the javits iowa twice exceptional project :

The JAVITS Iowa Twice Exceptional Project:

Profiles of Iowa’s Twice-Exceptional Learners

Nurturing Potential Inspiring Excellence

The Connie Belin & Jacqueline N. Blank International Center

for Gifted Education and Talent Development

The University of Iowa College of Education

Susan G. Assouline, Ph.D.Professor, Associate Director

Megan Foley Nicpon, Ph.D.Assistant ProfessorSupervisor of Psychological Services


What is the Iowa Twice-Exceptional Project?

The JAVITS Iowa Twice-Exceptional Project



Javits Twice Exceptional ProjectBackground:

•2005 Federally funded joint effort of the Iowa DOE and the Belin-Blank Center

•PI: Susan Assouline; PM: Megan Foley Nicpon

Purpose:

•Examine the unique issues related to assessing the learning needs of twice-exceptional (2XE) students

The Belin-Blank Center Twice-Exceptional Research (2002-2008)

• Three-year Javits-funded project to investigate best practices (2005-2008)– Built on the foundation of research from

2002-2005 • Javits Project team:

– Iowa DOE• Rosanne Malek and Jim Reese

– Belin-Blank Center• Susan Assouline, Megan Foley Nicpon, Claire Whiteman,

Nicholas Colangelo, Greg Feldmann, Nancy Whetstine

The Grant

• The main goal is to address the Javits “Absolute Priority” to carry out a coordinated program of scientifically based research to build and enhance the ability of elementary and secondary schools to meet the special educational needs of gifted and talented students.

• Response to the first time fact that children who are gifted and talented are recognized in federal legislation concerned with disabilities



Twice-Exceptional Project Goals:1.Increase awareness of 2XE student characteristics.

2.Gain knowledge of best practices for comprehensively evaluating 2XE students.

3.Provide appropriate interventions for 2XE students.

4.Increase understanding of unique learning needs.

5.Change behavior by applying new knowledge, attitudes, awareness, and skills when working with 2XE students.


Definitions of twice-exceptional


http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://resources.prufrock.com/Portals/0/BlogImages/twice-exceptional.jpg&imgrefurl=http://resources.prufrock.com/GiftedChildInformationBlog/tabid/57/articleType/ArchiveView/month/8/year/2006/Default.aspx&h=150&w=200&sz=4&hl=en&start=7&tbnid=VOXI4Y1A27DL9M:&tbnh=78&tbnw=104&prev=/images?q=twice-exceptional&gbv=2&hl=en



“A student is considered twice-exceptional when he or she is identified as gifted/talented in one or more areas while also possessing a learning, emotional, physical, sensory, and/or developmental disability” (from Assouline, Foley Nicpon, & Huber, 2006)



“It is difficult to describe the ‘typical’ twice-exceptional student because of the variability demonstrated among them. The one common characteristic of this group, however, is that they simultaneously possess attributes of giftedness as well as learning, physical, social/emotional or behavioral deficits” (The Twice-Exceptional Dilemma,

National Education Association)

Twice-Exceptional Diagnosis Debacle

Twice- Exceptionality

Relative to

• Disability • Giftedness• Grant Diagnosis

Intervention

Advocacy

Twice Exceptional (2X)

• Two separate (and not equal) federal legislative actions form the foundation to understanding 2X– 1972 Marland Report – predominant basis for

identification and programming of gifted and talented in 5 broad areas (definition, but no mandate)

– 1975 PL-94 142 (renamed IDEA); a mandate for identification and provision of services for students with disabilities

Special Education• 1975 Federal Legislation

• Evolution of the categories (currently 13) as understanding increased

• Dramatic increases in numbers– From 1991 to 2000 an increase of 28.4% in the

number of students ages 6 to 21 receiving services (approximately 10% of the K-12 population)

– In 1976, only ¼ of students were considered LD, but by 1990, LD represented ½ and LD has maintained its first-place rank

Special EducationNumber of students (ages 6 – 21) served by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act

(IDEA) in 2001 by disability category, Adapted from the U.S. Department of Education (2005); Number of students (ages 6 – 21) served under IDEA in 2001 (Sattler, 2008).________________________________________________________________________Disability # of children %IDEA total % of US student

Population (Ages 6-21)________________________________________________________________________Specific learning 2,886,679 49.2 6.0disabilities**Speech orlanguage impairments 1,091,306 18.6 2.3Mental retardation 604,325 10.3 1.2Emotional disturbance 475,246 8.1 1.0Multiple disabilities 129,079 2.2 0.3Hearing impairments 70,407 1.2 0.1Orthopedic impairments 76,274 1.3 0.2Other health impairments 340,299 5.8 0.7Visual impairments 23,469 0.4 0.0Autism 99,743 1.7 0.2Deaf-blindness --- 0.0 0.0Traumatic brain injury 23,469 0.4 0.0Developmental Delay 46,938 0.8 0.1All disabilities 5,867,234 100.0 12.1

IDEA 2004

Gifted and Talented Students with a disability are recognized as one of the groups of students whose needs have priority in US DOE grants to guide research, personnel preparation, and technical assistance the Javits Twice-Exceptional Research Grant



Types of Twice-Exceptionality1.GT with physical disabilities2.GT with sensory disabilities3.GT with autism spectrum disorder (ASD)4.GT with emotional and/or behavioral disorders5.GT with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity

Disorder (ADHD)6.GT with specific learning disabilities (SLD)



What are some challenges facing 2xe students?

1.Gifts masking disability2.Disability masking gifts3.No identification


Project emphasis




Main focus of our project: 1.Academically gifted students with Autism

Spectrum Disorder (ASD)2.Academically giftedstudents with specificlearning disabilities (SLD)

Initial FocusGifted and talented students who have learning difficulties or social

impairments. Students – who we are referring to as twice-exceptional -- face a double-risk in the educational environment

• (1) because of their strong academic potential, their disability often is not recognized until they spend enough time in the system “waiting to fail”;

• (2) meanwhile, because they “fail to flourish” their strong academic potential is not realized.

The double impact of these systemic flaws results in a very vulnerable group of twice-exceptional learners with unique issues that will be addressed in our project.



Why focus on ASD?

•Diagnosis of ASD has grown tremendously in the past 10 years

•Limited to no research at present with gifted students

Gifted StudentsStudents with an Autism Spectrum

Disorder

Gifted/ASD students



Why focus on SLD? 1.It represents more than 50% of students in

the 13 diagnostic categories. It is the one category that has grown the most.

2.The changes in IDEA are very much reflected in the SLD issues.

3.Increased use of curriculum-based assessment (CBA) and response to intervention (RTI) strategies greatly affect gifted/LD


What is known about twice-exceptional students in schools?



Results from the Needs Assessment


• The Needs Assessment was designed to be brief. The information was fairly general:

1. Basic demographics2. Familiarity with Special Education, G/T, and Twice-

Exceptional3. Confidence in making an appropriate referral4. Which professional should be the primary provider of

support

Needs Assessment Results

Primary Role

Gifted Education Specialist: 77 (38%)School Psychologist: 47 (23%)Classroom Teacher: 36 (18%)*******Other (librarian, media specialist) 24(12%)Special Ed Teacher 8(4%)School Administrator 7 (3%)School Counselor 6 (3%)

Basic Demographics

Familiarity with Guidelines and Terminology

0

20

40

60

80

100

Gifted Ed Special Ed Twice-Exceptional

Gifted Educators School Psychologists Classroom Teachers

Confidence in Referral Process for Twice-Exceptional Students

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Very/Somewhat

Not very NotConfident

Gifted Ed School Psych Classroom Teachers

Best Choice to Provide Centralized Support

0

10

20

30

40

50

ClassroomTeacher

Gifted Ed.Teacher

Special EdTeacher

SchoolPsychologist

Gifted Ed School Psych Classroom Teachers


What does a twice-exceptional child look like?



