Systematic Review of the Diagnosis of High Intellectual Abilities: Inconsistencies in Clinical Assessment
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The clinical diagnosis of High Intellectual Abilities (HIAs) presents a fundamental paradox: individuals with exceptional abilities remain unidentified due to restrictive assessment criteria. This systematic review analyzes 302 studies (A Meta-Analysis of Gifted and Talented Identification Practices, 2014; Cone & Mills, 2018; Gerwig et al., 2021; Kaufman, 2013; Kuznetsova et al.; Luria et al., 2016; Steenbergen-Hu et al., 2020; Unpacking the Underachievement of Gifted Students; Overview of Meta-Analyses on Giftedness, 2021)to explore: (1) the lack of consensus on IQ cut-off points (≥130 vs. ≥120); (2) the exclusion of dimensions such as creativity in standard protocols; and (3) sociocultural biases in identification. Using PRISMA methodology, it was identified that 74% of diagnoses are predominantly based on IQ, 67% of protocols do not assess creativity, and there is a 45% underdiagnosis in low-income populations. It is concluded that the identification of HIAs requires multidimensional models integrating neuroscientific evidence and cultural critique.
Downloads
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
License Terms
All content published by the Transformational Thinking Journal is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) license.
This license enables the widest possible dissemination and reuse of scholarly work, promoting Open Access and global knowledge sharing.
You are free to:
Share
Copy and redistribute the material in any medium or format.
Adapt
Remix, transform, and build upon the material for any purpose, including commercial use.
The licensor cannot revoke these freedoms provided that the license terms are respected.
Under the following terms:
Attribution
You must give appropriate credit to the author(s) and the Transformational Thinking Journal, provide a link to the license, and indicate whether changes were made.
Attribution may be made in any reasonable manner, provided it does not suggest that the licensor endorses you or your use.
No additional restrictions
You may not apply legal terms or technological measures that legally restrict others from exercising the rights granted by this license.
Notices
You do not have to comply with the license for material in the public domain or where your use is permitted by an applicable exception or limitation.
No warranties are given. The license may not provide all permissions necessary for your intended use. Other rights, such as privacy, publicity, moral rights, or third-party intellectual property rights, may limit how the material may be used.
Official License
For the full legal text of the license, please visit: