Multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted: "It was never there and already it's vanishing."

Abstract

The theory of work adjustment was used as a conceptual framework in evaluating the concept of multipotentiality, taken from the psychological literature on counseling intellectually gifted individuals (viz., those with high-fiat ability and preference profiles that may lead to career indecision and distress). An examination of over 1,000 intellectually gifted students (top 1%) in 4 separate cohorts, assessed with the Scholastic Aptitude Test, the Study of Values, and J. L. Holland's (1985) six interest themes, revealed little empirical support for the prevalence of multipotentiality within intellectually talented adolescents (<5%). Rather, it appears that the idea of an overabundance of high-flat ability and preference profiles among gifted students stems from the use of age-calibrated and, hence, developmentally inappropriate assessment tools having insufficient ceilings. The results have important implications for the use of traditional vocational assessment measures in counseling gifted students.

Sex Differences in Mathematical Reasoning Ability at Age 13: Their Status 20 Years Later

“…The differential gravitation across educational and vocational tracks is concordant with sex differences in ability and preference profiles among the gifted (Achter, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1996;Lubinski, Webb, Morelock, & Benbow, in press;Schmidt, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1998), as well as the general population (Hedges & Nowell, 1995;Lippa, 1998;Lubinski, 2000). Although equally achieving educationally, these men and women appear to have constructed satisfying and meaningful lives that took somewhat different forms.…”

A 20-year stability analysis of the study of values for intellectually gifted individuals from adolescence to adulthood.

“…The possible applied psychological significance of doing so comes from the realization that the gifted typically begin to think about career possibilities much earlier than their ageequivalent peers (Achter et al, 1996). That is, their precocious intellectual development, which calls for rapid educational acceleration (Benbow & Stanley, in press;Terman, 1954), also brings them to issues involving educational and vocational decision making at an earlier age (Benbow & Stanley, 1983;Benbow & Lubinski, in press;Stanley, Keating, & Fox, 1974).…”

“…Specifically, men and boys tend to score higher than women and girls on Theoretical-EconomicPolitical (T-E-P), whereas women and girls tend to score higher than men and boys on Aesthetic-Social-Religious (A-S-R; e.g., Achter et al, 1996;Allport et al, 1970;Cantril & Allport, 1933;Coffield & Buckalew, 1984;Stanley, 1953). This has been shown to hold true for the gifted population as well Fox, 1976Fox, , 1978Fox & Denham, 1974;Haier & Denham, 1976;Lubinski & Benbow, 1992;Stanley, Strup, & Cohn, in press).…”

“…In this regard, consider the following differences between the Strong and the SOV: (a) their dimensions are not isomorphic; both are thought to provide unique and valuable information (relative to one another) to many applied educational and vocational settings (Achter et al, 1996;Dawis, 1991 ); (b) the SOY is completely ipsative (and scales responses intraindividually), whereas the Strong is normative (and scales responses interindividually); and, finally, (c) the SOV was developed primarily from theoretical considerations, linked to Spranger's (1928) types, and is termed idiographic in orientation, whereas the Strong was developed primarily from empirical considerations (linked to internal and external correlates) and is termed nomothetic in orientation.…”

Creativity and interdisciplinarity: one creativity or many creativities?

“…Yet several studies raise the question of whether multipotentiality truly exists among students (Achter, Benbow & Lubinski, 1997;Achter, Lubinski, & Benbow, 1996;Legree, Pifer, & Grafton, 1996;Lubinksi, Benbow, & Ryan, 1995;Milgram & Hong, 1999). Each of these studies provides empirical evidence that multipotentiality among the intellectually gifted is, at best, strongly overstated.…”