Identification of Underachievement 1
Identification of underachievement with standardized tests, student,
parental and teacher assessments. An empirical study on the agreement among
various diagnostic sources
Albert Ziegler & Heidrun Stoeger
University Ulm, Germany
running head: Identification of underachievement
Correspondence to:
Prof. Dr. Dr. Albert Ziegler
University Ulm
Department for Educational Psychology
Robert-Koch-Str. 2
89069 Ulm
Germany
Fax: +49 (0) 731 50-23072
E-Mail: [email protected]
Ziegler, A. & Stöger, H. (2003). Identification of underachievement with standardized tests, student, parental and teacher assessment. An empirical study on the agreement among various diagnostic sources. Gifted and Talented International, 18, 87-94.
Identification of Underachievement 2
Abstract
Parents, teachers and students themselves are close to irreplaceable as diagnostic
sources in the identification of gifted students. The relevant research literature has, however,
expressed skepticism concerning the accuracy of such assessments, in particular with regard
to the recognition of underachievers. In an empirical investigation, a comparison was made
between assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves and the results of
an intelligence test regarding their efficiency in identifying underachieving and achieving
students. Also, the success rates demonstrated by parents and teachers in assessing the
motivation and ability self-confidence levels of their children were evaluated. The results
demonstrate that these person groups are ill-suited as reliable sources of information.
Identification of Underachievement 3
A great deal of interest can be generated for a reliable diagnosis of talent. Only on the
basis of such a diagnosis can appropriate suggestions for scholastic planning be voiced and
suitable promotional measures be executed. In particular, when it comes to selecting talented
students for participation in limited promotional programs or contests, is such a diagnosis
irreplaceable. Major diagnostic problems are often the result of limitations on the amount of
resources which can be made available for investigations. This frequently leads to
compromise, whereby reliable measuring instruments are replaced by more economic,
although less reliable, sources. Examples of this practice are visible in the ENTER Model1
developed by Ziegler & Stoeger (2003) or the „Screening / Preliminary Assessment“
advanced by Feldhusen and Jarwan (2000). Central here are the efforts undertaken to
document descriptions of behaviors, relevant for the type of talent in question, observed in
everyday activities within the subject’s social environment. The most important sources of
information are attachment figures from the social environment (parents, teachers or
caretakers). Concrete diagnostic steps will only be taken when indications of a high degree of
ability based on their observations have been submitted. An exacting model for such a system
is integrated into the recently opened state run school for the highly gifted in the German
State of Baden-Württemberg, for which, theoretically, about 1.5 million students are eligible
to apply. Since this is from a practical standpoint impossible, all potential applicants who are
invited to a comprehensive diagnostic assessment, must first be submitted to a preliminary
selection process.
A specific problem inherent in preliminary assessments is triggered by the existence of
underachievers. Since ability assessments made by parents and teachers are strongly biased by
scholastic achievement (Hanses & Rost, 1998; Schrader & Helmke, 1990), they often
underestimate the actual ability levels of talented underachievers and consequently don’t
register them for the ensuing diagnostic selection processes. Lamentably, underachievers
Identification of Underachievement 4
represent exactly that segment of the population of gifted students who are the most in need of
promotion, since they are insufficiently challenged by regular classroom instruction, as
evidenced by the inadequate (with respect to ability) scholastic achievements they produce
(see National Commission on Excellence in Education, 1984; Renzulli & Park, 2000; Richert,
1991; Robertson, 1991; Stephenson, 1985).
For this reason, several relevant sources suggest that a generous criterion for
admittance to gifted programs be in effect in order to effectively reduce the number of type 2
errors made (e.g. Gagné, 1991; Renzulli, 1994). It will remain questionable as to whether this
generous admittance policy actually solves this problem, until a systematic investigation on
the quality of ability assessments made by attachment figures from the social environment of
underachievers has been published. Actually, according to evidence supplied by several
investigations, these sources are very unreliable.
Judgment accuracy of talents and personal traits
Although ability assessments are better than chance (Murphy, Hall, & Colvin, 2003;
Zebrowitz, Hall, Murphy, & Rhodes, 2002), a series of influences exist which can decisively
sway the quality of such judgments. These include such factors as more gazing (Borkenau &
Liebler, 1995; Wheeler, Baron, Michell, & Ginsburg, 1979), more open arms (Borkenau &
Liebler, 1995), a less awkward, stiff or sluggish style of walking (Murphy, Hall, & Smith
LeBeau, 2001), a voice that is more pleasant (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995; Murphy et al.,
2001), louder (Reynolds & Gifford, 2001) or lower pitched (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995),
being more „properly“, more neatly, or more desirably attired (Behling & Williams, 1991;
Kwon, 1994), a narrower (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995) or a more symmetrical face (Zebrowitz
et al., 2002); less stoutness and greater height (Borkenau & Liebler, 1995). Similar biases
have been detected for the judgment of personal traits, such as motivation or anxiety.
Although most research on the accuracy of interpersonal judgments has focused on the
judgment of states (Hall & Bernieri, 2001), a large degree of research has been conducted on
Identification of Underachievement 5
the judgment of traits (e.g., Ambady & Rosenthal, 1992). Although studies have been
reported which show that greater acquaintanceship normally leads to higher accuracy in
judging personal traits of others (Funder & Colvin, 1997), there are also studies which
indicate that strangers with limited behavioral observation opportunities are just as accurate as
friends in judging personality traits such as anxiety (Colvin & Funder, 1991). Even among the
closest attachment figures of gifted students such as parents and teachers, one would not
unconditionally expect to attain the level of accuracy expected in general from diagnostically
reliable evaluations. Our own investigations (e.g. Ziegler & Schober, 1999; Heller,
Finsterwald & Ziegler, 2000) with parents and teachers recount, therefore not unexpectedly,
low to at the most moderate correlations among reliable measurements of motivation and
ability self-confidence from parent and teacher assessments.
Aims of the study
The aims of our study were to examine the quality of ability assessments made by
three groups of persons: Parents, teachers and the students themselves, whereby specific
attention was to be paid to the assessments of the underachievers. Parents and teachers operate
as gate keepers in the learning processes of their children and pupils. They decide, for
example, which talents are to be supported and encouraged, provide appropriate learning
material or seek professional assistance in talent development. Since self-nominations are in
some cases also open options, the assessments the students made of their own ability levels
were also taken into consideration.
Our initial interest was concretely focused on the quality of the direct ability
assessments made by these three groups. Examinations were undertaken to determine how
well these assessments agreed with one another and the results of a standardized ability test.
Since talent is a quality which cannot be observed directly but rather needs to be derived from
behavior patterns and achievement, we were also interested in obtaining assessments of two
further meaningful variables. When the ability assessments of specific persons are oriented on
Identification of Underachievement 6
the achievements made by the person in question (see. Hanses & Rost, 1998; Schrader &
Helmke, 1990), then a correct evaluation can only be made when, in particular, the motivation
of this person and its contribution to achievement is correctly evaluated. Furthermore, the
perceived achievement of a person is substantially influenced by how much confidence this
person has in his/her own abilities and what is communicated to other persons (Wicklund &
Gollwitzer, 1982). For this reason, in addition to the direct ability assessments made by
parents, teachers and the students themselves, assessments of motivation and ability self-
confidence for the pupils made by these groups were also considered and compared to one
another in our empirical study. Of particular interest to us were the quality of assessments
made by parents, teachers and students attending the fourth grade, since the state supported
school for the highly gifted mentioned above begins with the fifth grade.
Method
Participants
The participants of our study were 317 pupils (152 male, 165 female) attending 26
different fourth grade classes, their parents and their teachers. The pupils took about one hour
to work through a questionnaire and an ability test during normal classroom instruction
periods. The parents and teachers also receive questionnaires with which they were to
evaluate specific variables relating to their children/pupils individually.
Measurement instruments
The ability levels of the pupils were measured with the assistance of the Raven Test (Standard
Progressive Matrices, SPM; Heller, Kratzmeier, & Lengfelder, 1998). The test was chosen for
three reasons: First the Raven has very good psychometric properties. Second because it is a
group test it is very economical. Third and most important the Raven test shows high
correlations to other intelligence tests (cf. Heller et al., 1998), which is why the results can be
Identification of Underachievement 7
considered as representative. In the following, pupils will be referred to as underachievers
when their z-standardized intelligence quotient was calculated to be at least one standard
deviation higher than the z-standardized grade average calculated for their most recent report
cards.
Additionally, the children, their parents and their teachers were to estimate the ability of the
children along a percentage scale. To this end the parents were presented with a line of 100
circles, under which the percentages 0%, 25%, 50%, 75% and 100% were written. The
statement “only slightly talented” was paired with the 0% and the statement “extremely
talented” with the 100%. Above this line were the following instructions: “How talented do
you believe your child/pupil is? Please mark the circle, which best represents your opinion
with a cross. You can orient this assessment on the percentage rankings provided.” The
children were given a similar version, under their line however were a series of pictures of
children, and the instructions read as follows: “ Look below and you will see a line with a lot
of circles on it. Under these circles are pictures of five children. On the left is a child who is
not very talented. On the right is a child who is extremely talented. We would like to know
how talented you think you are. Mark the circle in this line where you would place yourself.
So if you think you are not very talented then mark one of the circles on the left-hand side
with a cross, if you think you are extremely talented then mark one of the circles on the right-
hand side with a cross. Important: be sure to place your cross on a circle and not on a child!”
We chose to use such a scale because it corresponds to the method usually engaged in
the preliminary assessments made for gifted programs. Usually it is required that the students
attain a specific percentile on an intelligence test before being admitted to such programs (for
example, the state run giftedness school is restricted to the top 2 % of the pupils).
In order to evaluate motivation, we engaged a goal orientation scale which consisted
of 30 items broken down into a learning goal orientation, an approach orientation and an
avoidance orientation. All items were to be assessed along a six-point Likert type scale with
Identification of Underachievement 8
the poles 1 (I disagree completely) and 6 (I agree completely). Sample item: In school I want
to learn as much as I possibly can (see Ziegler & Stoeger, 2002). Ability self-confidence was
measured with the help of a scale developed by Dweck (1999). This 4-item scale uses a
structured alternative format. Items are scored on a 6-point scale, where a score of 1 indicates
low confidence in ones own math abilities and a score of 6 reflects high confidence in ones
own math abilities. Sample item: When I get new work in mathematics, I´m usually sure I
will be able to learn it. vs. When I get new work in mathematics, I often think I may not be
able to learn it. The parents completed the same scales which were rewritten to refer to their
children. All scales, both those completed by the parents as well as those completed by the
children, proved to be reliable (in each case α > .78). For practical reasons it was not possible
to have the teachers complete comparative scales for each of their pupils. They were, instead,
requested to judge their students with respect to the variables evaluated in the pupil/parent
questionnaires along a six-point scale. For example they were to determine whether the pupil
demonstrates absolutely no (1) or a great deal of (6) confidence in his abilities.
Results
Talent assessments
Table 1 illustrates how many of the 317 pupils were categorized as below average,
slightly below average, average, slightly above average and above average with regard to the
intelligence quotients obtained. Furthermore, this table indicates how many of the students
placed themselves in these talent groups and how their teachers and parents resolved this
inquiry.
Insert Table 1 about here
Identification of Underachievement 9
In general, ability self-assessments and ability assessments made by parents and
teachers reveal a tendency to choose the middle. While according to the results of the SPM
only 109 (34,4%) of the 317 pupils have an average degree of talent (85 < IQ < 115), this
talent group was seen by 219 (69,1%) of the pupils as being appropriate. The parents
classified 251 (79,2%) of their children, and the teachers 244 (77%) of their pupils as to be of
average intelligence. An intelligence quotient in the slightly above average region (115 < IQ <
130) was confirmed for 74 (23,3%) of the pupils by the test results. While 76 (24%) of the
pupils estimated their intelligence to be slightly above average, the parents only classified 55
(17,4%) and the teachers only 44 (13,9%) of the children into this talent group. A similarly
deviant picture could be drawn for the ability assessments made for children with above
average abilities (IQ > 130). Although test results indicated that 36 (11,4%) of the pupils had
attained an above average ability level, only 10 (3,2%) of the pupils categorize themselves
into the highest ability group in their self-assessments. The parents only placed 4 (1,3%) of
their children, the teachers only 5 (1,6%) of their students in this group. Although the ability
assessments made by the students, their parents and their teachers as well as the SPM results
are highly significant, they are only moderately positively correlated (Table 2)2. This does not
by any means secure that they are describing the same variable.
Insert Table 2 about here
Since the attainment of different criteria on standardized tests for admittance to
promotional programs have been applied throughout the literature (see Renzulli, 1994;
Renzulli & Reis, 1997; Stanley, 1991), we decided to apply a rather generous cut-off-point
and further subdivided the group of considered students into groups of mildly gifted students
(SPM percentile between 85 and 98) and gifted students (SPM percentile above 98). In further
Identification of Underachievement 10
analyses we will only be looking at the findings made for these two groups of students, since
primarily these students would come into question for inclusion in programs designed to
promote talent.
Out of the 110 students who attained a SPM percentile of 85 or above, 74 were mildly
gifted and 36 gifted. In the following, pupils will be referred to as underachievers when their
z-standardized intelligence quotient was calculated to be at least one standard deviation higher
than the z-standardized grade average calculated for their most recent report cards. Among the
74 mildly gifted students 16 underachievers could be identified, among the 36 gifted students
9 underachievers were found. The mildly gifted students had an average percentile ranking of
88.70, (S = 3.24) on the SPM, for the gifted students M = 98.83 ( S = 0.51; F(1,105) =
187.39, p<.01). The SPM percentile rankings of the achievers and underachievers were not
significantly different for either of the talent groups (ability level: F(1.105) = 0.30, p>.10;
ability level by achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.19, p>.10).
In Figures 1 through 3 the ability assessments made by the pupils, their parents and the
teachers are graphically illustrated. Calculations were made for 2 (achievement level:
achievers vs underachievers) x 2 (ability level: mildly gifted vs gifted) analyses of variance.
The mildly gifted students assess their ability at lower levels than the gifted students do
(F(1,105) = 5.04, p<.05). Although the gifted underachievers assess themselves in a similar
manner as the gifted achievers do, the mildly gifted underachievers make significantly lower
ability self-assessments than the mildly gifted achievers (achievement level: F(1,105) = 7.87,
p<.01; interaction: F(1,105) = 7.39, p<.01). This may possibly be grounded in the fact that the
ability self-estimations made by the mildly gifted students among both underachievers
(Kendall´s tau: r = .41) and achievers (Spearman: r = .24) were significantly correlated to
their school grades, while this was not the case for the gifted students.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Identification of Underachievement 11
No differentiation in parental ability assessments could be isolated between assertions
made for mildly gifted students and gifted students (F(1,105) = 2.33, p>.10). Assessments
made for both talent groups erroneously accorded underachievers somewhat less talent than
achievers (achievement level: F(1,105) = 3.54, p<.10, interaction: F(1,105) = 0.16, p>.10).
However, none of the ability assessments made by parents for the groups here considered
were significantly correlated to school grades.
Insert Figure 2 about here
The teachers correctly assessed the gifted students as being more talented than the
mildly gifted students (F(1,97) = 4.30, p<05). However, they were also of the opinion that
underachievers were significantly less talented than achievers (achievement level: F(1,97) =
15.41, p<.001; interaction: F(1,97) = 0.27, p>.10). The attributions of higher levels of talent to
the gifted students in contrast to the mildly gifted students may be a result of a strong
orientation on the school grades they themselves assigned, a point which is supported by the
strong correlations found between their assessments and these grades (Spearman; mildly
gifted students: r = .45, p<.001; gifted students: r = .57, p<.001). For the underachievers no
significant correlation between school notes and ability assessments could be confirmed.
