The purpose of this article is to present a model for screening for twice-exceptional status (i.e., gifted students who have a learning disability). Curriculum-based measures (Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Reading and Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness: Math) were administered to 1,242 third-grade students within a Response to Intervention paradigm. When gifted status is tentatively defined as high performance (i.e., 84th percentile and higher) on a Monitoring Instructional Responsiveness reading probe, 5.48% of students exhibited deficits in (math) performance consistent with a significant discrepancy between reading and math (i.e., reading score – math score); 4.83% exhibited a discrepancy in reading (i.e., math score – reading). These values are based on observed scores using the following formula to define a discrepancy: 1.5(SD) × SEe. Only 2.1% exhibited a math discrepancy and 1.13% a reading discrepancy based on predicted scores, which takes regression to the mean into account. Using various cut score criteria, practitioners can select from less than 1% to about 10% for screening purposes. When using predicted (rather than observed) scores and more stringent cut score criteria, percentages decline, as expected. Recommendations for using this process for screening are provided, as are implications for best practice, particularly the impact of using more or less conservative criteria for screening twice exceptional students.

From a sample of 1,242 third graders, prospective twice-exceptional students were selected using reading and math curriculum-based measures (CBMs), routinely used in Response to Intervention (RtI). These prospective twice-exceptional students were compared with non-twice-exceptional peers with similar strengths in either math or reading on CBMs and an end-of-year high-stakes achievement test. Students (both potentially twice-exceptional and not) who are potentially gifted in reading based on CBM performance did not differ significantly on the end-of-year outcomes in reading (p < .05); rather, students in both groups performed equally high. However, twice-exceptional students who are potentially gifted in math performed significantly lower on both end-of-year math and reading outcomes than non-twice-exceptional peers. Most of the end-of-year math subtest scores were negatively affected by the prospective twice-exceptional students' deficits in reading, even though their math CBM scores placed them into a category representing giftedness in math. Implications for screening for twice-exceptionality are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract