Longitudinal cohort study uncovers teacher-rated behavioral profiles linked to academic performance in gifted primary students, highlighting early markers for underachievement risk.
Introduction Not all gifted students realize their full potential and many gifted students are underachieving. To examine whether gifted primary school students at risk for underachievement can be identified by their teachers early on, the current study aimed to examine (1) whether different profiles can be distinguished among gifted students based on teacher ratings of observable characteristics (classroom behavior, task commitment, educational performance, teacherchild relationship quality, and peer relations), (2) to what extent the identified profiles and students' profile membership are stable over time, and (3) to what extent profile membership is associated with achievement (growth). Methods Participants were two cohorts of Grade 3 students from primary schools in all districts of the Netherlands achieving above the 90th percentile on a cognitive ability test ( N = 1,303; M age = 8,44 years), who were assessed again in Grade 6. Results Latent Profile Analyses revealed four profiles of gifted students in Grade 3, which mostly represented general quantitative differences in teacher ratings: above average, average independent and low conflict, average, and below average. Similar profiles were found in Grade 6, having similar sizes as in Grade 3. Latent Transition Analyses showed that half of the students changed profile between Grades 3 and 6. Profile membership in Grade 3 was related to achievement in Grades 3 and 6 (reading fluency, reading comprehension, and math) and, to a small extent, to achievement growth between Grades 3 and 6. Discussion This study suggests that quantitatively distinct groups of gifted students can be distinguished based on teacher ratings of students' characteristics and that students' cognitive and non-cognitive characteristics, as observed by their teacher, could help to identify students at risk for underachievement.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Weijden et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: