Investigations of differences between gifted and nongifted students have examined cognitive abilities, including intelligence quotient (IQ) differences, higher order thinking skills, and divergent thinking (DT). However, little is known about differences in problem finding (PF). Moreover, previous works on gifted students have never explored associations between PF and evaluative thinking (ET). Both PF and ET play a role in the creative process. The present study tested relationships between PF, DT, and ET and examined differences between gifted ( N = 175) and nongifted students ( N = 188). An analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences between gifted and nongifted students’ PF, DT, and ET, with effect sizes (η2) ranging from 0.048 to 0.192. Gender differences were also analyzed; gifted girls scored significantly higher than gifted boys in PF fluency and originality, DT originality, and in ET in PF. Originality scores in DT and PF significantly predicted the accuracy of students’ ET ( R2 = 34%–42%). Finally, canonical correlation analyses showed moderate-to-strong correlations between DT, PF, and ET scores. Limitations of this study are discussed.

The current study explored the influence of birth order and family size on academic achievement, divergent thinking (DT), and problem finding (PF) with a sample of 156 gifted male and female Arab students (M= 12.21 years, SD= 1.75). Regarding academic achievement, it was found that first-borns possessed higher grade point averages (GPAs) than did other-born children. Family size was also related to academic achievement-participants from smaller-sized families had significantly higher GPAs compared with gifted students from middle- and large-sized families. As for the influence of birth order and family size on both DT and PF, a multivariate analysis of variance showed significant differences for birth order and the interaction between birth order and family size in the originality dimension of PF. Non-significant differences were found concerning family size. The follow-up analyses of variance showed that later-born gifted students scored higher than first-, second-, third-, and fourth-born children in PF originality. Later-born gifted students who scored higher on originality were from smaller families. No significant influences for birth order and family size were found concerning fluency for both DT and PF as well as DT originality. Limitations and future directions are discussed.

No abstract

<p>Many studies have explored the individual differences, including differences in IQ, higher order thinking skills, and divergent thinking (DT), between gifted and nongifted students. However, little is known about individual differences between gifted and nongifted students in terms of problem finding (PF) ability. Moreover, previous works on gifted students have never explored the association between PF and evaluative thinking. This study examined individual differences in the PF abilities of gifted (<i>N </i>= 175) and nongifted students (<i>N</i> = 188) and tested the relationship between PF and evaluative thinking, which include the individual ability for self-reflection and the ability to evaluate problems.</p><p>Keywords: gifted, nongifted, problem finding, divergent thinking, evaluative thinking<br></p>

<p>Many studies have explored the individual differences, including differences in IQ, higher order thinking skills, and divergent thinking (DT), between gifted and nongifted students. However, little is known about individual differences between gifted and nongifted students in terms of problem finding (PF) ability. Moreover, previous works on gifted students have never explored the association between PF and evaluative thinking. This study examined individual differences in the PF abilities of gifted (<i>N </i>= 175) and nongifted students (<i>N</i> = 188) and tested the relationship between PF and evaluative thinking, which include the individual ability for self-reflection and the ability to evaluate problems.</p><p>Keywords: gifted, nongifted, problem finding, divergent thinking, evaluative thinking<br></p>