Su búsqueda

En autores o colaboradores
  • Reports an error in "Mental Disorders Among Gifted and Nongifted Youth: A Selected Review of The Epidemiologic Literature" by L. T. Martin, R. M. Burns and M. Schonlau ( Gifted Child Quarterly, 2010[Jan], Vol 54[1], 31-41). In the original article, an error impacting the results of the analysis occurred when the authors inadvertently flipped the interpretation of anxiety scores in the Tong and Yewchuk (1996) study. Upon reanalysis with the corrected number, the effect was not significant at the 5% significance level, but there is evidence of an effect at the 10% significance level. Rather than dichotomizing the interpretation based on p < .05, some prefer reporting the “degree of evidence”: there was weak evidence (.05 < p < .10) of a difference in anxiety between gifted and non-gifted students in this meta-analysis. The corrected Figure 2 based on this statement (using a 90% CI) is present in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 2009-24270-003). Given the ongoing debate over whether giftedness is associated with mental health disorders, there is a great need to highlight and compare results from the most methodologically rigorous studies. Surprisingly, the vast majority of literature reviews and background sections of research articles include studies that do not directly compare gifted and nongifted youth. Furthermore, almost no attention has been paid to how differences in the definitions of giftedness or mental health outcomes of interest affect the interpretation and comparison of studies. The authors apply an epidemiologic perspective for thinking about these issues, highlight many of the challenges of studying this population, and present results from meta-analyses that include the most methodologically rigorous studies comparing rates of depression, bipolar disorder, anxiety, suicide ideation, and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) between gifted and nongifted youth. They conclude with recommendations to strengthen research in this area. Putting the research to use: Through this review we sought to provide concrete recommendations to strengthen future research on the mental health of gifted children. Most notably, future studies should assess large, population-based cohorts that include both gifted and nongifted individuals. Researchers should also move toward describing their study population according to their specific aptitudes, talents, skills or abilities, rather than using the general term ‘gifted’. Thinking more specifically about these relationships will not only help us to understand the association between giftedness and mental health, but will also increase the potential to effectively shape programs and policies for gifted youth, focusing resources on the most vulnerable. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

  • The eight articles appearing in this issue cross the entire spectrum of contemporary research in the field of giftedness. The first article of this issue features the first systematic neurophysiological study on the problem of underachievement ever conducted in the field of giftedness research. Starting with the phenomenon of neural efficiency, the authors examine the cortical activities of persons with differential grades of cognitive abilities and scholastic ability levels on various types of cognitive tests. The fourth contribution focuses on a personality variable often investigated in conjunction with the gifted: motivation. One of the articles present a highly promising method in the form of data mining. In particular, the prospect of being able to identify subgroups and non-linear correlations will certainly be appealing and beneficial for more than a few of our readers. Another interesting article also stems from the area of athletics. The authors results indicate the existence of extremely individual developmental trajectories in the development of expertise. One of the upcoming issues of High Ability Studies will feature a target article composed by Florida State University. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2016 APA, all rights reserved)

Última actualización de la base de datos: 2/10/26, 5:50 (CEST)

Explorar

Tipo de recurso