Insert Figure 3 about here
Subsequent to these evaluations, we would like to draw attention to two further
findings: Students, parents and teachers do not significantly vary from one another in ability
assessments for gifted students (z<1.80, p>.10). Among the mildly gifted students, the parents
attribute higher levels of ability to underachieving pupils than the students themselves (z =
Identification of Underachievement 12
2.39, p<.05) and the teachers (z = 2.33, p<.05). A comparison of the percentile ratings on the
SPM, the ability self-assessments and the ability assessments made by the parents and the
teachers indicates the existence of systematic underestimations throughout all three evaluative
groups. This is confirmed to be highly significant by Wilcoxon Tests for both the
underachievers as well as the achievers in both ability groups (in each case z>2.56, p<.01).
Due to the generally too low assessments of talent, the phenomenon of underachievement
fails to materialize in all three of the evaluator groups.
Motivation and self-confidence assessments
In the next step we would like to investigate how well parents and teachers can assess
both the motivation of their children/pupils and how much confidence these children have in
their scholastic abilities. In Table 3 the correlations of assessments of motivation and self-
confidence among students, teachers and parents are keyed according to achievement level
and ability level.
For the mildly gifted underachievers the assessments of motivation among the three
groups of persons are uncorrelated. For the mildly gifted achievers a slightly positive
correlation could only be found between parental assessments of motivation and pupil test
results. In the group of gifted underachievers indications of a positive correlation could only
be confirmed between the motivational statements made by the students and the assessments
of this trait by their teachers, this correlation turned out to be quite high. For the group of
gifted achievers the motivational assessments made by all three groups turned out to be
uncorrelated.
With respect to confidence assessments for the group of mildly gifted underachievers,
the only moderate correlation which could be found exists between parent and teacher
evaluations. For the mildly gifted achievers low to moderately positive correlations can be
isolated among all three of the groups. In the group of gifted underachievers one highly
positive correlation was recorded between self-confidence assessments made by the pupils
Identification of Underachievement 13
themselves and the teacher evaluations of this characteristic. For the gifted achievers
moderate correlations were detected between the confidence assessments made by the
students and the evaluations made by their parents, as well as between the students and their
teachers. When scholastic achievement is factored out, no significant changes can be observed
in the correlations. Based on these results one can presume that, for ability – as already seen
by ability assessments – self-confidence and even more so for motivation, these three groups
of persons are not assessing the same variables.
Insert Table 3 about here
In Figure 4 the motivational assessments made by the pupils are displayed according
to ability level and achievement level. Motivational differences could neither be confirmed
between mildly gifted and gifted students (F(1,105) = 0.03, p>.10), nor underachievers and
achievers for either of the two talent groups (achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.15, p>.10;
interaction: F(1,105) = 0.05, p>.10).
Insert Figure 4 about here
Figures 5 and 6 present the motivational assessments made by the parents and the
teachers. The parents ascribe matching levels – similar to those made by the children
themselves – of motivation to mildly gifted students and gifted students (F(1,105) = 2.15,
p>.10) and also see the motivation of underachievers and achievers to be of similar
magnitudes (achievement level: F(1,105) = 0.63, p>.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.3, p>.10). In
contrast, teacher estimations of motivation vary with regard to both talent group and
achievement level. They appraise the motivation of the gifted students to be higher than the
motivation of the mildly gifted students (F(1,105) = 5.09, p<.05) and assign higher levels of
Identification of Underachievement 14
motivation to achievers than to underachievers (F(1,105) = 18.43, p<.001; interaction:
(F(1,105) = 0.43, p>.10).
Insert Figures 5 and 6 about here
Conspicuous here is that the parents substantially and across groups – with the
exception of the mildly gifted underachievers – underestimated the motivation of their
children (Friedman; mildly gifted students: underachievers: Chi²(1)=2.25, p>.10; achievers:
t(56)=3.74, p<.001; gifted students: underachievers: Chi²(1)=2.78, p<.10; achievers:
Chi²(1)=6.26, p<.05). The teachers underestimated the motivation of the mildly gifted
underachievers (Friedman; Chi²(1)=6.25, p<.05) and correctly evaluated the motivation of the
gifted underachievers (Friedman; Chi²(1)=1.00, p>.10). They overestimated the motivation of
both the mildly and gifted achievers (mildly gifted achievers: t(56)=2.71, p<.01; gifted
achievers: Friedman: Chi²(1)=4.81, p<0.05).
According to the information displayed in Figure 7, the confidence mildly gifted
students have in their scholastic abilities does not significantly differ from that held by the
gifted students (F(1,105) = 1.12, p>.10). In contrast, the underachievers in both groups
demonstrated less confidence in their scholastic abilities than the corresponding achievers
(F(1,105) = 15.54, p<.001; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.02, p>.10).
Insert Figure 7 about here
Illustrated in Figures 8 and 9 are the confidence assessments made by the parents and
the teachers. The parents assessed the confidence held by the mildly gifted students to be
significantly lower than that of the gifted students (F(1,105) = 11.47, p<.01). They appraised
the confidence the underachievers had in their scholastic abilities to be somewhat lower than
Identification of Underachievement 15
the same quality among achievers (F(1,105) = 3.44, p<.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 1.33,
p>.10). The teachers also correctly deemed the confidence underachievers had in their
scholastic abilities to be lower than that for achievers (F(1,105) = 14.03, p<.001). The two
ability groups could not be differentiated with respect to scholastic self-confidence (F(1,105)
= 0.13, p>.10; interaction: F(1,105) = 0.57, p>.10).
Insert Figures 8 and 9 about here
The parents overestimated how much confidence their gifted students had in their
scholastic abilities, independent of whether they were underachievers or achievers (Friedman;
underachievers: Chi²(1)=5.44, p<.05; achievers: Chi²(1)=9.78, p<0.01). In contrast, the
parents of mildly gifted students were able to correctly assess how much confidence their
students had in both of the achievement groups (Friedman; underachievers: Chi²(1)=0.07,
p>.10; achievers: t(56)=0.56, p>.10). The teachers slightly underestimated the confidence
their gifted underachievers had in their scholastic abilities (Friedman; Chi²(1)=2.78, p<0.10)
and were able to correctly appraise self-confidence for the other groups (mildly gifted
students: underachievers: Friedman; Chi²(1)=1.00, p>0.10; achievers: t(56)=0.37, p>.10;
gifted students: achievers: Friedman; Chi²(1)=2.67, p>.10).
Summary and discussion
Highly gifted underachievers are exactly those who profit most from special
promotional measures, such as a state run school for gifted students, since they cannot be
optimally fostered by regular classroom instruction (see Renzulli & Park, 2000; Richert,
1991; Robertson, 1991). However, in practice, it is often the case that these students are
neglected by special promotional programs. Resource problems are primarily responsible for
Identification of Underachievement 16
this. Due to the great demand on many promotional programs, only a minimal proportion of
the applicants will be able to participate in the actual diagnostic, a preliminary selection
process must often be employed. In this preliminary selection process the opinions of various
attachment figures are often taken into consideration, to ascertain whether the child in
question has a high degree of talent or not (see Feldhusen & Jarwan, 2000; Ziegler & Stoeger,
2003). Should, on the basis of the opinions of these attachment figures, giftedness appear to
be improbable – which is often the case among gifted underachievers – the applicant will be
turned down, without having had the benefit of further diagnostic measures.
In our study, therefore, an examination was made to determine how well ability
estimations made by parents, teachers and the students themselves agree with one another and
with the results of a standardized intelligence test. Particular attention was paid to
underachievers. Since persons making ability assessments are to some extent orientated on
(scholastic) achievements (see Rost & Hanses, 1997; Schrader & Helmke, 1990) and since
these are not only stipulated by ability but also by motivation, we were also interested to
determine how well parents and teachers were able to assess the motivation of their children
and pupils. Finally, the effectiveness of parents and teachers in assessing the self-confidence
their children/pupils had in their scholastic abilities was put to the test. This interested us
fundamentally because persons who, due to their high levels of self-confidence in their own
abilities, communicate higher achievement rates, are often judged to be gifted (Wicklund &
Gollwitzer, 1982).
In general, ability assessments by all three groups of persons were dominated by a
tendency to move to the middle. Most of the pupils judged themselves to be of average
intelligence and were also placed in this category by their parents and teachers. The group of
mildly gifted students attracted just about as many students as were to be expected, based on
the results of the intelligence test, in comparison the parents and teachers held far too few
students for mildly gifted with respect to the actual test results. According to the ability self-
Identification of Underachievement 17
assessments, as well as the parent and teacher ability assessments, a considerably small
number of students were to be classified as gifted students, notably fewer than the actual
number confirmed by the results of the intelligence test.
Between the results of the intelligence test and the ability assessments made by the
parents, teachers and the students themselves, one can only confirm moderate relationships of
statistical significance, which may indicate that these variables are not referring to the same
entity. If one chooses to inspect – as is usually the case for single factor models of giftedness
– a measure of discrepancy between cognitive abilities (IQ) and goal driven achievements
(grades), in our sample about one quarter (21,62%) of the mildly gifted students and exactly
one fourth of the gifted students turned out to be underachievers. This proportion is relatively
small in comparison to the findings of other investigations (see Richert, 1991). When one
considers the fact that our investigation was conducted in fourth grade classrooms, then this
rather low rate is not very remarkable. Causal factors for underachievement, such as low
levels of motivation or self-confidence (see Butler-Por, 1993), occur rather infrequently at this
age level. In contrast to older students, forth grade school children can be characterized by
high levels of motivation and a general optimism with respect to their learning and intellectual
capabilities (Nicholls, 1992), which could possibly work as a protective shield against
underachievement.
Regardless of talent group (mildly and gifted students) and whether underachievement
was at hand or not, the assessments made by the students, their parents and their teachers were
all lower than the actual results obtained with the intelligence tests. This systematic
underestimation of ability had the curious repercussion that, from the point of view of the
students, the parents and the teachers the phenomenon of underachievement could not be
discerned at all.
Although the pupils themselves and the teachers – regardless of the generally too low
assessments – attribute higher levels of ability to the gifted students than to the mildly gifted
Identification of Underachievement 18
students, the ability assessments made by the parents for these two groups cannot be
differentiated from one another. Teachers and parents from both talent groups judge the
underachievers to be significantly resp. somewhat less talented than the achievers. In contrast,
only for the group of mildly gifted students do the underachievers see themselves as being
less talented than the achievers do. The underachievers and achievers in the group of gifted
students assess themselves as being equivalently talented. This can possibly be traced back to
the significantly positive correlation found between the ability assessments of the mildly
gifted students and school grades, which could not be duplicated for the gifted students.
A comparison made among the ability assessments made by parents, teachers and
students reveals no indication of differences in opinion among the gifted students. In the
group of mildly gifted students these evaluations made for achievers are also very similar to
one another among these three groups of persons. The ability of the underachievers in this
group is judged by the parents to be higher than evidenced by judgments made by the teachers
and the students themselves.
In summation, the usefulness of ability assessments made by parents teachers and the
students themselves appears to be rather poor. Their evaluations only moderately correlated
with one another and with the results of the intelligence test, which indicates that they may
not have been assessing the same variable. In addition, all three groups of persons made
ability estimations which were too low in terms of the results of the test, which makes it
practically impossible to recognize the phenomenon of underachievement.
A similarly negative picture is drawn from the information gathered regarding
motivation assessments. Only two correlations could be substantiated; between the mildly
gifted achievers and their parents, and between the parents and teachers of the gifted
underachievers. Here we are confronted with the same verdict maintained for assessments of
ability, in that we cannot be certain that the same variable is being measured by the parties in
question.
Identification of Underachievement 19
All the same, the parents of the mildly gifted and gifted students correctly judged the
motivation of the achievers and underachievers to be equivalent within each of the two ability
groups. However, their evaluations of motivation for all groups – with the one exception of
mildly gifted underachievers - were significantly lower than the test results obtained from the
students.
In stark contrast to the parents, the teachers assigned higher motivation levels to the
gifted students than they did to the mildly gifted students. Furthermore, they judged the
achievers in both ability groups to be more motivated than the underachievers. This result can
very possibly be due to a strong influence of scholastic achievement being exercised on the
judgments made here by the teachers (see also Hanses & Rost, 1998; Hany, 1993; Schrader
& Helmke, 1990). In accord with this synopsis, the teachers overestimated the motivation
levels of the achievers in both ability groups. The motivational drive of the mildly gifted
underachievers was underestimated by the teachers, and the gifted underachievers were
accurately judged.
The statements gathered from the pupils as to the confidence they had in their
scholastic ability and the assessments made by their parents and teachers on this variable did
result in more correlations than the assessments of ability and motivation, they do not
however indicate that all three groups of persons are referring to the same variable.
Correlations were predominantly isolated for estimations made by achievers, their parents and
their teachers. The test results obtained for the mildly gifted achievers showed moderately
positive correlations between the assessments made by parents and the students, and between
the teachers and their students. The parent and teacher assessments made for this group were
also positively correlated. While the teachers, in harmony with the statements made by the
pupils, saw no need to differentiate between levels of self-confidence displayed by mildly
gifted and gifted students, the parents attributed lower degrees of self-confidence to the mildly
gifted students than to the gifted students. The parents as well as the teachers correctly
Identification of Underachievement 20
assigned lower levels of self-confidence in scholastic ability to underachievers than to
achievers. However, the parents of gifted students overestimated the confidence these students
have in their abilities. The teachers slightly underestimated the self-confidence their gifted
underachievers have in their scholastic ability.
All things considered, our study leads us to a rather skeptical opinion on how
appropriate assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves can be as a
diagnostic source for the evaluation of giftedness or underachievement. Particularly
remarkable and thought provoking is the fact that the phenomenon of underachievement does
not materialize at all due to a systematic underestimation of ability levels in general. If an
attempt is being made to recruit suitable candidates for a promotional program specifically
designed for gifted students, then the opinions held by the student candidates, their teachers or
their parents cannot be confirmed as reliable sources. Since in many cases limitations on
investigative resources do not permit one to forgo these assessments, it is essential to
contemplate measures which can be taken to improve the quality of assessments made by
these groups of persons. Whether a special seminar for parents and teachers could lead to
better identification of gifted students, and in particular of gifted underachievers, needs to be
clarified in the framework of subsequent studies. For example, one could supply parents and
teachers with detailed information regarding the problem of underachievement, and explain to
them that they should rely more on the competence of the child in question and less so on
his/her scholastic achievements or learning behavior when making ability assessments.
However, experiences made by previous studies (see Gear, 1978) generate apprehension that
this method may not lead to an improvement in the quality of identification, but rather solely
to an increase in the nomination rate – irregardless of whether underachievement is at hand or
not.
Implications for research and practice
Identification of Underachievement 21
The study at hand was able to uncover two central findings. First, the combination of
psychometric tests and assessments made by parents, teachers and the students themselves
provide us with very contradictory images. In particular the attribution of general ability
levels led to highly differential assessments. Second, an answering tendency was identified
which was extremely significant not only for the investigation of talent, but essentially for the
identification of talents: Assessors refrain from assigning pupils to either of the extreme talent
categories. Due to this bias, hardly any students were designated to be highly gifted, therefore
teachers, parents and the students themselves appear to be unsuitable informants of giftedness.
Even when this talent criteria is relaxed - for example when teachers, parents and pupils are to
categorize talented individuals into the top 20% - the results are disappointing and a
significant proportion of gifted students remain unrecognized. It must be mentioned that these
findings, which are surely unexpected for those involved with giftedness research and
promotion, are concordant with findings found by studies on the assessment abilities of
persons. These two findings, which could be replicated in other studies, have varied and
meaningful implications for both giftedness research as well as the identification of talents in
the praxis. In retrospect, the results of several research studies in which the identification of
talented persons were based entirely on assessments made by individuals, must now be placed
in question. Also when a combination of assessments and psychometric tests are applied, a
critical examination must be made to determine, which source and to what degree this source
contributed to the final evaluation. Concerns regarding the quality of these identifications are
also valid with respect to diagnoses made in practical environments insofar as they were
primarily based on assessments. For the time being, in practice as in research, there does not
seem to be a viable alternative to psychometric testing, whereby our investigation was able to
demonstrate their superiority in comparison to assessments, but not their validity. We would
like to recommend that future studies take a closer look at questions of identification, due to
Identification of Underachievement 22
the fact that it is a ground premise of every relevant research area, and it permits the object of
the investigation to be identified with sufficient confidence.
