This article was downloaded by: [The University of Manchester Library]

On: 31 October 2014, At: 07:14

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Roeper Review
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

Social and Self-Perceptions of Adolescents Identified as

Gifted, Learning Disabled, and Twice-Exceptional
Carolyn Barber & Conrad T. Mueller
Published online: 30 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: Carolyn Barber & Conrad T. Mueller (2011) Social and Self-Perceptions of Adolescents Identified as Gifted,
Learning Disabled, and Twice-Exceptional, Roeper Review, 33:2, 109-120, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554158

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2011.554158

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) contained
in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no
representations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the
Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, and
are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and
should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for
any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of
the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any
form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://
www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
 Roeper Review, 33:109–120, 2011
Copyright © The Roeper Institute
ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2011.554158

DUAL EXCEPTIONALITY

Social and Self-Perceptions of Adolescents

Identified as Gifted, Learning Disabled,
and Twice-Exceptional
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014

Carolyn Barber and Conrad T. Mueller

The purpose of this study is to examine the social and self-perceptions of twice-exceptional
students, those students who meet criteria for being identified as both gifted and learning
disabled. In particular, we focus on how twice-exceptional students are similar to, or dif-
ferent from, students with only a learning disability or who are only identified as gifted.
Using data collected from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health, we identi-
fied a group of 90 twice-exceptional adolescents as well as three matched comparison groups.
Overall, twice-exceptional adolescents had less positive perceptions of maternal relationships
and self-concept than did gifted or nonidentified adolescents. Further, perceptions of mater-
nal relationships mediated and moderated group differences in self-concept. Implications for
adults working with twice-exceptional adolescents are discussed.
Keywords: adolescents, gifted, learning disability, parent relationships, peer relationships,
propensity score matching, school belonging, self-concept, social perceptions, twice-
exceptional

Twice-exceptional students are students who simultaneously
meet the definition for giftedness and for a learning diffi-
culty. Though much research (including the current analysis)
focuses on students simultaneously identified as gifted and
as having a learning disability, other twice-exceptional stu-
dents may exhibit other learning difficulties such as learning
disorders, attention difficulties, or other learning differences.
Within the gifted population, it is estimated that up to 20% of
students may also meet the criteria for twice-exceptionality
(Ziemann, 2009).
To date, most of the literature on these students has
focused on their identification and on subsequent adapta-
tion of curriculum and of school environments in order to
maximize their potential to achieve despite their differences
in learning. However, there is also a social component to
twice-exceptionality that should be considered as well. If
research on students with a learning disability (LD) has
Received 9 February 2009; accepted 6 January 2010.
Address correspondence to Carolyn Barber, Division of Counseling and
Educational Psychology, School of Education, University of Missouri—
Kansas City, Suite 223 Education Building, 5100 Rockhill Road, Kansas
City, MO 64110. E-mail: barberce@umkc.edu
found a potential for social difficulties (Kavale & Forness,
1996), and research on gifted students suggests that they may
view themselves at a social disadvantage (Cross, Coleman, &
Stewart, 1993), does this mean that twice-exceptional stu-
dents are likely to feel doubly stigmatized? Or, do they
more closely resemble one group than another? These ques-
tions are especially important to consider among adolescent
students, given the increasing importance of social rela-
tionships on development during this time (e.g., Erikson,
1968).
In this analysis, we compare the self-perceptions and
social perceptions of four groups of students: students who
meet criteria for a learning disability, students labeled as
gifted, students who meet neither of these criteria, and stu-
dents who meet both. Those students who meet both—who
simultaneously meet the criteria for identification as gifted
and LD—are referred to as twice-exceptional. In particu-
lar, we focused on their perceptions of social relationships
in the school and home contexts. Limited research directly
addresses the social experiences of students identified as
twice-exceptional. However, we developed hypotheses by
analyzing literature on the social aspects of gifted and
LD identification separately and by reporting the opinions
 110 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER
and speculations raised in discussions of research on other
aspects of twice-exceptional students’ experiences.
SOCIAL AND SELF-PERCEPTIONS OF
STUDENTS WITH LD
Students identified as LD are at risk for experiencing dif-
ficulties in areas of life beyond academics. These include
but are not limited to, a potential for difficulty in relating
to others socially. Much research has been done on this
area of the lives of students with LD in the past 15 years,
consistently finding evidence of greater difficulty in social
relationships in comparison to nonidentified peers. A meta-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
analysis conducted by Kavale and Forness (1996) showed
that students with LD were an average of two thirds of a stan-
dard deviation below their nonidentified peers on self-ratings
of social skills, leaving them at about the 25th percentile.
More specifically, they reported that 7 out of 10 students with
LD self-report low social skills. More recent studies corrobo-
rate these findings. Students with LD also experienced higher
levels of isolation (Hogan, McLellan, & Bauman, 2000;
Stanovich, Jordan, & Perot, 1998), increased peer pressure,
interpersonal difficulties, and loneliness (Hogan et al., 2000)
compared to nonidentified students.
Kavale and Forness’s (1996) meta-analysis could shed
light on why students with LD perceive themselves as less
socially skilled. A high percentage (over 80%) of students
with LD reported deficits in nonverbal communication skills
and limitations to social problem-solving skills. If such
deficits do indeed exist, it could explain why peers and teach-
ers report students with LD to have lower social skills, to
be less cooperative, and to be more rejected than nonidenti-
fied students (Kavale & Forness; McDougal, DeWit, King,
Miller, & Killip, 2004). However, these perceptions that stu-
dents with LD hold do not appear to have an adverse impact
on parental relationships as reported by parents (Haager &
Vaughn, 1995).
In addition to exploring mechanisms that may explain less
positive social perceptions among students with LD, Kavale
and Forness’s (1996) meta-analysis sheds light on a pos-
sible correlate of such difficulties: lower self-perceptions.
Seventy to 80% of students with LD also report less social
competence, poor self-concept, and a lack of self-esteem.
Overall, prior research has suggested that students with
LD perceive a lack of ability to pick up on nonverbal cues
and problem-solve in social situations and as a result do
not participate in classroom activities to the same extent as
their nonidentified peers. This appears to lower acceptance
and increase rejection by peers, leading to LD students feel-
ing lonely and isolated. This could manifest itself further in
lower self-esteem and self-concept. Though this clearly is
not the case for every student with a LD, and differences
can be found when comparing students in different forms of
inclusion classrooms, the fact remains that students with LD
and nonidentified students can be significantly differentiated
according to these constructs.
SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF GIFTED
STUDENTS
Although research consistently finds that students with LD
are at risk for social disadvantages when compared to other
students, theory and research on the social experiences of
academically gifted students are more mixed. In some ways
giftedness, like a learning disability, has been viewed as
a social disadvantage. Several foundational researchers felt
that the asynchronous development demonstrated by students
identified as gifted, in which cognitive capacities develop
before other social and emotional capacities, put these stu-
dents at an increased risk of social alienation (Silverman,
2002). Although development is thought to be the most asyn-
chronous during childhood, adolescents identified as gifted
report similar alienation from nonidentified peers. For exam-
ple, interviews of adolescents identified as gifted conducted
by Hertzog (2003) and Adams-Byers, Whitsell, and Moon
(2004) revealed that these students felt “different” from their
nonidentified peers, regardless of whether they were enrolled
in academic programs specifically for the gifted. At the same
time, Hertzog and Adams-Byers and colleagues reported that
context may influence students’ perceptions of their rela-
tionships with peers, because specialized academic programs
encourage contact with other students who think like them.
Students who do feel different from their nonidentified
peers may develop coping strategies in order to feel as if they
fit in with their peers. Though many adapt positive strategies,
such as using talents to help others, others develop cop-
ing strategies that result in more negative social outcomes
(Swiatek, 1995). According to the Stigma of Giftedness
paradigm (Cross et al., 1993), students who feel that their
giftedness puts them at a social disadvantage will avoid
opportunities in which they feel that they will have to demon-
strate their talent. In this paradigm, the perception of feeling
different on the part of the gifted student is more central in
driving behavior than the actual opinions of friends (Reis &
Renzulli, 2004; Rimm, 2002). Therefore, one could hypoth-
esize that students identified as gifted may report lower
self-perceptions of their ability to relate to others in general,
even if their peers rate their interactions highly.
Gifted students’ perceptions of relationships with adults
may differ from the perceptions that they have of relation-
ships with same-age peers. For example, students who are
identified as gifted are more likely than nonidentified peers
to seek out social support from older individuals, includ-
ing older students and adults, with whom they feel that they
have more in common (Rimm, 2002). This may contribute to
feeling a sense of belonging to their school. Less is known
about gifted students’ perceptions of relationships with par-
ents; however, Olszewski-Kubilius (2008) reported that these

relationships tend to be secure and are much of the time quite
harmonious.
Some special tensions may arise in families of adoles-
cents identified as gifted: articles written for parents of gifted
children have acknowledged that the propensity of these stu-
dents to ask pointed, “probing” questions of their parents
may strain relationships (Griffin, 2001). However, Griffin
then encouraged parents to allow their gifted adolescents an
environment in which they can try on adult roles and identi-
ties and take on adult responsibilities in a safe manner. The
ability of parents to successfully create this environment for
their children may have a bearing on how students perceive
the parent-child relationship.
Research has also examined the association between
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
social perceptions and self-perceptions among gifted stu-
dents. Though Kavale and Forness (1996) linked lower
social perceptions among students identified as LD with
lower self-perceptions, this connection is less established
for gifted students. For example, Hoogeveen, van Hell,
and Verhoeven’s (2009) study of secondary-school students
in The Netherlands found that participation in accelerated
programs had opposite effects on gifted students’ social
perceptions and self-perceptions. Students participating in
accelerated programs had higher global self-concepts, but
lower social self-concepts, than did students who were not
accelerated during the first 2 years of the program.
Other studies that focused on multidimensional (as
opposed to global) self-concepts found that social percep-
tions related to some areas of self-concept but not others.
In Swiatek’s (2001) study of the association between social
coping and self-concept, for example, she found that vari-
ous social coping mechanisms (which, as described earlier,
are developed in line with students’ perceptions of fitting
in) related differently to various dimensions of self-concept.
Using humor to downplay giftedness, for example, was
related to a strong feeling of peer acceptance but low global
self-worth. Taken together, these findings suggest that stu-
dents identified as gifted may not rely on the acceptance of
others as much when constructing their self-concepts.
In summary, giftedness has the potential to be either a
social advantage or a social disadvantage. Although students
identified as gifted may be hard on themselves when ana-
lyzing their social situations, their sensitivity may in fact
result in more positive peer relationships when compared
to other students. These positive peer relationships are espe-
cially likely among students who cope with their giftedness
in positive ways, such as helping out their peers and get-
ting involved with others who share similar interests. Further,
their perceptions of the social context of their school may
be influenced by the presence of teachers who care about
their students and who foster their talents. Parent relation-
ships may prove more challenging, although research has
generally found positive family relationships among aca-
demically gifted individuals. However, the extent to which
these social perceptions relate to self-perceptions is less
established.
PERCEPTIONS OF TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS 111
SOCIAL EXPERIENCES OF
TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS
(IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND LD)
Though the potential for social difficulties is mentioned in
the literature on twice-exceptional students, there is a dearth
of empirical literature on the social characteristics and needs
of these students. Because research has shown that students
with LD do show social skills deficits, and because some
believe that students identified as gifted face social con-
cerns as well, this group could be viewed as having a double
stigma attached to them. In fact, Coleman (2001) reported
that students identified as twice-exceptional do report feel-
ings of frustration due to pressure to perform (because of
the gifted label) but not always having the ability (due to
their LD status). This frustration could potentially lead to
difficulties with social relationships both at home and in
the academic setting due to the student feeling that fam-
ily, teachers, and peers having high expectations (due to the
gifted label) that he or she is not able to live up to (due to
the LD). Vespi and Yewchuk (1992), in a phenomenologi-
cal study of four twice-exceptional 11-year-old boys, showed
early support for this idea, finding that twice-exceptional
students showed social skill difficulties and self-reported
that they do not feel that they fit in with peers. Neihart
(2008) spoke to this discrepancy as well, stating that twice-
exceptional students typically do not show evidence of
giftedness such as high levels of academic performance and
social skills but may more often display disruptive class-
room behaviors and an overall resistance to school and
schoolwork.
Part of this high incidence of disruptive behaviors may
be due to the special difficulty that twice-exceptional stu-
dents have finding “true peers” in the classroom context.
Nielsen (2002) elucidated this point, saying that twice-
exceptional students have difficulty identifying with a peer
group due to difficulty fitting in with gifted, LD, or the
general-education populations. In short, though gifted stu-
dents may have an easier time adapting socially by choosing
to associate with others who share their talents and interests,
twice-exceptional students may have a harder time finding
such an appropriate peer group. Neilson supported this asser-
tion by referring to the limited empirical research on this
topic, much of which focuses on younger students (e.g.,
Waldron, Saphire, & Rosenblum, 1987). More recent sup-
port is also found in a qualitative study of twice-exceptional
students by Trail (2008), which reported that these stu-
dents see the need for interactions with students with similar
abilities to their own as necessary for positive peer relation-
ships. This study also found that positive social support from
teachers and parents is essential for positive socioemotional
development.
This behavior could have additional implications for
twice-exceptional students’ perceptions of themselves as
well as how they relate to others. Dole’s (2000) discussion
 112 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER
of risk and resiliency factors for twice-exceptional students
stated that these students possess socioemotional charac-
teristics including “poor self-concept, poor self-efficacy,
hypersensitivity, emotional lability, and high levels of frus-
tration, anxiety, and self-criticism” (p. 92). Although much
of the research cited by Dole focuses on students’ experi-
ences in the school, there is reason to learn more about their
experiences at home and how they might relate to poten-
tial risks associated with twice-exceptionality. Publications
geared toward parents of gifted children such as Gifted Child
Today discuss the importance of studying the social needs of
twice-exceptional children (Hishinuma, 1993).
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
RELATION BETWEEN SOCIAL EXPERIENCES
AND SELF-PERCEPTIONS
When considering the relationship between social and self-
perceptions, it becomes apparent that the two influence one
another. Looking at these literatures together suggests two
potential ways in which social and self-perceptions may
relate to one another differently for populations of students
who are identified as gifted, LD, both, or neither. On one
hand, observed group differences in social perceptions may
be somehow related to differences in self-perceptions, such
that accounting for group differences in one explains group
differences in the other. Prior research on students with
LD, for example, has suggested that this group experiences
many social frustrations either directly or indirectly due to
their disability, which shapes their self-perception (Kavale &
Forness, 1996). This process could be viewed as iterative
in nature, with each new experience solidifying the exist-
ing schema that the student possesses, thus influencing future
social interactions and perceptions. On the other hand, there
may be reasons to think that self-perceptions and social per-
ceptions relate differently to one another in different groups
of students. Kavale and Forness further stated that students
with LD may be at special risk of falling into this pattern
because of a lack of higher-order cognitive skills that could
buffer the effects of lower social perceptions.
If we are to assume that students identified as gifted are
more likely to have these skills (Reis & Renzulli, 2004),
this could allow for gifted students to maintain more posi-
tive social and self-perceptions when compared to students
with LD. Students labeled as gifted appear able to use the
advanced cognitive skills they possess to “fit in” socially
with other students through numerous coping strategies that
students with LD do not possess (Swiatek, 1995). Students
labeled as gifted also could maintain a higher self-concept
regardless of social perceptions. Therefore, giftedness may
in fact be a protective factor against low social perceptions
that a student may have. It is unclear, however, how this
relationship might look for students who meet both criteria
simultaneously. Although there is limited previous research
on the social experiences of twice-exceptional students, an
overview of the research on student populations identified
as LD or gifted suggests that twice-exceptional students
might be at an especially severe risk for compromised social
relationships with others.
When taking into consideration the Stigma of Giftedness
paradigm (Cross et al., 1993) along with the social concerns
documented among students with LD, one could conclude
that twice-exceptional students experience a dual disadvan-
tage in social relationships in the academic setting. This
could appear in twice-exceptional students as a limited abil-
ity to process and respond to social information coupled with
a heightened awareness of being different. The frustration
that twice-exceptional students feel from not being able to
live up to expectations from teachers and peers, not to men-
tion themselves, would compound these social issues. The
question, then, becomes whether the relationships between
these social and self-perceptions mirror those of unidentified
students or whether students in this group exhibit a unique
relationship between the two.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS
Taking into account these perspectives, the purpose of this
study is to begin to explore differences in the social and
self-perceptions of twice-exceptional students to those of
students identified as gifted, learning disabled, and noniden-
tified students. In particular, the following research questions
guide this study:
1. How do twice-exceptional students’ social perceptions
differ from those of their peers identified as gifted,
learning disabled, and nonidentified? Do perceptions
of in-school relations and relationships with parents
differ between these groups?
2. How do twice-exceptional students differ from their
peers in their self-perceptions?
3. What are the similarities and differences between
twice-exceptional students and students in the other
three groups in terms of the relationship between self-
perceptions and perceptions of parent and in-school
relationships? Do social perceptions mediate the rela-
tionship between group membership and self-concept?
Or is self-concept moderated by social perceptions?
DATA AND METHODS
Data Source
Data for the analysis come from the first wave of the National
Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (AddHealth;
Harris, 2008). The general purpose of AddHealth was to
examine how contexts of development in the adolescent
years (such as school, community, and family) influenced

physical and social well-being. As such, AddHealth is a use-
ful source of data for our current study of social well-being
among students with gifted and LD identifications.
Researchers associated with the AddHealth study drew
the nationally representative sample of 12,105 students in the
AddHealth study from schools in 80 communities. Although
three waves of data are currently available through the
AddHealth project, this study focuses only on data from
the first wave, when participants were enrolled in Grades
7 through 12. In Wave I, students were involved in both
in-school questionnaires and in-home interviews. The in-
school questionnaire, a self-administered instrument for-
matted for optical scanning, was administered to students
in Grades 7 to 12 from September 1994 through April
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
1995, over the course of one 45- to 60-minute class period
(Harris, 2008). Computer-based in-home interviews were
conducted between April and December 1995. These inter-
views took between 1 and 2 hours to complete, depending
on the respondent’s age and experience. During the in-
home interview, interviewers read less sensitive questions
and recorded responses, and respondents listened to more
sensitive questions through earphones and recorded answers
themselves. In this analysis, questions about adolescents’
perceptions of school relationships were asked by the inter-
viewers, and questions about relationships with parents and
self-perceptions were considered sensitive and therefore self-
recorded. Researchers also collected additional information
from respondents’ mothers or female heads of household
(or fathers/male heads if there was no female head) and
from the administrators of the respondents’ schools in order
to supplement information gained during the surveys and
interviews.
Although Wave I of the AddHealth data was collected
over 10 years ago, it is still relevant to understanding the
social experiences of twice-exceptional youth today. The
breadth and depth of information collected in large-scale sur-
vey programs such as AddHealth are time and labor intensive
to collect, and data from one survey program can provide
researchers with years’ worth of opportunities for secondary
data analysis. This is no less true when conducting analysis
in the field of gifted education. For example, Mueller (2009)
recently conducted a study on this same wave of AddHealth
data that shed new light on how contextual factors can pro-
tect against depression in gifted adolescents. Further, data
collection for the AddHealth study is still ongoing, allowing
for further research on how these experiences as adolescents
impact behavior as young adults.
Measures
Independent Variables: Creating Groups of Gifted,
LD, and Twice-Exceptional Students
In this study, we compared four groups of students: stu-
dents identified as gifted only, LD only, gifted and LD (i.e.,
PERCEPTIONS OF TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS 113
twice-exceptional), and a control group of students who
were identified as neither gifted nor LD. In order to create
these groups, we used assessments of intellectual functioning
conducted by AddHealth as well as parents’ and students’
responses to interview items.
To assess giftedness, we used the AddHealth version
of the Peabody Picture Vocabulary test (AHPVT). As was
described by Halpern, Joyner, Udry, and Suchindran (2000),
the AHPVT is a shortened version of the full Peabody Picture
Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R; Dunn, 1981; cited in
Halpern et al., 2000). A subset of AddHealth participants
took both the AHPVT and the PPVT, with the two scores
correlated at r = .96. In addition, the PPVT itself is corre-
lated with other measures of IQ such as the Stanford-Binet
(r = .62) and the Weschler Intelligence Scale for Children
(r = .64). However, the PPVT and AHPVT are especially
suited for use in field surveys due to their ease of admin-
istration. The AHPVT has been used in other studies of
gifted adolescents conducted using the AddHealth survey
(e.g., Mueller, 2009).
In the current study, respondents in the AddHealth study
were identified as gifted if their AHPVT score was at or
above 120. This means that, for the purposes of this study,
respondents were considered gifted if their intellectual func-
tioning (as determined by AHPVT score) was 1.3 standard
deviations from the mean of 100 and that 10% of students
in the nationally representative AddHealth sample could be
considered gifted. First, use of a 90th percentile cutoff for
defining giftedness is supported by gifted education theorists
(e.g., Gagné, 2004). Second, a criticism of IQ test scores as
an assessment of giftedness in twice-exceptional students is
that a score of 130 (as was used in Mueller, 2009) is inappro-
priately high (Lovett & Lewandowski, 2006; Nielsen, 2002).
By using a more liberal (but still theoretically supported)
cutoff for giftedness, we hope to identify a larger group of
twice-exceptional students. Finally, and more pragmatically,
our study requires us to further divide our group of students
identified as gifted into groups of twice-exceptional students
and groups of gifted students. By using a somewhat more
liberal cutoff for giftedness, we hope that enough twice-
exceptional students will be included in this sample to make
for meaningful between-group analyses.
At the same time, respondents were considered to have
a learning disability if their parents reported that they had
a learning disability. As part of one of the supplementary
interviews, parents of respondents were asked to respond yes
or no to whether their child had a “specific learning dis-
ability, such as attention, dyslexia, or some other reading,
spelling, writing, or math disability” (Carolina Population
Center, 1999, p. 7). This item has also been used by other
researchers interested in capturing students’ learning diffi-
culties (e.g., Crosnoe, Riegle-Crumb, & Muller, 2007). The
broadness of this single item made it preferable over other
items in the AddHealth interview used to capture learning
difficulties. For example, Blum, Kelly, and Ireland (2001)
 114 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER
considered current involvement in special education when
identifying a group of learning disabled students from the
AddHealth sample. This criterion presents two important
problems when using it in a sample of gifted students: first,
schools may not feel that a gifted student warrants special
education for learning difficulties due to a disability (i.e.,
the masking hypothesis); and second, when answering this
item parents may consider gifted education programming as
a form of special education.
Respondents who met only the AHPVT criterion for gift-
edness were considered in the gifted group in this study, and
respondents with AHPVT scores within one standard devi-
ation of the average (i.e., between 85 and 115) but whose
parents reported that they had learning disabilities were con-
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
sidered in the LD category. Combining these two criteria for
gifted and LD identification, we formed a group of twice-
exceptional students. Altogether, 90 students had AHPVT
scores at or above 120 and were identified by parents as
having a learning disability. Finally, we also created a fourth
group of nonidentified students to serve as a control group.
These students had average AHPVT scores and were not
identified as learning disabled by their parents.
Strengths and Weaknesses of Definition Approach
Our methods for identifying groups of twice-exceptional
students align with several of the recommendations outlined
in Lovett and Lewandowski’s (2006) review of assessment
practices in this group. First, as Brody and Mills (1997) sug-
gested, our identification criteria capture both evidence of
outstanding talent (in the form of high PPVT score) as well
as a discrepancy in aptitude and achievement (in the form
of an identified LD). Second, McCoach, Kehle, Bray, and
Siegle (2001) suggested that twice-exceptional students be
required to meet the same criteria for LD as other students
until more is known about how LD manifests itself specifi-
cally in twice-exceptional populations. Although we do not
know the exact procedures used to identify the LD in each
case, we are still using the same criterion (parent report of
LD) for both twice-exceptional and students with LD. Third,
although several scholars advocate for the use of multiple
criteria to best identify groups of twice-exceptional students
(e.g., Neihart, 2002), the use of a single set of identification
criteria is a strength in this particular exploratory analysis.
Research by Barber and Torney-Purta (2008) has suggested
that social relationships differ between groups of gifted stu-
dents who meet test-based criteria of giftedness and those
who meet teacher-nomination criteria. By choosing a single
set of criteria, we are controlling for possible variations in
social experiences due to differences in identification.
At the same time, there are noteworthy limitations to con-
sider as well. Several approaches discussed by Lovett and
Lewandowski (2006) advocate the use of subscales in anal-
ysis of scatters or profiles. Such information is not available
in the AddHealth database. However, even these methods
have fallen under scrutiny (Lovett & Lewandowski; Neihart,
2008). In addition, the PPVT (which serves as the basis
for the AHPVT), like many other normed-referenced tests
of intelligence, has been critiqued in its ability to assess
giftedness due to the limited information that such tests
provide about students scoring at either extreme of its dis-
tribution (Wright, 1983). Further, though we feel that the
parent report of a learning disability is the best measure
for our purposes available in the AddHealth data, it is far
from perfect. There is no opportunity to cross-validate par-
ent reports and no specification in the question administered
to parents that the learning difficulty diagnosis came from a
trained professional. In short, there is no best way to identify
twice-exceptional students; however, we hope that our meth-
ods help to shed some initial light on the social experiences
of this group of students compared to students with a single
exceptionality or no exceptionality at all.
Propensity Score Matching
Because the twice-exceptional group was considerably
smaller than any other group formed, we subsampled the
gifted, LD, and nonidentified groups so that each group had
an equal number of respondents in it using propensity score
matching. The propensity score equation was calculated
using gender, race/ethnicity, age, and maternal education
as predictors of the log-likelihood that a respondent met
our criteria for being identified as twice-exceptional. Exact
matches on the propensity score variable were obtained
whenever possible; if not, a single nearest neighbor was ran-
domly selected. Overall, our analytic sample consisted of
360 students, with 90 students in each group. Demographic
characteristics of the four groups before and after matching
are provided in Table 1.
Dependent Variables: Social and Self-Perceptions
We also used data from the respondent at-home interviews
to create measures of adolescents’ perceptions of their rela-
tionships with others. To accomplish this, we identified three
batteries of interview questions that related most closely to the
goals of our study. These batteries were (a) sense of belonging
at school, (b) perceptions of relationships with parents, and
(c) self-concept. For each battery of questions, we conducted
principal components analysis to assess the unidimension-
ality of the items presented. In cases where more than one
component was identified in the battery of items, we used
varimax rotation to identify the items that loaded onto each
of the two dimensions. Once unidimensional groups of items
were identified, we computed Cronbach’s alphas to assess
the reliability of each group of items.
In looking first at the battery of items, we identified one
scale that captured students’ senses of belonging at school
(α = .765). Factor loadings of items on this scale ranged
from .581 to .798. This scale, which encompasses percep-
tions of relationships with both peers and teachers in the
 PERCEPTIONS OF TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS 115

TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics Before and After Propensity Score Matching

Before matching After matching

Learning Learning
Twice-exceptional Gifted disability Control Twice-exceptional Gifted disability Control
(n = 90) (n = 1,688) (n = 1,341) (n = 10,076) (n = 90) (n = 90) (n = 90) (n = 90)

Race/ethnicitya
% Latino/a 7 9 11 14 7 8 6 7
% White 78 70 67 56 78 81 81 78
% Other 15 21 22 30 15 11 13 15
Age 15.23 (1.50) 15.22 (1.58) 15.60 (1.69) 15.57 (1.69) 15.23 (1.50) 15.16 (1.54) 15.29 (1.49) 15.24 (1.49)
Mother’s educationb 4.30 (1.12) 4.29 (1.22) 3.64 (1.13) 3.75 (1.19) 4.30 (1.12) 4.32 (1.17) 4.30 (1.15) 4.28 (1.12)
% Female 27 50 33 50 27 28 26 27
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014

Note. Standard deviations appear in parentheses for continuous variables.

a Categorical race/ethnicity variables also included African American, Native American, multiracial, and “other” as categories. Due to small cell sizes,
these are collapsed into the other category when reported here. We did, however, consider African American ethnicity when computing propensity scores.
b Mother’s education is measured on a 7-point scale: 1, didn’t go to school; 2, eighth grade or less; 3, some high school; 4, high school degree or equivalent;
5, some postsecondary education; 6, college graduate; 7, graduate or professional training.

school context, consisted of respondents’ agreement on a
5-point scale that they: (a) feel close to people at school,
(b) feel part of school, (c) feel happy at school, (d) [feel that]
teachers treat students fairly, and (e) feel safe at school.
When we analyzed the second battery of items relat-
ing to respondents’ perceptions of their relationships with
parents, we found that attitudes lay along two dimensions:
perceptions of relationships with mother and perceptions of
relationships with father. For the purposes of this analysis,
we focus only on those items that capture perceptions of
maternal relationships (α = .898). Factor loadings for items
on this scale ranged from .801 to .894. Respondents were
asked to indicate how strongly they agreed on a 5-point scale
with the following statements about their relationship with
their mother:
● [The respondent is] close to mom
● Mom is warm/loving
● [The respondent has an] overall good relationship with
mom
● [The respondent has] good communication with mom
The final battery of items yielded one scale that captured
students’ self-perceptions, including the extent to which they
see themselves as loved, accepted, and proud (α = .813).
Factor loadings for the items on this scale ranged from .730
to .809. Respondents were asked to indicate how strongly
they agreed on a 5-point scale that they (a) have lots of good
qualities, (b) have a lot to be proud of, (c) like themselves
as they are, (d) do everything just right, (e) feel socially
acceptable, and (f) feel loved and wanted.
Statistical Analysis
Using these scales, we conducted two types of statistical anal-
ysis. First, each group’s average scores on each of the three
scales were compared using analyses of variance (ANOVAs).
This comparison of means allowed us to address Research
Question 1 by examining whether twice-exceptional students’
perceptions of their relationships at school and of their rela-
tionships with mothers were significantly more or less positive
than those of their gifted, LD, or nonidentified peers. It also
allowed us to address Research Question 2 by examining
whether their self-conceptions of feeling loved and accepted
were significantly different from other students. To correct
for inflated Type I error due to multiple comparisons, we used
Holm-corrected alpha levels for individual ANOVAs. Next,
a series of three planned contrasts per analysis allowed us
to compare average scores for the twice-exceptional group
against each other group individually.
This method was preferred over post hoc analyses because
it allowed us to focus on testing the pairwise comparisons
most pertinent to this study (i.e., the comparisons of the
twice-exceptional group to other groups) without simultane-
ously testing additional unnecessary comparisons.
After we calculated group averages, we conducted hier-
archical regression analyses to determine whether parent
relationships or sense of belonging mediated or moderated
the association between being identified as gifted/LD and
self-concept. In addition, these analyses determined whether
maternal relationships similarly influenced group differences
in sense of belonging at school. This allowed us to examine
whether the association of self-perceptions to perceptions of
relationships with others was different for twice-exceptional
students, thus addressing Research Question 3.
RESULTS
Differences in Social and Self-Perceptions
Average respondent perceptions of sense of belong-
ing at school, quality of relationship with mother, and
 116 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER

TABLE 2 TABLE 3
Average Social and Self-Perceptions Among Twice-Exceptional, Association Between Perception of Relationship With Mother
Gifted, LD, and Control Group Students and Self-Concept Among Twice-Exceptional, Gifted, LD,
and Control Group Students
Twice-
exceptional Gifted LD Control Step 1 2 3

Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Mean (SD) Constant 3.91 (.07) 2.16 (.15) 2.52 (.24)
Gifted 0.20∗ (.09) 0.06 (.08) −1.01 (.42)
Sense of school 3.53 (0.75) 3.74 (0.83) 3.56 (0.77) 3.80 (0.77) LD 0.03 (.09) −0.03 (.08) −0.67 (.38)
belonging Control 0.27∗∗ (.10) 0.13 (.08) 0.18 (.42)
Mother 4.01 (0.94) 4.34 (0.70) 4.14 (0.79) 4.33 (0.72) Mother relationship 0.44∗∗ (.04) 0.35∗∗ (.06)
relationship Gifted × Mother 0.25∗ (.10)
Self-concept 3.90 (0.58) 4.11 (0.64) 3.95 (0.69) 4.16 (0.55) LD × Mother 0.16 (.09)
Control × Mother −0.01 (.10)
Adjusted R2 .32 .33
self-perceptions are listed in Table 2. In comparing these Change to R2 .02∗∗ .30∗∗ .02∗
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014

means, we are able to answer Research Questions 1 and 2.

Note. Standard errors are in parentheses. Reference group = twice-
exceptional.
Turning first to Research Question 1, which focuses on ∗ p < .05. ∗∗ p < .01.

differences in twice-exceptional students’ social perceptions,

we see a statistically significant difference among the groups
in the perceptions of their relationships with their mothers,
F(3, 346) = 3.64, p = .013. More specifically, using Holm’s
step-down procedure to correct alpha for multiple contrasts
within an ANOVA, one of our three planned contrasts was
statistically significant. Students in the twice-exceptional
group on average had less positive perceptions of their rela-
tionship with their mothers than did students in the gifted
group, t(160.65) = −2.71, p = .007, d = 0.41. The analysis
of variance to assess group differences in sense of belonging
in school was not statistically significant.
Turning next to Research Question 2, there were sta-
tistically significant differences among the four groups in
their self-concepts, F(3, 356) = 3.68, p = .012. Analysis of
planned contrasts revealed that the twice-exceptional group
had significantly lower self-concepts than did the control
group, t(356) = −3.03, p = .003, d = 0.45.
Differences in the Relation Between Social and
Self-Perceptions
Research Question 3 asked whether the relation between
self and social perceptions differed for twice-exceptional
students when compared to other students. To answer this
question, we ran three hierarchical regression analyses (one
for each social perception outcome) in which group mem-
Mother Relationship
gifted and control groups reporting significantly higher
levels of self-concept compared to the twice-exceptional
group. However, when controlling for perceptions of mater-
nal relationships, the group differences in self-concept disap-
pear. More specifically, a statistically significant difference
between the twice-exceptional group and the control group
at step 1 is no longer significant in step 2 with the inclusion
of the maternal relationship variable. As well, the signifi-
cant difference between the twice-exceptional group and the
gifted group at step 1 is lost in step 2.
In adding the interaction terms in step 3, however, statis-
tically significant interactions (and main effects) are seen in
comparing the twice-exceptional group to the gifted group.
There is a statistically significant difference between the
average self-concept of students in the twice-exceptional and
gifted groups, such that twice-exceptional students on aver-
age have a higher self-concept than do students identified
as gifted (after controlling for maternal support). However,
there is also a statistically significant and positive interaction
between being in the gifted group and maternal relationships.
As illustrated in Figure 1, this indicates that maternal support
is more strongly associated with a positive self-concept for
5

bership (gifted, LD, or control, with twice-exceptional as 4

the reference group) was entered in the first block, a social 2X

perception measure was entered in the second block, and Gifted
LD
self-perception by group membership interaction terms was 3
Control
entered in the third block as predictors.
Of these analyses, several yielded statistically significant
results for our interaction terms; however, only one model 2
significantly improved the amount of variance explained: 2 3 4 5
Self-Concept
group membership and maternal relationship predicting self-
concept (see Table 3). The first block of the regression FIGURE 1 Illustration of interaction between perception of relationship
model confirmed results of the ANOVA, with both the with mother and gifted/LD status as it predicts self-concept.

students identified as gifted than it is for twice-exceptional
students. The few gifted students with negative perceptions
of maternal relationships have extremely low self-concept;
however, increased maternal support is more strongly asso-
ciated with increased positive self-concept in this group.
In other words, this analysis indicates that maternal rela-
tionships have a stronger, more protective association with
self-concept for students identified as gifted than for twice-
exceptional students.
A similar interaction between control group status and
social perceptions is not statistically significant. This sug-
gests that the quality of students’ relationships with their
mothers mediates, rather than moderates, the differences
in self-concept observed between students in the control
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
and Twice-Exceptional groups. Further statistical analysis
supports this assertion, Sobel test statistic = 2.81, p = .005.
In other words, differences in average levels of self-concept
observed between the twice-exceptional and control groups
can be accounted for by differences in social perceptions.
DISCUSSION
Overall, this analysis has provided preliminary evidence to
suggest that twice-exceptional students do differ in some
ways from other students in their perceptions of social inter-
actions in their school and family contexts. As expected,
twice-exceptional students’ social and self-perceptions most
closely resembled perceptions of students with LD, with
one important exception: the positive association of strong
maternal relationships to positive self-concept found among
students with LD is not shared to the same extent by
twice-exceptional students.
In particular, students who are identified both as gifted
and as having an LD have significantly more negative per-
ceptions of their relationships with their mothers than do
other students. Reasoning for this pattern can be inferred
from the existing twice-exceptional literature, specifically
the frustrations experienced overall by twice-exceptional
students and the tendency of others (including parents) to
view them as not living up to their potential (Coleman,
2001). However, additional support or information is lim-
ited, due to differences in what most previous work has
focused on. Instead of looking at within-group differences
in relationships with parents, much of the very limited
available research (e.g., Waldron et al., 1987) has focused
on comparing the social relationships of twice-exceptional
students in the family context to those in the school con-
text. Like Waldron et al.’s study, this analysis found that
the average level of maternal support is higher than the
average sense of belonging in school experienced by twice-
exceptional students. However, other students are similar
to twice-exceptional students in their lower average sense
of belonging. Where twice-exceptional students differ from
their peers is in the extent to which they see their home
PERCEPTIONS OF TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS 117
environments (particularly as related to support from their
mothers) as supportive.
Although this finding speaks to differences in percep-
tions of the family context, it nonetheless has important
implications for the education and well-being of this group
of students. A relatively lower level of home support for
twice-exceptional students could have especially dire conse-
quences, considering the extent to which current recommen-
dations for meeting the needs of twice-exceptional students
involve parental support (Dole, 2000; King, 2005; Trail,
2008). This analysis suggests that twice-exceptional students
do not perceive the same level of support from their mothers
as do other students, although they may be in the most need
of such support. It is also important, therefore, that teach-
ers and counselors consider the role that they could possibly
play in providing an additional source of support for those
students who may not perceive it at home. Teachers and
counselors may especially be suited for this if they are famil-
iar with the unique needs of twice-exceptional students in
ways that parents might not be.
In a sense, however, it is still somewhat surprising to find
that significant differences exist between twice-exceptional
students in terms of maternal relationships but not in the per-
ception of in-school relationships. Given that the LD and
gifted labels are conferred upon by the school, one might
expect to see the most dramatic differences for perceptions
of relationships in school contexts. At the same time, this
finding sheds light on ways in which exceptionalities have
the potential to influence social well-being outside of the
academic context. Based on this, additional work should be
conducted specifically on twice-exceptional students’ social
experiences outside of the school, because social difficulties
do not appear to be limited to this context alone. Further,
it is important to remember that the items in this measure
of school belonging focus primarily on relationships among
students in a school, with only one item devoted to whether
teachers generally treat students fairly. As such, it provides
us more information on relationships among students than it
does on teacher–student relationships. Given that the find-
ings here suggest the importance of support from close
adults such as parents, more research should be conducted
focusing on the propensity of teachers to support students
specifically.
twice-exceptional students also demonstrate a less posi-
tive self-concept than do gifted and nonidentified students
(but not students identified as LD), providing additional
empirical evidence to back assertions made by theorists and
educators (e.g., King, 2005). Thus, in this regard, twice-
exceptional students seem to have more in common with
their LD peers than with their gifted peers. This analysis
further reveals one possible factor in the low self-concept
of twice-exceptional students: low feelings of support from
home, specifically from mothers. The results of this analysis
did show that the higher levels of self-concept found in the
control group compared to twice-exceptional students can
 118 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER
be explained by the stronger relationship with their mothers.
In other words, differences in self-concept between students
identified as neither gifted nor having a learning disability
and those identified as having both can be explained by con-
sidering different levels of perceived quality in relationships
with mothers. This provides further evidence for a close
link between perceived support from parents and positive
self-perceptions.
However, the analysis also suggests that, though at-home
support from mothers may be especially helpful in fostering
positive self-concept for students with a single exceptional-
ity (i.e., giftedness), this benefit is not extended to students
who are twice-exceptional. There is a stronger associa-
tion between maternal support and sense of belonging at
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
school among gifted students than among twice-exceptional
students. Some of this may be due to extremely low percep-
tions of support from a subset of gifted youth (discussed
in Olszewski-Kubilius, 2008); however, most have much
more positive perceptions of their mothers. More generally,
researchers interested in the issues of students either iden-
tified as gifted (Swiatek, 2001) or LD (Kavale & Forness,
1996) have acknowledged the extent to which feelings of
support are important for the development of positive self-
perceptions. What this current research suggests is that
parents (especially mothers) may not be as effective in
preventing risks associated with students who exhibit mul-
tiple exceptionalities. Perhaps we see this because they
do not know how to prevent such risks. Thus, the major
implication of this finding is the same as those for previ-
ous findings: parents need to become more knowledgeable
of the issues that their twice-exceptional students face so
that they can more effectively serve as social support and
advocates for their child. Turning again to implications for
teachers and counselors, the support that they can provide
(even when parents cannot) may additionally serve to bol-
ster positive self-perceptions of twice-exceptional students,
especially if they are versed in the unique needs, risks, and
potentials that this group of students possesses. However,
more research is needed to determine whether this is indeed
the case.
Limitations
In considering the generalizability of these findings, it is
especially important to remember the method this study used
to identify twice-exceptional students. Students were con-
sidered twice-exceptional in this study if they had AHPVT
scores over 120 and if their parents reported that they were
diagnosed with a learning disability. As Brody and Mills
(1997) acknowledged, however, not all twice-exceptional
students may be diagnosed with a learning disability. More
specifically, Brody and Mills identified four categories of
twice-exceptional students: those whose LD is pronounced
enough to warrant an LD diagnosis, those who are academ-
ically successful enough to be identified as gifted by the
school system, those who are identified as both, and those
students whose giftedness and LD serve to cancel each other
out, resulting in no diagnosis either way (i.e., the masking
hypothesis of twice-exceptionality). Students in this sample
could fall into the first or the third categories but not into the
second or fourth. Although students in all of these categories
can be considered twice-exceptional, the resulting curricular
adjustments or labeling effects may mean that students in
each of these groups have vastly different experiences both
in school and with their parents.
Given the social risk factors associated with LD, one may
speculate that it is the twice-exceptional student whose LD is
severe enough to warrant recognition that is at greatest risk
for social difficulties. Therefore, although the extent to which
a masking effect exists has been called into debate (McCoach
et al., 2001), it is important to acknowledge that these find-
ings cannot be generalized to twice-exceptional students who
have not received an LD diagnosis. Further research should
use alternate definitions of twice-exceptionality to deter-
mine whether similar relationships still exist even among
students whose giftedness may have masked their LD.
For example, although the use of ability/achievement gaps
has recently been contested in the larger LD community
(and in some cases by those interested in twice-exceptional
students as well), they may, in some cases, still prove
useful for the identification of gifted students for whom
even average achievement is still below what is expected
given their levels of aptitude (e.g., Assouline, Nicpon, &
Whiteman, 2007).
Finally, it is also important to acknowledge the age of the
AddHealth data when addressing limitations of this study.
Although this rich data set provides new information on the
experiences of twice-exceptional students, it is likely that
the experiences of these adolescents have changed since
the time these data were collected due to shifts in educa-
tional policies. Further research should seek to collect new
data to see whether the preliminary patterns explored here
still hold.
CONCLUSION
In summary, this analysis preliminarily illustrates the social
difficulties that twice-exceptional students face, especially
when compared to their gifted and their nonidentified peers.
Although previous research has focused primarily on what
this means for the school environment, these challenges are
by no means limited to the school environment. In fact, some
of the most dramatic findings were seen when examining
twice-exceptional students’ relationships with their moth-
ers. Lower self-concept among twice-exceptional students
appears to be linked to lower perceived support from moth-
ers; additionally, the protective factor of strong maternal sup-
port demonstrated by students with a single exceptionality is
not shared by those with dual exceptionalities. It is the job of

educators to take these social risks into consideration when
developing optimal programming for twice-exceptional stu-
dents, just as it is the job of researchers to continue this
line of study further with more diverse populations of
students.
AUTHOR NOTE
This research uses data from AddHealth, a program project
designed by J. Richard Udry, Peter S. Bearman, and Kathleen
Mullan Harris and funded by a grant P01-HD31921 from the
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health
and Human Development, with cooperative funding from 17
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014
other agencies. Special acknowledgment is due Ronald R.
Rindfuss and Barbara Entwisle for assistance in the origi-
nal design. Persons interested in obtaining data files from
AddHealth should contact AddHealth, Carolina Population
Center, 123 W. Franklin Street, Chapel Hill, NC 27516-2524
(addhealth@unc.edu). No direct support was received from
grant P01-HD31921 for this analysis.
The authors also thank the UMKC AddHealth research
team for their feedback in forming the current analysis
and the University of Maryland Department of Human
Development Graduate Student Research Grants program
for providing funding to purchase pilot public-use data for
this analysis from the Sociometrics Corporation. A previ-
ous version of this article was presented at the American
Psychological Association Annual Conference in Boston,
Massachusetts.
REFERENCES
Adams-Byers, J., Whitsell, S. S., & Moon, S. M. (2004). Gifted students’
perceptions of the academic and social/emotional effects of homogenous
and heterogeneous grouping. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 7–20.
Assouline, S., Nicpon, M. F., & Whiteman, C. (2007, November). Gifted
students with written language disabilties. Paper presented at the
54th National Association for Gifted Children Annual Conference,
Minneapolis, MN.
Barber, C., & Torney-Purta, J. (2008). The relation of high-achieving ado-
lescents’ social perceptions and motivation to teachers’ nominations for
advanced programs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 19, 412–433.
Blum, R. D., Kelly, A., & Ireland, M. (2001). Health-risk behaviors and pro-
tective factors among adolescents with mobility impairments and learning
and emotional disabilities. Journal of Adolescent Health, 28, 481–490.
Brody, L. E., & Mills, C. J. (1997). Gifted children with learning disabilities:
A review of the issues. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 282–296.
Carolina Population Center. (1999). National Longitudinal Study of
Adolescent Health: Parental questionnaire codebook. Chapel Hill, NC:
Author.
Coleman, M. R. (2001). Surviving or thriving? Gifted Child Today, 24(3),
56–64.
Crosnoe, R., Riegle-Crumb, C., & Mueller, C. (2007). Gender, self-
perception, and academic problems in high school. Social Problems, 54,
118–138.
Cross, T. L., Coleman, L. J., & Stewart, R. A. (1993). The school-based
social cognition of gifted adolescents: An exploration of the stigma of
giftedness paradigm. Roeper Review, 16, 37–40.
PERCEPTIONS OF TWICE-EXCEPTIONAL STUDENTS 119
Dole, S. (2000). The implications of the risk and resilience literature for
gifted students with learning disabilities. Roeper Review, 23, 91–96.
Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York, NY: Norton.
Gagné, F. (2004). Transforming gifts into talents: The DMGT as a develop-
mental theory. High Ability Studies, 15, 119–147.
Griffin, G. L. (2001). Parenting gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Today,
24(2), 54–58.
Haager, D., & Vaughn, S. (1995). Parent, teacher, peer, and self-reports of
the social competence of students with learning disabilities. Journal of
Learning Disabilities, 28, 205–215.
Halpern, C. T., Joyner, K., Udry, J. R., & Suchindran, C. (2000). Smart
teens don’t have sex (or kiss much either). Journal of Adolescent Health,
26, 213–225.
Harris, K. M. (2008). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent
Health, Waves I & II, 1994–1996; Wave III, 2001–2002 [Machine-
readable data file and documentation]. Chapel Hill, NC: University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Carolina Population Center.
Hertzog, N. B. (2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students’
perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131–143.
Hishinuma, E. S. (1993). Counseling gifted/at risk and gifted/dyslexic
youngsters. Gifted Child Today, 16(1), 30–33.
Hogan, A., McLellan, L., & Bauman, A. (2000). Health promotion needs
of young people with disabilities: A population study. Disability and
Rehabilitation, 22, 129–135.
Hoogeveen, L., van Hell, J. G., & Verhoeven, L. (2009). Self-concept and
social status of accelerated and nonaccelerated students in the first 2
years of secondary school in The Netherlands. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53,
50–67.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1996). Social skill deficits and learn-
ing disabilities: A meta-analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29,
226–237.
King, E. W. (2005). Addressing the social and emotional needs of twice-
exceptional students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 16–20.
Lovett, B. J., & Lewandowski, L. J. (2006). Gifted students with learning
disabilities: Who are they? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 515–527.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D. (2001). Best prac-
tices in the identification of gifted students with learning disabilities.
Psychology in the Schools, 38, 405–411.
McDougal, J., Dewit, D. J., King, G., Miller, L. T., & Killip, S. (2004).
High school-aged youths’ attitudes toward their peers with disabilities:
The role of school and student interpersonal factors. International Journal
of Disability, Development and Education, 51, 287–313.
Mueller, C. E. (2009). Protective factors as barriers to depression in gifted
and nongifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 3–14.
Neihart, M. (2008). Identifying and providing services to twice-exceptional
children. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:
Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 115–138).
New York, NY: Springer.
Nielsen, M. (2002). Gifted students with learning disabilities:
Recommendations for identification and programming. Exceptionality,
10, 93–111.
Olsewski-Kubilius, P. (2008). The role of the family in talent devel-
opment. In S. I. Pfeiffer (Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children:
Psychoeducational theory, research, and best practices (pp. 53–70). New
York, NY: Springer.
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and
emotional development of gifted and talented students: Good news and
future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119–129.
Rimm, S. (2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students.
In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The
social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know?
(pp. 13–18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Silverman, L. K. (2002). Asynchronous development. In M. Neihart, S. M.
Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional
development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 31–37). Waco,
TX: Prufrock Press.
 120 C. BARBER AND C. T. MUELLER

Stanovich, P. J., Jordan, A., & Perot, J. (1998). Relative differences in
academic self-concept and peer acceptance among students in inclusive
classrooms. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 120–126.
Swiatek, M. A. (1995). An empirical investigation of social coping
strategies used by gifted adolescents. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39,
154–161.
Swiatek, M. A. (2001). Social coping among gifted high-school students
and its relationship to self-concept. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
30, 19–39.
Trail, B. (2008, October/November). Twice-exceptional learners: What they
needed in order to thrive. Paper presented at the 55th annual National
Association for Gifted Children Annual Conference, Tampa, FL.
Vespi, L, & Yewchuk, C. (1992). A phenomenological study of the
social/emotional characteristics of gifted learning disabled children.
Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 55–72.
Waldron, K. A., Saphire, D. G., & Rosenblum, S. A. (1987). Learning dis-
abilities and giftedness: Identification based on self-concept, behavior,
and academic patterns. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 20, 422–427.
Wright, D. (1983). Effectiveness of the PPVT-R for screening gifted
students. Psychology in the Schools, 20(1), 25–26.
Ziemann, S. (2009). Merely bright—or brilliant? Finding out whether
your child is gifted is the first step in getting her the challenge she
craves. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1999-09-19/
features/9909190194_1_parents-of-gifted-kids-giftedness-bright-child

AUTHOR BIOS

Carolyn Barber, PhD, is an assistant professor in the Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology at the
Downloaded by [The University of Manchester Library] at 07:15 31 October 2014

University of Missouri, Kansas City. Her research interests focus on the social aspects of secondary schooling,
particularly as related to civic development and the education of gifted adolescents. She has special interest in
the use of large-scale national and international databases to address research questions in these fields. E-mail:
barberce@umkc.edu

Conrad T. Mueller is a doctoral student in the Counseling Psychology program at the University of Missouri,
Kansas City. His interests focus on the use of quantitative research methodologies to understand social and moral
development in diverse contexts. E-mail: ctmwc2@mail.umkc.edu