Gifted characteristics lists: Big claims, little evidence

Characteristics lists can play a vital role in optimizing talent development through informing perspectives or identification processes. This paper responds to recent calls to assess the empirical foundation of characteristics lists. In this preregistered nonconfirmatory study, I purposefully selected characteristics lists to describe: their intended use, what they cite to establish credibility, and then analyzed those citations through the lens of recently proposed limitations. I coded 36 sources that contained 54 unique characteristics lists. Only 54% of lists matched themselves to a specific definition of giftedness, 28% matched with specific identification practices, and 37% matched to a specific domain. Most lists (76%) included citations for support. 236 sources were cited, of which 155 were unique. However, only 51 represented unique primary studies. Of these, only 12 had representative samples or were based on a population. A post hoc analysis revealed that only six primary studies measured the relevant feature from the characteristic list and compared the prevalence of it in gifted students to other non-gifted students. Findings suggest the path between characteristics lists and empirical evidence appears neither clear nor strong. This raises the question of whether characteristics lists contribute to—or distract from—talent development.