References
Ambady, N., & Rosenthal, R. (1992). Thin slices of expressive behavior as predictor
of interpersonal consequences: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 256-274.
Behling, D.U., & Williams, E.A. (1991). Influence of dress on perception of
intelligence and expectations of scholastic achievement. Clothing and Textiles Research
Journal, 9, 1-7.
Borkenau, P., & Liebler, A. (1995). Observable attributes as manifestations and cues
of personality and intelligence. Journal of Personality, 63, 1-25.
Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In: K. A. Heller, F. J. Mönks &
A. H. Passow (Eds), International Handbook of Research and Development of Giftedness and
Talent (pp. 649-668). Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Colvin, C.R., Funder, D.C. (1991). Predicting personality and behavior: A boundary
on the acquaintanceship effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 884-894.
Durr, W. H. (1964). The gifted student. New York: Oxford University Press.
Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and
development. Philadelphia: Psychology Press.
Feldhusen, J. F. & Jarwan, F. A. (2000). Identification of gifted and talented youth for
educational programs. In K.A. Heller, F.J. Mönks, R. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.),
International Handbook of Giftedness and Talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Funder, D.C., & Colvin, C.R. (1997). Congruence of others´ and self-judgments of
personality. In R- Hogan, J.A. Johnson (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 617-
647). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Identification of Underachievement 23
Gagné, F. (1991). Toward a differentiated model of giftedness and talent. In N.
Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (pp. 65-80). Boston: Allyn &
Bacon.
Gear, G. H. (1978). Effects of training on teachers accuracy in the identification of
gifted children. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 90-97.
Hall, J.A., Bernieri, F.J. (Eds.). (2001). Interpersonal sensitivity: Theory and
measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hanses, P. & Rost, D. H. (1998). Das “Drama” der hochbegabten Underachiever:
“Gewöhnliche” oder “außergewöhnliche” Underachiever? [The drama of the highly gifted
underachiever: “Common” or “exceptional” underachiever?] Zeitschrift für Pädagogische
Psychologie, 12, 53-71.
Hany, E. A. (1993) How teachers identify gifted students: Feature processing or
concept based classification? European Journal for High Ability, 4, 196-211.
Heller, K. A., Finsterwald, M. & Ziegler, A. (2000). Implicit theories of German
mathematics and physics teachers on gender specific giftedness and motivation. In A. Ziegler
(Ed.), Antecedents of motivation and behavior. The role of implicit theories of intelligence
(pp. 172-189). Lengerich: Pabst International.
Heller, K. A., Kratzmeier, H. & Lengfelder, A. (1998). Standard Progressive Matrices
(SPM; Raven, J.C., 1958). Goettingen, Germany: Beltz.
Kwon, Y. H. (1994). The influence of appropriateness of dress and gender on the self-
perception of occupational attributes. Clothings and Textiles Research Journal, 12, 33-39.
Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & Smith LeBeau, L. (2001). Who´s smart? Beliefs about
the expression of intelligence in social behavior. Representative Research in Social
Psychology, 25, 34-42.
Murphy, N. A., Hall, J. A., & C. R. Colvin (2003). Accurate intelligence assessments
in social interactions: Mediators and gender effects. Journal of Personality, 71, 465-493.
Identification of Underachievement 24
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1984). A nation at risk: The
imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Nicholls, J. G. (1992). The general and the specific in the development and expression
of achievement motivation. In G. C. Roberts (Ed.), Motivation in sport and exercise (pp. 31-
56). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics Books.
Renzulli, J. S. R. (1984). The triad-revolving door system: A research-based approach
to identification and programming for the gifted and talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28,
163-171.
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school
improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. R. & Park, S. (2000). Gifted dropouts: The who and the why. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 44, 261-271.
Renzulli, J. S. & Reis, S. M. (1997). The schoolwide enrichment model: New
directions for developing high-end learning. In N. Coangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook
of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 136-154). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Reynolds, D.J., & Gifford, R. (2001). The sounds and sights of intelligence: A lens
model channel analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 187-200.
Richert, E. S. (1991). Patterns of underachievement among gifted students. In M.
Bireley & J. Genshaft (Eds.), Understanding the gifted adolescent: Educational,
developmental, and multicultural issues (pp. 139-162). New-York: Teachers College Press.
Robertson, E. (1991). Neglected dropouts: The gifted and talented. Equity &
Excellende, 25, 62-74.
Rost, D. H. & Hanses, P. (1997). Wer nichts leistet, ist nicht begabt? Zur
Identifikation hochbegabter Underachiever durch Lehrkräfte, [If you are not successful, you
can´t be gifted. The identification of underachievers through teachers]. Zeitschrift für
Entwicklungspsychologie and Pädagogische Psychologie, 19, 167-177.
