented educators and parents in Iowa.
The flier noted that parents were to contact the Belin-Blank
Centers Assessment and Counseling Clinic to obtain addi-
tional information about the procedures for the study, which
included submitting previous records (i.e., results from previ-
ous evaluations, test scores, grades, etc.). These records were
reviewed to ensure that the student would be a good match for
the study parameters (i.e., evidence of talent in one or more
academic area and a suspected learning difficulty). Our clinic
does not have a strict cutoff with regard to giftedness. If there
was evidence of giftedness (e.g., placement in a gifted pro-
gram, greater than or equal to 85th percentile on a grade-level
standardized test, etc.), we accepted the referral for participa-
tion. Eligible students were then contacted to schedule a 2-day
assessment with members of the diagnostic team.
Design, Data Gathering, and Data Analysis
Participants were administered a battery of tests that were
determined by the research team. The battery was selected to
identify areas of academic talent as well as rule out and/or
confirm a diagnosis of SLD. One cognitive ability test was
administered among three choices: The WoodcockJohnson
Cognitive Ability Scales (WJIII; Woodcock, McGrew, &
Mather, 2001), the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children
(WISC-IV; Wechsler, 2003), or the Wechsler Adult Intelli-
gence Scale (WAIS-III; Wechsler, 1997). The WJIII, an
individually administered comprehensive standardized test
of cognitive ability that yields a composite score as well as a
score from each of seven broad cognitive areas, was admin-
istered in cases when a student had been administered a
WISC-IV within 12 months of participating in the study. The
WAIS-III was administered with participants aged 16 to 18
years. As a member of the Wechsler family of tests, the
WAIS-III is comparable in structure and format with the
WISC-IV, which was the test administered to the majority of
participants. The WISC-IV (Wechsler, 2003) is an individu-
ally administered standardized test of cognitive ability for
students aged between 6 and 16 years. It is widely used in
both school and clinical settings as a measure of intellectual
ability and yields a Full Scale IQ score, as well as four index
scores: Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI), Perceptual Rea-
soning Index (PRI), Working Memory Index (WMI), and
Processing Speed Index (PSI). The VCI assesses reasoning
skills that are verbally based; the PRI taps visual-motor and
nonverbal reasoning skills; the WMI offers insights into the
students ability to recall and mentally manipulate auditorily
presented information, as well as the ability to concentrate
and sustain attention; and the PSI includes subtests that tap
into skills such as visual acuity, perceptual discrimination,
and speed of mental processing. The WISC-IV index scores
are represented as standard scores with a mean of 100 and a
standard deviation of 15.
The achievement battery consisted of two individually
administered achievement tests, the WoodcockJohnson III
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 107
(WJIII ACH; Woodcock et al., 2001) and selected tests from
Wechsler Individual Achievement Test, 2nd Edition (WIAT-II;
Psychological Corporation, 2001). The WJIII ACH assesses
the areas of word reading, reading speed, reading compre-
hension; mathematics calculation, speed, and problem solving;
spelling, writing speed, and written expression; and listening
comprehension and oral language. The WIAT-II yields scores
in the areas of oral language, listening comprehension, writ-
ten expression, spelling, pseudoword decoding, word reading,
reading comprehension, numerical operations, and mathe-
matics reasoning. As was the case with their cognitive ability
counterparts, both the WJIII ACH and the WIAT-II are widely
used in clinical and educational settings to identify a stu-
dents individual academic strengths and weaknesses. They
are commonly used to diagnose or rule out the presence of
learning disabilities as well as to inform educational plan-
ning. When a disorder of written expression was suspected,
the BeeryBuktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor
Integration, 5th Edition (VMI; Beery, Buktenica, & Beery,
2004) was also administered. This paper-and-pencil test
assesses visual-motor and fine-motor skills and is helpful in
identifying difficulties in these areas that could affect writing
performance.
To assess psychosocial functioning, the parent, teacher, and
student forms of the Behavior Assessment System for Chil-
dren, 2nd Edition (BASC-2; Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2004)
and the PiersHarris Childrens Self-Concept Scale, 2nd Edi-
tion (PH-2; Piers & Herzberg, 2002) were given. The BASC-2
is a survey that is completed separately by parents (PRS),
teachers (TRS), and students (SRS) and yields results that
are reported as T scores. For the clinical scales, a T score of
60 to 70 represents a score that is considered at risk, and a
T score of 70 or higher is considered clinically significant.
On the adaptability scales, T scores between 30 and 40 are
considered at risk, and scores that are 30 or lower are con-
sidered clinically significant. The PH-2 is a self-report
measure that provides a total score and six subscale scores:
Behavioral Adjustment, Intellectual/School Status, Physical
Appearance/Attributes, Freedom from Anxiety, Popularity,
and Happiness and Satisfaction. Scores also are reported as
T scores where the mean is 50 and the standard deviation is
10. Scores of 40 or less are considered Low, and scores
more than 60 are considered High. On completion of each
assessment, a comprehensive report was written that out-
lined results and provided recommendations for the family to
use and share with the students school personnel.
Results and Discussion
Out of 77 students who were assessed as part of the grant, 48
were referred for an assessment to determine the presence of
ASD, and 29 were referred for an assessment to determine
the presence of SLD. Based on the assessment results, it was
determined that 6 students did not have SLD, and 23 did
have SLD. Of the 23 students with an SLD diagnosis, 2 stu-
dents had a diagnosis of Learning Disability-Not Otherwise
Specified; 1 had SLD in mathematics only, and 1 had SLD in
reading only. This left us with 19 students who met the crite-
ria for SLD of written expression; however, only 14 of those
19 students met both criteria for SLD of written expression
and giftedness (one IQ index score of 120 or above). Of the
14 students with SLD in written expression, 5 also had a co-
occurring SLD in reading.
All the students identified themselves as White or Cauca-
sian; 11 were male and 3 were female. The age range for the
sample of 14 students was 8 years, 2 months to 17 years, 9
months, representing Grades 2 to 11. Eight students were
enrolled in Grades 2 to 6, and 6 were in Grades 7 to 11. Eight
(57%) participated in their schools talented and gifted pro-
gram, 1 (7%) received services from special education, and 5
(36%) did not receive either special education or talented and
gifted services. Although no one from this sample had been
whole-grade accelerated, 2 students were subject accelerated.
On completion of the comprehensive evaluation, a stu-
dent was determined to be twice-exceptional if he/she attained
a general or specific ability score in the Superior range or
above (Standard Score = 120+; academically gifted) and a
standard score on one or more measures of written language
that was at least 1 standard deviation below the students
ability score (learning disabled). As is stated in the DSM-IV,
we did not make a diagnosis of written expression solely
based on poor spelling and/or handwriting difficulties. Descrip-
tive statistics and measures of central tendency are reported
in Table 2.
Many interesting patterns are evident in participants cog-
nitive ability profiles (see Table 2). First, the range of scores
on all ability indices is quite largeoften more than 2 stan-
dard deviations. This suggests that there is no set pattern of
cognitive ability scores that would alert one to consider a
possible SLD in written language. Second, in general, stu-
dents verbal abilities, as measured by the WISC-IV VCI,
WASI-III VCI, or the WJIII Verbal Ability Index, are ext-
remely well developed and generally more advanced than
the students nonverbal abilities, as measured by the WISC-
IV PRI, WAIS-III Perceptual Organizational Index, or the
WJIII Thinking Ability Index. This is quite noteworthy because
all participants were diagnosed with a disability that is ver-
bally based. Additionally, significantly stronger verbal than
nonverbal skills are a hallmark symptom among students pos-
sessing a nonverbal learning disability (Rourke & Tstsanis,
2000; Wodrich & Schmitt, 2006), yet this is only one of sev-
eral criteria necessary for this diagnosis to be appropriate
(i.e., visual-perceptual deficits, social difficulties, motor delay,
etc.). When students exhibited a significant verbal and non-
verbal ability difference in their profile, diagnosticians
considered whether it was indicative of a nonverbal learning
disability. Participants included in this study did not meet
criteria for this diagnosis.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
108 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
Third, whereas students verbal and nonverbal abilities
are generally above age-level expectations, students work-
ing memory and processing speed abilities, as measured by
the WMI from the WISC-IV and WAIS-III and the PSI from
the WISC-IV and WAIS-III, as well as the WJIII Cognitive
Efficiency Index, are more similar to what would be expected
for students their age. Although this pattern is relatively common
among gifted students (Flannigan & Kaufmann, 2004;
Sparrow, Pfeiffer, & Newman, 2005), the size of the score
discrepancies in this sample exceeds that reported in the
normative gifted sample and may be an important feature
of the twice-exceptional child.
Finally, because of these large Index score differences, use
of the WISC-IV FSIQ, which is derived through consideration
of performance on all four WISC-IV indexes, should not be
considered the best way to describe a twice-exceptional childs
cognitive abilities. Use of the WISC-IV General Ability
Index (GAI), which is derived from the subtest scaled scores
for the VCI and PRI indexes (Raiford, Lawrence, Rolfhus, &
Coalson, 2005), is more fitting and highlights students higher
order cognitive reasoning strengths instead of penalizing
them for their lower order cognitive difficulties. In fact, even
though we did not use the FSIQ diagnostically, we were able to
calculate students average WISC-IV FSIQ (115.1) because
10 of the 14 students in our subsample were administered the
WISC-IV. This average FSIQ is 1 standard deviation below
the mean VCI score (129.6) and close to 1 standard deviation
below the GAI (124.6). Furthermore, this comparison between
the FSIQ and GAI provides evidence that reliance on an FSIQ
will more times than not eliminate the twice-exceptional stu-
dent from the gifted/talented programming from which they
would likely benefit. Because many TAG programs include
a significant verbal orientation, it becomes especially impor-
tant to find students whose very strong verbal abilities might
be hidden because of a disability.
When highly able students have learning difficulties, an
examination of the students achievement profiles provides
additional pieces to the puzzle. Because we administered a
comprehensive battery, which included reading, mathemat-
ics, and written language, it was possible to make observations
about achievement on a fairly broad level. As presented in
Table 3, we observed that reading performances were highly
variable across this subsample of twice-exceptional students;
however, this is likely because of the fact that about a third
(n = 5; 36%) of participants also had a diagnosis of reading
disorder. Second, math knowledge typically was at or above
grade-level expectations, but fluency, or the speed at which
the student completed simple math computation problems,
was lower (the difference between the mean broad math
score and the mean math fluency score was nearly 1 standard
deviation). This pattern is logical when students average
processing speed performances (standard score of 93.6) are
considered because both tasks require fine-motor and rapid
problem-solving skills. Third, the narrowest gap between
achievement and ability scores was found between expres-
sive and receptive oral language achievement (111.08) and
verbal abilities (129.6). This is understandable, as verbally
gifted students are most likely drawing on their strong verbal
ability for both expressive and receptive oral language; never-
theless, the difference is still greater than 1 standard deviation.
Most noticeable, students written language scores are much
lower than expectations based on their intellectual abilities.
The average Verbal scale score for the subsample was 129.6,
which was 2 standard deviations higher than the WJIII Broad
Written Language mean (99.31) and the WIAT-II Written
Language mean (95.22). We also observed that the average
VMI score was in the Low Average to Average range, which
suggests that, in general, these students also have fine-motor
difficulties that may contribute to the overall disorder of writ-
ten expression.
There are several score patterns within the written langu-
age subtests that are important to delineate. First, the variability
in performance on both the WJIII and WIAT-II Spelling tests
is quite large. Although some students struggled with spelling,
others were excellent spellers. Second, many of the students
assessed had difficulty on Writing Fluency, where they had
to construct as many simple sentences as possible within a
7-minute time limit. Again, the processing speed and fine-
motor difficulties that many of these students possessed likely
contributed to the significantly weaker performance and observed
scores. It is possible that students co-occurring fine-motor
difficulties negatively affect their written expression skills.
For example, if a student finds writing or fine-motor activities
taxing or physically painful, he or she may be less inclined to
write long essays, practice writing, or engage in writing activ-
ities for pleasure. What is clear and striking is that written
Table 2. Ability Measures
Measures Number Mean SD Range Minimum Maximum
General Ability 14 124.57 11.13 41 107 148
Verbal Comprehension 14 129.64 9.49 38 112 150
Perceptual Reasoning 14 115.71 12.76 54 84 138
Processing Speed 14 93.64 10.68 44 68 112
Working Memory 13 103.92 13.05 35 88 123
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 109
expression abilities (WJIII Writing Samples mean = 105.92
and WIAT-II Written Expression mean = 93.22) are signifi-
cantly lower than the students verbal cognitive abilities and
representative of a disability in the area of written language
that manifests in multiple ways.
A review of the results of the students psychosocial char-
acteristics, reported in Tables 4 and 5, indicates several
interesting patterns. First, we observed that there was a huge
range between the minimum and maximum scores for some
of the BASC-2 scales; Atypicality (unusual behaviors) ranged
from 31 on the PRS to 61 on the TRS, Hyperactivity from 42
on the PRS to 54 on the TRS, and Aggression from 51 to 39.
This means that some of the children had fairly significant
co-occurring externalizing problems whereas others did not.
An individualized approach is therefore necessary when add-
ressing twice-exceptional students psychosocial needs.
In addition to these large individual differences on the
BASC-2, the sample averages paint a picture of the groups
psychosocial adjustment that we think is informative. For
example, parents, teachers, and students self-reports of stu-
dents adaptive skills were overall in the average. This is a
very positive finding and offers useful information when con-
sidering accommodations for students with a written language
disorder. Academically gifted students with SLD may be
able to communicate their needs, demonstrate leadership and
social skills, and adapt to change; therefore, these areas may
be strengths to be considered when developing a childs edu-
cational plan. Only one adaptive scale was considered at
riskthe TRS Adaptability Scale. In general, teachers viewed
students as having mild difficulties adjusting to changes in the
environment. These difficulties, however, were not observed
by parents in the home environment.
Examination of the BASC-2 clinical scales reveals that
parents overall reported more scores that were at risk than
did teachers, particularly those scales that measured exter-
nalizing difficulties. The mean Behavioral Symptom Index
score on the PRS was in the at risk range, which was reflec-
tive of overall group mean scores in the at risk range on the
Hyperactivity and Withdrawal Scales, and a score approach-
ing at risk on the Attention Problems Scale. For our sample
of twice-exceptional students, parents observations were
that their children exhibited symptoms of inattention, over-
activity, and withdrawal from social situations more than is
typical for students their age. The mean Behavioral Symptom
Index score on the TRS was just at the at risk range, and
two scales within this index were also elevatedAttention
Problems and Atypicality (odd behaviors). Like parents,
teachers observed this group of students as possessing coex-
isting attention difficulties, but they also reported more odd
or unusual behaviors than what is typically seen in students
their age.
In comparison to the BASC-2 TRS and PRS, students
reported far fewer psychosocial difficulties. Means on the
BASC-2 SRP were solidly in the Average range. This is a
positive finding in that the students generally reported feel-
ing optimistic about their behavior, emotions, relationships,
and environment; however, not all scores were consistent
with parent and teacher reports. It may be that some students
did not have insight about how their behavior is perceived by
parents or teachers. Others may be less willing to self-report
Table 3. Achievement Measures
Measures Number Mean SD Range Minimum Maximum
WJIII Broad Reading 12 107.6 19.98 71 77 148
Letter-Word Identification 12 104.00 15.46 56 72 128
Reading Fluency 12 105.67 21.07 75 79 154
Passage Comprehension 12 105.33 12.12 40 85 125
WJIII Broad Math 12 107.58 9.28 30 94 124
Calculation 12 106.67 8.84 32 91 123
Math Fluency 12 92.50 10.49 29 79 108
Applied Problems 13 111.54 9.24 31 95 126
WJIII Broad Oral Language 12 111.06 12.74 42 89 131
Story Recall 12 113.08 14.29 48 91 139
Story RecallDelayed 12 117.42 11.65 42 91 133
Understanding Directions 13 107.15 13.08 51 89 140
WJIII Broad Written Language 13 99.31 12.02 36 80 116
Spelling 13 99.77 18.07 64 65 129
Writing Fluency 14 98.07 11.65 41 77 118
Writing Samples 13 105.92 7.84 25 94 119
WIAT Written Language 9 95.22 12.16 41 83 124
Spelling 10 94.80 20.36 81 60 141
Written Expression 9 93.22 6.00 16 84 100
Visual Motor Integration 11 90.91 17.33 55 59 114
Note: WJIII = WoodcockJohnson Cognitive Ability Scales; WIAT = Wechsler Individual Achievement Test.
Boldface print represents those tests or subtests that were used for ability-achievement comparisons.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
110 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
Table 4. Average BASC-2 T Scores for Parent Report, Teacher Report, and Self-Report
Number Mean T Score SD Range Minimum Maximum
BASC-2 Parent Rating Scales (PRS) Composite and Scale Scores
Externalizing Problems 14 57.71 12.16 43 43 86
Aggression 14 55.64 14.42 51 37 88
Conduct Problems 14 54.29 10.84 38 39 77
Hyperactivity* 14 61.29 12.60 42 40 82
Internalizing Problems 14 52.93 6.47 26 40 66
Depression 14 57.50 10.84 34 42 76
Anxiety 14 50.29 4.89 17 41 58
Somatization 14 49.71 5.18 16 42 58
Attention Problems 14 59.00 7.10 24 44 68
Atypicality 14 58.21 9.34 31 41 72
Withdrawal* 14 62.00 8.96 27 49 76
Behavioral Symptoms Index* 14 61.50 9.75 29 46 75
Adaptive Skills (T scores are reversed on this scale) 14 43.86 8.18 25 33 58
Adaptability* 14 40.36 9.89 30 24 54
Activities of Daily Living 14 41.57 9.22 30 29 59
Functional Communication 14 47.71 10.33 30 33 63
Leadership 14 48.79 6.57 18 40 58
Social Skills 14 45.50 9.80 27 35 62
BASC-2 Teacher Rating Scales (TRS) Composite and Scale Scores
Externalizing Problems 13 53.31 11.06 34 41 75
Aggression 13 50.38 12.09 39 42 81
Conduct Problems 13 50.31 10.55 39 41 80
Hyperactivity 13 58.38 15.72 54 41 95
Internalizing Problems 13 51.67 9.94 38 39 77
Depression 13 55.92 15.27 58 42 100
Anxiety 13 50.54 9.00 25 39 64
Somatization 13 48.00 7.80 24 43 67
School Problems 13 59.00 8.52 31 40 71
Learning Problems 13 57.00 8.20 31 39 70
Attention Problems* 13 59.62 9.30 29 42 71
Atypicality* 13 62.46 18.33 61 45 106
Withdrawal 13 58.85 11.27 37 46 83
Behavioral Symptoms Index* 13 59.69 15.15 49 42 91
Adaptive Skills (T scores are reversed on this scale) 13 45.15 9.63 32 31 63
Adaptability 13 44.38 10.32 35 30 65
Functional Communication 13 45.92 10.46 36 24 60
Leadership 13 48.85 9.56 32 35 67
Social Skills 13 46.38 9.50 35 28 63
Study Skills 13 45.62 8.40 28 34 62
BASC-2 Self Report of Personality (SRP) Composite and Scale Scores
Inattention/Hyperactivity 14 56.29 12.55 36 41 77
Attention Problems 14 56.21 11.91 38 41 79
Hyperactivity 14 55.57 12.69 41 36 77
Internalizing Problems 14 50.57 10.83 36 36 72
Atypicality 14 49.79 8.76 32 38 70
Locus of Control 14 51.36 11.74 39 36 75
Depression 14 49.21 9.65 32 39 71
Anxiety 14 48.64 9.39 31 36 67
Sense of Inadequacy 14 50.71 9.45 34 36 70
Social Stress 14 50.00 9.54 32 36 68
School Problems 14 52.79 17.11 51 37 88
Attitude to School 14 51.43 13.64 40 37 77
Attitude to Teachers 14 54.71 16.56 51 39 90
Emotional Symptoms Index 14 50.07 10.64 35 34 69
Personal Adjustment (T scores are reversed on this scale) 14 48.57 10.46 34 31 65
Interpersonal Relations 14 49.14 9.20 33 27 60
Self-Reliance 14 48.57 10.29 32 33 65
Self-Esteem 14 49.86 11.18 39 23 62
Relations with Parents 14 47.79 11.66 33 29 62
Note: BASC-2 = Behavior Assessment System for Children, 2nd Edition. Rows with values in boldface are summary scales. An asterisk represents at-risk T scores. T scores
in the 60 to 70 range are considered at risk, and scores that are 70 or higher are considered clinically significant. However, T scores are reversed on the Parent and Teacher
Reports of Adaptive Skills as well as the Self Report Personal Adjustment Scales; therefore, T scores for these scales that are in the 30 to 40 range are considered at risk,
and T scores at 30 or lower are considered clinically significant. Scores were rounded to the nearest whole number to determine range.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 111
behaviors that are not socially pleasing. Furthermore, the range
of scores on the SRP again was very large (41 point range
between the highest and lowest score for Hyperactivity, 51
point range for School Problems, and 51 for Attitude to
Teachers). Although the group mean was in the average range,
several students did report experiencing emotional and beh-
avioral difficulties. Gifted students with a written language
disorder very likely may have coexisting emotional or behav-
ioral difficulties, and it is important to gather data about
psychosocial functioning from multiple sources to holisti-
cally plan interventions that will be effective.
Students self-concept as measured by the PH-2 is rep-
orted in Table 5. As was the case with the BASC-2, the difference
between the minimum percentile ranking and the maximum
percentile ranking was very large, but the mean percentile
ranking on the Total Scale and six subscales was all average.
These mean percentile rankings are somewhat lower than those
reported for gifted students without learning disabilities
(Piers & Herzberg, 2002), yet students with learning disabili-
ties tend to have lower self-concepts than students without
disabilities on the Total Scale and the Intellectual and School
Status subscale (as reported by Chapman, 1988, in Piers &
Hertzberg, 2002). For gifted students with learning disabili-
ties, it is important to carefully evaluate their self-concept to
determine whether their disability may be affecting the way
they feel about themselves.
Case Study
These mean group scores offer a general understanding of gif-
ted students with learning disabilities. A specific application of
the data from our sample is presented in the following case
study of a high school student we are referring to as Andy.
Andy: A Bright Student with Problems Completing School
Assignments
Brief Background
Andy was 17 years old and midway through his junior year
in high school when his parents requested an evaluation
because of his difficulties completing school assignments.
They questioned whether his problems were related to lack
of effort or perhaps some type of learning disability. Andy
was in the midst of a challenging year academically; he was
enrolled in Advanced Placement (AP) Language and Com-
position, Intensive Physics, Intensive Chemistry, Anatomy
and Physiology, Pre-calculus, and Band. He indicated some
difficulties with stress-related headaches, primarily in math
class and when working on homework. Andy described
interests in computers (he built his own) and reading (sci-
ence fiction and fantasy) and reported that he planned to
pursue a career in computer engineering.
The history provided by Andys parents indicated that he
was generally healthy, although he was diagnosed with a
genetic vision abnormality (esotropia) as an infant and had
been wearing glasses since 9 months of age. His developmen-
tal milestones were achieved at expected ages, with the
exception that he did not read until 8 years of age. Andy was
home-schooled until fourth grade, when he began attending
public school. He was in gifted and talented services at school
and attended a summer program for gifted and talented stu-
dents in a university setting. Andys parents concerns about
his written language skills arose during his fourth-grade year.
His scores on the Iowa Tests of Basic Skills (ITBS) that year
revealed exceptional achievement in Reading (98th percen-
tile) and Math (99th percentile) and average performance in
Language (64th percentile), which measures students ability
to comprehend how language is used to articulate ideas. These
scores illustrate one way that learning disabilities may begin
to be apparent in bright students in that they show a discrep-
ancy between outstanding academic skills in reading and math
and Average performance in language. However, these early
clues are not the types of indicators that qualify a student for
special services, or perhaps even seem not out of the ordinary
to those not attuned to the potential significance of these subtle
discrepancies.
Despite the parents concerns, it was not until sixth grade
that the school district completed a formal evaluation of Andys
written language skills. His scores on the WJIII Written Lan-
guage section (based on grade norms) revealed considerable
unevenness in specific skill areas. He scored at the 73rd
percentile on Spelling, 30th percentile on Writing Fluency,
97th percentile on Writing Samples, 69th percentile on Edit-
ing, and 88th percentile on Punctuation and Capitalization.
Table 5. PiersHarris Percentile Rankings
PiersHarris 2 Scales Number Mean SD Range Minimum Maximum
Total 14 52.79 14.31 58 34 92
Behavioral Adjustment 14 47.57 13.56 48 14 62
Intellectual/School Status 14 47.00 13.34 54 11 65
Physical Appearance/Attributes 14 44.57 13.10 47 11 58
Freedom from Anxiety 14 49.79 13.50 51 14 65
Popularity 14 44.43 14.28 57 11 68
Happiness and Satisfaction 14 45.71 14.92 50 9 59
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
112 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
Andys printing was found to be legible, but he exhibited pro-
blems with fluency. Interventions at that time included providing
direct instruction in writing and editing strategies, promoting
writing fluency, and providing strategies to use when frus-
trated. No further direct support services were recommended
at the end of the school year, but it was suggested that Andy
would benefit from use of dictation and/or a computer as well
as editing and outline assistance.
It appears that these interventions may have yielded some
positive gains. Andys 7th-grade ITBS scores revealed a Total
Language score at the 90th percentile (all other academic areas
scores were at the 99th percentile, except for Science, which
was at the 94th percentile). However, Andys 10th-grade
Iowa Tests of Educational Development (ITED) scores again
began to show a larger discrepancy between Andys skills in
written language and other academic areas. He scored at the
79th percentile in Revising Written Materials, whereas he
scored at or above the 94th percentile in all other academic
areas.
Assessment Procedures and Observations
The comprehensive evaluation completed in our clinic inc-
luded the administration of the WAIS-III and WJIII to assess
intellectual abilities and academic skills. In addition, more
specific assessment of written language and related skills was
accomplished through the administration of the Written Lan-
guage portion of the WIAT-II, the VMI, and the Grooved
Pegboard Test (which assesses fine-motor speed; Lafayette
Instrument, 1989).
Results and Discussion
The results of this evaluation help illustrate how a compre-
hensive evaluation can document both a students talent areas
as well as areas of disability. Key findings in our evaluation
of Andy were as follows:
1. The WAIS-III results revealed that Andy exhibited
Very Superior verbal intellectual abilities (VCI = 138,
99th percentile). These results also, however, indi-
cated considerable discrepancies in Andys cognitive
profile, with his perceptual-reasoning (PRI = 109,
73rd percentile), working memory (WMI = 108,
70th percentile), and processing speed abilities
(PSI = 96, 39th percentile) within the Average range,
but significantly below his verbal abilities.
2. The results of the academic achievement testing were
clear in indicating an SLD in written language.
Whereas Andys scores in reading, math, and oral
language were generally quite high (87th to 94th
percentile), his scores in written language were well
below the level expected based on his Very Supe-
rior verbal intellectual abilities. His WJIII Written
Language Composite was at the 62nd percentile,
and his WIAT-II Written Language Composite was
at the 47th percentile.
3. The use of two different written language assess-
ments was not only helpful in reliably demonstrating
Andys written language difficulties but also in illu-
minating specific weaknesses. He had particular
difficulties with speeded writing tasks (fluency) on
the WJIII that were thought to be because of issues
with processing speed as well as slower than expected
motor speed with his dominant hand (as indicated by
the Grooved Pegboard Test). In addition, the WIAT-
II revealed that Andy had much more difficulty when
asked to compose written material, such as an essay
(WIAT-II Written Expression score at the 39th per-
centile), than when asked to respond to structured
items requiring shorter answers (WJIII Writing Sam-
ples score at the 77th percentile).
4. The psychosocial screening revealed that, although
Andy reported a positive self-concept and appeared
to have overall good adjustment, he was experienc-
ing stress related to his academic situation. This is
not surprising given the sizeable demands for writ-
ten assignments.
5. Our recommendations emphasized the importance of
Andys continuing to pursue highly challenging cour-
sework (e.g., AP courses) in his areas of talent, while
requesting accommodation and extra assistance in the
areas of written language through the establishment
of formalized accommodations (e.g., initiation of a
504 Plan) at his school. We recommended further
promotion of keyboarding skills, use of voice recog-
nition software, direct instruction of organizational
skills for writing (including graphic organizers or
webs), tape-recording of lectures, and obtaining a
tutor to assist with his AP language arts class.
Conclusions and Recommendations
Andys story illustrates the ways in which very bright stu-
dents, even when identified as having difficulties in elementary
school and provided with appropriate short-term assistance,
can slip through the cracks later on. Clearly, Andy demon-
strated high abilities and strong achievement throughout his
early educational career and likely was able to compensate
for his SLD in written language during earlier years because
of his Very Superior verbal intellectual abilities. In his case,
the extent of his written language difficulties did not become
apparent until he was challenged by highly advanced course
work during his junior year of high school. Fortunately,
Andys parents were alert to his performance difficulties in
these classes and his resulting frustration and sought pro-
fessional help in determining the cause. We predict that the
prospects for Andys success in high school and postsecondary
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 113
education will be quite good now that he and his parents
better understand his individual profile of strengths and areas
for growth and can obtain the assistance he requires.
Conclusion
The results from this investigation highlight the fundamental
need for a comprehensive assessment that includes an indi-
vidually administered cognitive ability test as the first step
toward identifying strengths and areas for growth in a gifted/
talented student with SLD. Because written language was
determined to be either a primary or co-occurring SLD in
74% of the gifted/SLD cases in our sample, our analysis
focused on this subsample of our larger group. The group
data, as well as the individual case study, emphasize the need
for academic and ability profile information, which is essen-
tial in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of these
students. Rimm (2003) discussed multiple risks and pres-
sures, including perfectionism, an at-risk home environment,
and an anti-intellectual school environment, all of which
may be among the reasons that contribute to underperformance
of gifted students. However, our findings support the posi-
tion that an analysis of the discrepancy between ability and
achievement is crucial in clarifying whether a learning dis-
ability is the reason for a gifted students academic struggles.
Results from parent, teacher, and self-report psychosocial
measures, as well as self-report self-esteem measures, verify
that gifted students with written language disabilities can and
do have coexisting emotional and behavioral difficulties that
require attention. The symptom severity reported in our sample
underlies the importance of taking an individualized approach
to addressing these needs. In a similar vein, Andys case study
highlights specific aspects of a comprehensive evaluation that
make the recommendations unique from those for students
who are gifted and do not have a learning disability.
In the current study, one of the major limitations concer-
ned the representativeness of the sample. Because the population
of gifted students with learning disabilities is ill-defined, we
cannot conclude that our results are applicable to all gifted
students with learning disabilities or all gifted students with
a disorder of written expression. Our students were recruited
from across one state, there was no charge for the assess-
ment, and parents who traveled from out of town received
a small stipend for expenses. Therefore, we cannot assume
that this is a representative sample of all gifted students
with SLD.
A second limitation was that our study was purely des-
criptive in nature. There was no comparison group available;
therefore, we could not conduct a quasi-experimental study.
Also, the sample size was too small to conduct correlational
analyses; the only statistics that were reportable were related
to measures of central tendency.
Gifted students with a disorder of written expression have
difficulties in school because they have SLD not because
they are lazy or unmotivated. The comprehensive evaluation
is essential for identification but can also provide specific
information that is useful for recommendations. Indeed, when
psychometric data are used in concert with RtI a complete
picture of the gifted/SLD student emerges and specific rec-
ommendations become evident.
The concern about overidentification (Lovett & Lewandowski,
2006) is not warranted based on our sample of twice-
exceptional students. The recruitment efforts were the same
for the gifted students with ASD and the gifted students with
SLD. Perhaps because the construct of ASD is now more vis-
ible, or perhaps because our state has taken a leadership role in
the use of RtI, in lieu of a comprehensive evaluation for SLD,
the percentage of students who were referred because of the
possibility of SLD (38%) was much smaller than predicted,
especially when compared with the percentage of students who
were referred because of the possibility of ASD. Hence, at
least from our perspective, the concerns about overidentifica-
tion (Gordon et al., 1999) seem unfounded.
In conclusion, there are three main findings from our des-
criptive study. First, gifted students with specific learning
disabilities exist. Second, the description of the individual
students ability, achievement, and psychosocial profile can
only be obtained through a comprehensive evaluation. Finally,
this information is the key to identifying and developing the
unique talents of a gifted child with SLD.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interests with respect
to the authorship and/or publication of this article.
Funding
This project was funded through the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and
Talented Act.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2000). Diagnostic and statisti-
cal manual of mental disorders (4th ed., text rev.). Washington,
DC: Author.
Assouline, S. G., Foley Nicpon, M., & Doobay, A. (2009). Pro-
foundly gifted girls and autism spectrum disorder: A psycho-
metric case study comparison. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,
89-105.
Baum, S. (1988). An enrichment program for gifted learning dis-
abled students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 32, 226-230.
Beery, K. E., Buktenica, N. A., & Beery, N. A. (2004). The Beery-
Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor Integration (5th
ed.). Bloomington, MN: NCS Pearson.
Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning
disabilities: A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 30, 282-286.
Cohen, S. S., & Vaughn, S. (1994). Gifted students with learning
disabilities: What does the research say? Learning Disabilities:
A Multidisciplinary Journal, 5, 87-94.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
114 Gifted Child Quarterly 54(2)
Ferri, B. A., Gregg, N., & Heggoy, S. J. (1997). Profiles of college
students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without
giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 552-559.
Flannigan, D. P., & Kaufmann, A. S. (2004). Essentials of WISC-IV
assessment. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
Foley Nicpon, M., Assouline, S. G., Amend, E. R., & Schuler, P.
(in press). Gifted and talented students on the autism spectrum:
Best practices for fostering talent and accommodating concerns.
In J. Castellano & C. De Wet (Eds.), A kaleidoscope of diverse
populations in gifted education: Critical issues in the field. Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
Gordon, M., Lewandowski, L., & Keiser, S. (1999). The LD label
for relatively well-functioning students: A critical analysis.
Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 485-490.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alter-
native approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In
R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification
of learning disabilities: From research to practice (pp. 467-519).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Hu Hurley, G. A., & Levinson, E. M. (2002). Profiles of learning
disability subtypes in a retrospective sampling of adolescents
scores on the Wooodcock-Johnson Psycho-educational Battery-
Revised. Psychology Reports, 90, 767-770.
Lafayette Instrument. (1989). Instruction/owners manual: Instruc-
tions for the 32025 Grooved Pegboard Test. Lafayette, IN: Author.
Lichtenstein, R. (2008). Best practices in the identification of
children with learning disabilities. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 295-317).
Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
Lichtenstein, R., & Klotz, M. B. (2007). Deciphering the federal
regulations on identifying children with specific learning dis-
abilities. NASP Communiqu, 36(3), 13-16.
Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2006). Gifted students with
learning disabilities: Who are they? Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 39, 515-527.
Maller, S. J., & McDermott, P. A. (1997). WAIS-R profile analysis
for college students with learning disabilities. School Psychol-
ogy Review, 26, 575-585.
Mayes, S. D., & Calhoun, S. L. (2005). Test of the definition of
learning disability based on the difference between IQ and achi-
evement. Psychology Reports, 97, 109-116.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001).
Best practices in the identification of gifted students with learn-
ing disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 403-411.
National Association for Gifted Children. (2007). State of the states
in gifted education. Washington, DC: Author.
National Association of School Psychologists. (2007). Identifica-
tion of students with specific learning disabilities (Position
Statement). Bethesda, MD: Author.
National Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsive-
ness to intervention and learning disabilities. Retrieved Febru-
ary 6, 2009, from http://www.nasponline.org/advocacy/RTI%20
Final%20August%202005.pdf
Piers, E. V., & Herzberg, D. S. (2002). Piers-Harris Childrens Self-Concept
Scale (2nd ed.). Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Psychological Corporation. (2001). Wechsler Individual Achieve-
ment Test. San Antonio, TX: Author.
Raiford, S. E., Lawrence, G. W., Rolfhus, E., & Coalson, D.
(2005). General Ability Index (WISC-IV Tech. Rep. No. 4).
Retrieved June 29, 2008, from http://www.tpccpg.com/
support/index.php?View=file&EntryID=353
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1995). Talents in two
places: Case studies of high ability students with learning dis-
abilities who have achieved. Storrs, CT: National Research Cen-
ter on the Gifted and Talented.
Reynolds, C. R., & Kamphaus, R. W. (2004). Behavior assessment
system for children (2nd ed.). Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
Rimm, S. B. (2003). Underachievement: A national epidemic. In
N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted educa-
tion (3rd ed., pp. 424-443). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Rourke, B. P., & Tstsanis, K. D. (2000). Nonverbal learning dis-
abilities and Asperger syndrome. In A. Klin, F. R. Volkmar, &
S. S. Sparrow (Eds.), Asperger syndrome. New York: Guilford.
Sattler, J. M. (2008). Assessment of children: Cognitive foundations
(5th ed.). La Mesa, CA: Author.
Silverman, L. K. (2003). Gifted children with learning disabilities.
In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted educa-
tion (3rd ed., pp. 533-544). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Sparrow, S. S., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Newman, T. M. (2005). Assessment
of children who are gifted with the WISC-IV. In A. Prifitera,
D. H. Saklofske, & L. G. Weiss (Eds.), WISC-IV clinical use
and interpretation: Scientist-practitioner perspectives. Amster-
dam: Elsevier. (pp. 281-198).
U.S. Department of Education. (2002, January 8). Elementary and Sec-
ondary Education Act (Public Law 107-110). Retrieved November 6,
2007, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107110.pdf
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs.
(2006). Disabilities that qualify infants, toddlers, children, and
youth for services under IDEA 2004. Retrieved October 25, 2007,
from http://www.ldonline.org/article/12399
Vaughn, S. (1989). Gifted learning disabilities: Is it such a bright
idea? Learning Disabilities Focus, 4, 123-128.
Watkins, M. W., Kush, J. C., & Schaefer, B. A. (2002). Diagnostic
utility of the learning disability index. Journal of Learning Dis-
abilities, 35, 98-103.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (3rd ed.).
San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (4th
ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
Wodrich, D. L., & Schmitt, A. J. (2006). Patterns of learning dis-
orders: Working systematically from assessment to intervention.
New York: Gilford.
Wodrich, D. L., Spencer, M. L. S., & Daley, K. B. (2006). Com-
bining RtI and psychoeducational assessment: What we must
assume to do otherwise. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 797-806.
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-
Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Ability. Itasca, IL: Riverside.
Worrell, F. C. (2000). Diagnostic utility of the number of WISC-III
subtests deviating from mean performance among students with
learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 37, 303-309.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from
Assouline et al. 115
Bios
Susan G. Assouline is a professor of school psychology at the
University of Iowa and the associate director for the UI Belin-Blank
Center for Gifted Education and Talent Development. She is espe-
cially interested in twice-exceptionality, specifically gifted students
who also have a specific learning disability or an autism spec-
trum disorder. She also conducts research on the academic talent
development of elementary students and is coauthor (with Ann
Lupkowski-Shoplik) of Developing Math Talent: A Guide for Edu-
cating Gifted and Advanced Learners in Math (2005). She is
codeveloper of The Iowa Acceleration Scale (2009), a tool designed to
guide educators and parents through decisions about grade-skipping
students. In 2004, she coauthored, with Nicholas Colangelo and Miraca
U. M. Gross, A Nation Deceived: How Schools Hold Back Ameri-
cas Brightest Students.
Megan Foley Nicpon, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Coun-
seling Psychology Program at the University of Iowa, as well as a
licensed psychologist at the Belin-Blank Center for Gifted Education
and Talent Development. Her research interests include assessment
and intervention with twice-exceptional students, particularly gifted
students with autism spectrum disorder, as well as the psychosocial/
emotional needs of gifted and talented students. Her clinical spe-
cialties are in providing assessment and consultation services for
gifted and twice-exceptional students, including those with autism
spectrum disorder, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, emotional
difficulties, and/or learning disabilities.
Claire Whiteman, PhD, is a senior staff psychologist in the
Assessment and Counseling Clinic at the Belin-Blank Center for
Gifted Education and Talent Development. Her clinical and rese-
arch interests center on assessment and treatment issues with
twice-exceptional children. She received her PhD in clinical psy-
chology from the University of Kansas and completed an internship
in child clinical/pediatric psychology at Childrens Memorial
Hospital in Chicago. She subsequently did a postdoctoral fellow-
ship in clinical neuropsychology in the Department of Psychiatry
and Human Behavior at the Brown University Program in Medi-
cine. Prior to joining the Belin-Blank Center, she was an assistant
professor in the Division of Medical Psychology at Duke Univer-
sity Medical Center and a clinical psychologist in the Division of
Developmental Disabilities at the University of Iowa Hospitals
and Clinics.
by batan sanda on October 6, 2010 gcq.sagepub.com Downloaded from