Cognitive, academic and adaptive functioning profiles: GT/ASD




ASD Assessment Process

1. Cognition (SB5; WISC-IV; WAIS-III)2. Achievement (WIAT-II; WJIII) 3. Motor (VMI 5th Edition; Grooved Pegboard Test)4. Psychosocial functioning [Behavior Assessment

System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2) Self Report, Parent, and Teacher Rating Scales]

5. Self Concept (Piers-Harris Self Concept Scale – 2)

6. ASD diagnosis (Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule ADOS; Autism Diagnostic Interview – Revised; ADI-R)

7. Adaptive behavior (Vineland-2)



ASD Assessments77 Comprehensive assessments completed

• 48 ASD assessments– 6 had no diagnosis– 5 did not meet cognitive ability criteria

• 37 total GT/ASD (1+ IQ score in Superior range or above; ASD diagnosis*)– 17 (46%) Asperger’s Disorder– 13 (35%) Autistic Disorder– 7 (19%) Pervasive Developmental Disorder

*Diagnosis based on ADOS/ADI-R results and DSM-IV criteria



ASD Demographics31 (84%) boys / 6 (16%) girls20 ES / 10 MS / 7 HS34 white / 2 Latino / 1 Biracial

– 21 (57%) Prescribed psychotropics – 23 (62%) Previously evaluated– 4 (11%) Whole grade accelerated – 14 (38%) Subject accelerated– 25 (68%) GT participants– 8 (22%) SE participants



ASD Profile Analysis – Ability

• Cognitive Composite from 104 – 160 (m = 129; 97th percentile)– (31 of 37 in Superior range or above; 6 in PG range)

• Verbal Composite from 91 – 155 (m = 127; 96th percentile)– (49% Very Superior verbal abilities; 11 in PG range)

• Nonverbal Composite from 86 – 149 (m = 123; 94th percentile)

• Working Memory from 86 – 141 (m = 112; 79th percentile)• Processing Speed from 68 – 126 (m = 96; 39th percentile)

– 43% Low Average or below

verbal> nonverbal no split nonverbal > verbal 12 (33%) 16 (43%) 9 (24%)

15 – 54 points 17 – 37 points

(1 – 3.75 SDs) (1 – 2.5 SDs)



Verbal/Nonverbal Discrepancy Analysis



ASD Profile Analysis – Motor

• Mean performance in Average range

• 46% exhibited motor difficulties • 23% exhibited advanced motor

skills



ASD Profile Analysis – Achievement

•Sight word reading > reading speed > comprehension – Means from High Average to Superior

•Math reasoning > calculation > math speed – Means from Average to Superior range



ASD Profile Analysis – Achievement

•Spelling > written expression > writing fluency– Means from Average to Superior range

•Expressive > receptive language – Means from Average to High Average range

– Delayed > immediate



Profile Analysis – Adaptive Behavior

•Communication Domainoverall in Average range (93; 32nd percentile)

written > expressive > receptive

•Daily Living Skills Domainoverall in the Low Average/Average range

(89; 23rd percentile)community > personal = domestic



Profile Analysis – Adaptive Behavior

•Socialization Domainoverall in Borderline range (74; 4th

percentile)Mildly deficient range = 9 (25%)Borderline range = 15 (42%)Low Average range =11 (31%)

•1 student in the Average range



What does all this mean?1. Our sample of gifted students with ASD

exhibited extremely large discrepancies in their cognitive, academic, and adaptive functioning profiles

2. These discrepancies are confusing to the child/adolescent as well as to those who work and live with him/her (e.g., why are some things so easy and others so hard?)



What does all this mean?3. Verbal and nonverbal reasoning skills are

typically much stronger than are working memory and processing speed skills

4. These cognitive discrepancies can, and often do, affect academic functioning


Cognitive, academic and adaptive functioning profiles: GT/SLD




SLD Assessment Process

1. Cognition (SB5; WISC-IV; WAIS-III)2. Achievement – two measures in area of difficulty

(WIAT-II; WJIII) 3. Psychosocial functioning [Behavior Assessment

System for Children, 2nd Edition (BASC-2) Self Report, Parent, and Teacher Rating Scales]

4. Self concept (Piers-Harris Self Concept Scale – 2) 5. Motor WL only (VMI 5th Edition; Grooved Pegboard

Test)



SLD Assessments77 Comprehensive assessments completed

• 29 SLD assessments– 6 had no diagnosis– 6 did not meet cognitive ability criteria

• 17 total GT/SLD (1+ IQ score in Superior range or above; SLD diagnosis)– 14 Disorder of Written Expression (5 w/ co-occurring Reading

DO)– 1 Reading Disorder (only)– 1 Math Disorder (only)– 1 SLD NOS



SLD Demographics14 (82%) boys / 3 (18%) girls6 ES / 7 MS / 4 HS17 white

– 3 (18%) Prescribed psychotropics – 7 (41%) Previously evaluated– 0 Whole grade accelerated – 2 (12%) Subject accelerated– 9 (53%) GT participants– 1 (6%) SE participants


The JAVITS Iowa Twice-Exceptional ProjectWhat does a 2e child look like?

SLD Profile Analysis – Ability

• Cognitive Composite from 107 – 148 (m = 125; 95th percentile)– (12 in Superior range or above; 3 in PG range)

• Verbal Composite from 105 – 150 (m = 128; 97th percentile)– (14 in Superior range or above; 3 in PG range)

• Nonverbal Composite from 84 – 138 (m = 117; 87th percentile)

• Working Memory from 88 – 123 (m = 104; 61st percentile)• Processing Speed from 68 – 114 (m = 95 37th percentile)

verbal> nonverbal no split nonverbal > verbal 7 (41%) 10 (59%) 0 (0%)

15 – 46 points

(1 – 3.5 SDs)



Verbal/Nonverbal Discrepancy Analysis:



SLD Profile Analysis – Achievement

•Sight word reading = comprehension = reading speed– All means in the Average range

•Math reasoning = calculation > math speed– Means in Average to High Average range

• Expressive > receptive language



SLD Profile – Written Language

•WJIII: written expression > spelling > writing fluency– All in Average range

•WIAT: overall lower scores than WJIII spelling = written expression – (Mean = 95 (37th percentile) and 93 (32nd

percentile, respectfully)

•Fine motor skills lower end of Average range (mean = 92)



What does all this mean?1.Among our sample, written language the area

where students have the most difficulty.

2.Our sample of gifted students with SLD were not typically accelerated

3.Less discrepancy in the SLD cognitive profiles than in the ASD cognitive profiles, but a similar pattern

4.Perform “average” but below intra-individual expectations

5.These students may get missed if a comprehensive evaluation is not completed


What are some of the socialand emotional concerns of twice-exceptional students?

Javits Twice-Exceptional Project


Concerns of gifted students with ASD

Javits Twice-Exceptional Project



ASD Psychosocial Patterns – Parent Report

• 84% reported global adaptive skill difficulties– 81% reported difficulties adapting to change

– 62% reported social skills difficulties

– Only one parent reported concerns with functional communication

• 87% reported overall emotional/behavioral difficulties – 65% reported attention symptoms

– 86% reported atypicality symptoms

– 86% reported withdrawal symptoms



ASD Psychosocial Patterns – Teacher Report

• 68% reported overall emotional/behavioral problems

• 81% reported atypicality symptoms

• 77% reported withdrawal symptoms

*********No teacher reported observinglearning problems********



ASD Psychosocial Patterns – Self Report

• Only 4 students reported global emotional & behavioral concerns – 30% reported anxiety symptoms

– 24% reported atypicality symptoms

• 91% did not report interpersonal concerns

• 89% felt self-reliant

• 82% had Average or above self-esteem scores



ASD Self-Esteem Patterns

• 83% reported global Average to High self-self-esteem– All had Average or above intellectual

self-esteem

– 52% reported feeling unpopular with peers



What does all this mean?1.In our group of students, similar scales were

elevated on parent and teacher report measures, but parents’ reports are more significant

2.Teachers may not necessarily observe educational problems in 2e (GT/ASD)

3.In our group of students, self-perceptions were generally positive and often were not consistent with parent/teacher perceptions


Concerns of gifted students with SLD

The Javits Twice-Exceptional Project



SLD Psychosocial Patterns – Parent Report

• 71% reported global adaptive skill difficulties

• One parent reported overall internalizing problems – 59% reported withdrawal symptoms

• 47% reported global externalizing problems– 52% reported hyperactivity symptoms



SLD Psychosocial Patterns – Teacher Report

• 33% reported overall emotional/behavioral difficulties

• 3 reported overall externalizing symptoms– 40% report hyperactivity

• 3 reported overall internalizing problems – 33% reported withdrawal

• 47% reported observing learning problems



SLD Psychosocial Patterns – Self Report

• Only 3 students reported global emotional/behavioral concerns

• 3 reported internalizing problems

• 82% had a positive impression of school

• 61% had a positive impression of teachers

• 82% felt self-reliant

• 82% had Average + self-esteem scores



SLD Self-Esteem Patterns – Self Report

• 82% reported global Average to High self-self-esteem– 82% Average or above intellectual self-

esteem

– 65% reported feeling popular with peers



What does all this mean?1.While psychosocial concerns exist, they are

generally mild as a group, particularly in comparison to 2e with ASD

2.Teachers are more likely to observe educational problems in 2e with LD than 2e with ASD

3.In our group of students, not many reported emotional or behavioral difficulties


How is a twice-exceptional child different from a gifted child?




Case study comparison: a profoundly gifted girl with ASD and a profoundly gifted girl

without ASD



Carrie • Evaluation completed at ages 11 - 14

• Accelerated from 6th to 8th grade

• Developmental milestones on time or early

(reading at 30 months)

• Disorganized, forgetful, difficulty w/ daily

activities, & uninterested in peer

relationships

• Bx Obs: cooperative, talkative, needed

instructions repeated; questioned purpose of

assessment tasks

• Diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome

Hannah

• Evaluation completed at age 11

• Not accelerated but in GT

• Developmental milestones within normal limits

• Described as shy w/social difficulties; social skills counseling

• Bx Obs: cooperative, attentive, hard-working; shy

• No diagnosis



WISC-IV Scores Carrie Hannah

SS CI Percentile SS CI Percentile

Full Scale 151 145-154 >99.9 148 142-151 99.9

General Ability Index 160 152-163 >99.9 153 147-157 >99.9

Verbal Comprehension Index 155 145-158 >99.9 148 138-152 99.9

Perceptual Reasoning Index 147 136-151 99.9 137 126-142 99

Working Memory Index 138 127-143 99 132 122-137 98

Processing Speed Index 118 107-125 88 131 118-136 98



WJIII Scores Carrie Hannah


Broad Reading 174 165-182 >99.9 156 151-161 >99.9

Broad Math 139 130-147 99.5 139 132-146 99.5

Broad Written Language 166 153-180 >99.9 161 146-175 >99.9

Oral Language 130 109-150 98 141 124-157 99.7

Story Recall 116 100-131 85 142 125-159 99.7

Story Recall Delayed 123 105-141 94 140 120-159 99.6



Vineland II Carrie Hannah


Adaptive Behavior Composite 86 80-92 18 108 101-115 70

Communication 92 84-100 30 124 115-133 95

Daily Living Skills 97 89-105 42 99 89-109 47

Socialization 75 67-83 5 97 87-107 42



BASC-2 Self Carrie Hannah BASC-2 Parent Carrie Hannah

Percentile Percentile Percentile Percentile

Locus of Control 18 76 Atypicality 99 33

Social Stress 13 84 Withdrawal 71 85

Depression 46 73 Social Skills 5 17

Rel. w/ Parents 33 73 Communication 3 69

Interpersonal 23 11

Self-Reliance 3 80

BASC-2 Teacher Percentile Percentile Withdrawal 97 86

Conduct Problems 81 48 Adaptability 1 36

Attention 83 56 Social Skills 6 86

Atypicality 90 85 Leadership 9 77



ADOS Scores Cutoff Carrie Hannah

Communication 2 3 0

Reciprocal Social Interaction 4 7 1

Imagination/Creativity NA 1 0

Stereotyped Behaviors and Restricted Interests NA 1 0

ADOS Diagnostic Classification 7 ASD No ASD

ADI-R Scores

Qualitative Abnormalities in Social Interactions 10 14 5

Qualitative Abnormalities in Communication 8 16 5

Restricted, Repetitive, and Stereotyped Behavior 3 3 0

Abnormal Development Before 36 Months Total 1 0 0



Summary of Results• Intellectually similar, Carrie lower Processing

Speed• Academically similar, Carrie lower expressive

language • Large differences in adaptive functioning

(communication and socialization)• Psychosocial functioning variable (Carrie =

elevated parent and teacher scores consistent with ASD)

• ASD assessment clearly differentiated the two girls



Conclusions• Comprehensive assessment crucial for

appropriate diagnosis• ADOS/ADIR and Vineland-II most useful

instruments for determining whether ASD is present

• IQ and Achievement testing did not reliably differentiate the girls



Case study: A gifted student with SLD


How can educators help twice-exceptional students?



The Paradox of Giftedness and Autism: Packet of Information for Professionals




Suggestions from PIP• Reading

– Materials in area of interest – Diverse genres – Abstract vs. concrete– Comprehension over speed – Partner up

• Math– New material at an individualized pace– Diversify topic areas



Suggestions from PIP• Processing Speed

– Allow time to respond in class – Write facts and deadlines on the board– Minimize timed activities– Quality over quantity – Encourage pre-planning– Reduce copying– Praise persistence – Make an outline / notes available



Suggestions from PIP• Written Language

– Offer an assortment of writing utensil options– Print or cursive– Share notes – Use graph paper– Assistive technology – Extra time on writing assignments – Tape record– Write about special interests – Content first and mechanics second (drafts and proof

reading)



Suggestions from PIP• Social Skills

– Cultivate social awareness at every opportunity – Encouragement and recognition– Specific instructions– Specific opportunities

• Communication Skills– Feedback about conversations – Monitor bullying behavior – Praise attempts at participation – Straightforward and direct communication



Suggestions from PIP• Behavior

– Remove student from source of stress – Safe place– Make options available for free time– Consult with professionals re. a behavior

management plan– Use interests in a positive way– Post schedules – Provide warnings to change


The Paradox of Giftedness and Autism: Packet of Information for Families




Suggestions from PIF• Disclosure of information to staff• Discussing the program• Taking a proactive approach• Planning for social activities • Avoiding potential behavioral problems


How should the student’s gifts be addressed?




• Listen, listen, listen, and support • Highlight the child’s strengths and interests,

and use this information to stimulate learning • Employ alternate (nontraditional) ways to

demonstrate understanding• Ensure that GT participation is not contingent

on good behavior


How should the student’s disability be addressed?




• Flexibility, flexibility, flexibility, and support • Be actively involved in IEP or 504 planning• Communicate with the child and his/her

parents • Be positive!!! • Be consistent • Provide examples of appropriate behaviors • Encourage learning of various strategies to

address areas of difficulty (study skills, time management, coping skills, etc.)


What can I tell parents?




• Obtain support (web communities, literature for parents, 2e newsletter, etc.)

• Seek ways in and out of school to accommodate for gifts and disabilities/difficulties

• Emphasize the student’s strengths – Recognize the value of highlighting gifts



• Help the student and their parents think about and plan for the future– College – what environment would be the

best fit?– Investigate careers that are good fits with

the student’s gifts and areas of difficulty• Help the student and parents develop self-

advocacy skills



• Emphasize resiliency and persistence • Consider finding mentors in student’s area of

interest• Reframe ideas of “learning disability” or “ASD”


Conclusions



[email protected]@uiowa.edu


the javits iowa twice exceptional project :

Documents

exceptional research

exceptional student

exceptional dilemma

exceptional projectit

exceptional projectjavits

exceptional projectbackground

exceptional projecta

javits project team