Identification of Underachievement 25
Schrader, F. W. & Helmke, A. (1990). Lassen sich Lehrer bei der
Leistungsbeurteilung von sachfremden Gesichtspunkten leiten? Eine Untersuchung zu
Determinanten diagnostischer Lehrerurteile, [Do teachers let other points of view influence
their performance judgements? An investigation of the determinants of teachers’ diagnostic
assessments]. Zeitschrift fuer Entwicklungspsychologie und Paedagogische Psychologie, 22,
312-324.
Stanley, J. C. (1991). An academic model for educating the mathematically talented.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 36-42.
Stephenson, R. S. (1985). A study of the longitudinal dropout rate: 1980 eighth-grade
cohort followed from June, 1980 through February, 1985. Miami, FL: Dade County Public
Schools Office of Educational Accountability.
Wheeler, R.W., Baron, J.C., Michell, S., & Ginsburg, H. J. (1979). Eye contact and the
perception of intelligence. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 101-102.
Wicklund, R. A. & Gollwitzer, P. M. (1982). Symbolic Self-completion. Hillsdale,
N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zebrowitz, L.A., Hall, J.A., Murphy, N.A., & Rhodes, G. (2002). Looking smart and
looking good: Facial cues to intelligence and their origins. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 238-249.
Ziegler, A. & Schober, B. (1999). Der Zusammenhang von Eltern- und
Kindkognitionen bezüglich des Faches Mathematik. Zeitschrift für Familienforschung, 11,
72-95.
Ziegler, A. & Stoeger, H. (2002). Motivationale Ziele im Mathematikunterricht von
MittelstufenschülerInnen am Gymnasium, [Motivational orientations of adolescent students in
mathematics instruction]. Empirische Pädagogik, 16, 57-78.
Ziegler, A. & Stoeger, H. (2003). The ENTER Model for the Identification of Talented
Persons. In A. Matison, S. Urban & R. Bulfield (Eds.), Gifted 2003: A celebration
Identification of Underachievement 26
downunder, Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Conference of the World Council for Gifted and
Talented Children (WCGTC). Adelaide, South Australia [CD-Rom].
Identification of Underachievement 27
Table 1: The number of students in each of the ability groups according to the results of an
intelligence test, and the categorization to these ability groups via assessments made by the
students, their parents and their teachers
IQ < 70 70 < IQ < 85 85 < IQ < 115 115 < IQ < 130 IQ > 130
SPM
27
71
109
74
36
Ability self-
assessments
4
1
219
76
10
Parental
ability
assessments
251
55
4
Teacher
ability
assessments
2
244
44
5
Note: Since IQ scores are more commonly used in giftedness research than percentile
rankings, ability will be rated with IQ here. IQ<70 ≈ percentile (PR) <2, 70<IQ<85 ≈
2<PR<16, 85<IQ<115 ≈ 16<PR<84, 115<IQ<130 ≈ 84<PR<98, IQ>130 ≈ PR>98
Identification of Underachievement 28
Table 2: Intercorrelational matrix of the percentile ratings found for the SPM and the ability
assessments made by the parents, teachers and the students
Teacher ability
assessments
Parental ability
assessments
SPM Percentile
Self-assessments of
ability
.43*** .45*** .25***
Teacher ability
assessments
.41*** .43***
Parental ability
assessments
.32***
Note: ***: p<.001
Identification of Underachievement 29
Table 3: Intercorrelational matrix of the test results obtained for motivation and ability self-
confidence among gifted students as well as parental and teacher assessments of these
variables. Correlation were calculated with Spearman’ coefficient and Kendall´s tau.
Mildly gifted students Gifted students
Underachievers Achievers Underachievers Achievers
M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T
M-S -.05 .04 .27* .01 .20 -.19 -.03 -.15
M-P -.13 .07 .67* -.02
Mildly gifted students Gifted students
Underachievers Achievers Underachievers Achievers
C-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T M-P M-T
M-S .00 .14 .24** .38** -.03 .70** .61** .45**
M-P .50** .34** -.14 .20
Notes: M-S = Motivation measured for the Student, M-P = Motivation assessment made by
the Parents, M-T = Motivation assessment made by the Teachers, C-S = Confidence in own
ability measured for the Student, C-P = Confidence assessment made by the Parents, C-T =
Confidence assessment made by the Teachers, *: p<.05, **: p<.01
Identification of Underachievement 30
30
40
50
60
70
80
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 1: Self-assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students as
well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 31
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 2: Parental assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students
as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 32
40
50
60
70
80
90
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 3: Teacher assessments of ability keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students
as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 33
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 4: Student motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students as well as
underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 34
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 5: Parental assessments of motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted
students as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 35
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 6: Teacher assessments of motivation keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted
students as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 36
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 7: Student ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and gifted students
as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 37
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 8: Parental assessments of ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and
gifted students as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 38
2,5
3
3,5
4
4,5
5
5,5
Mildly gifted Gifted
UnderachieverAchiever
Figure 9: Teacher assessments of ability self-confidence keyed for mildly gifted students and
gifted students as well as underachievers and achievers
Identification of Underachievement 39
Footnote
1
ENTER is an acronym, comprised of the first letters in the terms Explore, Narrow,
Test, Evaluate and Review. The intention of the model is not to describe the “correct” process
to be undertaken in the identification of the highly gifted, but rather to offer a general schema
which operates as a heuristic in the planning of concrete identifications.
2
Due to the low number of cases in the underachiever group, an alpha-adjustment of the
significance level was not undertaken in order to avoid the possibility of a Type II Error.
Readers should keep in mind that some of the relationships identified here could possibly
overestimate the magnitude of the correlation.