The DOI matches its Crossref record; 124 of the 124 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 8 of the 143 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Gifted Students
Open accessAbstract
Gifted students are individuals who are recognized for performance that is superior to that of their peers. Although giftedness is typically associated with schooling, gifted individuals exist across academic and nonacademic domains. In this review, we begin by acknowledging some of the larger debates in the field of gifted education and provide brief summaries of major conceptual frameworks applied to gifted education, dividing them into three categories: frameworks focused on ability, frameworks focused on talent development, and integrative frameworks. We then discuss common practices used to identify gifted students, giving specific attention to the identification of those in underrepresented groups, followed by brief overviews of the numbers of students who are classified as gifted, programming options for gifted students, and social and emotional issues associated with being gifted. We conclude with a discussion of several unresolved issues in the field.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
53 No full text of the sources · 31 Own interpretation · 23 No basis given · 21 Not checked yet · 17 Sources not found · 3 Partly supported · 3 Couldn’t confirm · 1 Supported · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“(a) abilities are malleable, particularly those specific to domains;”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Could not verifycites Subotnik et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages are a table of contents and a references listing, not discussion of the megamodel. Searches for the claim and for “malleable” returned no passage addressing whether abilities, particularly domain-specific abilities, are malleable. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“( f ) talent development is a long-term endeavor, extending beyond the school years into adulthood.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Could not verifycites Subotnik et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages are a table of contents and a References listing; they do not state the megamodel’s position on how long talent development lasts. Searches for the school-years-to-adulthood claim and for a long-term talent-development process returned no substantive passage, so the claim cannot be verified from our copy. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“(b) fields and domains begin, peak, and end at different points;”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Could not verifycites Subotnik et al. 2018 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The available passages list chapters and page numbers but do not discuss the megamodel or when fields and domains begin, peak, or end. Searches for the claim’s wording, developmental timing, and “megamodel” returned no relevant passage from the paper’s substantive text. (LLM, conf=0.72)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“The school district discontinued universal screening due to the costs involved”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Card & Giuliano 2015 source
The paper’s discussion on p. 7 says the additional IQ testing incurred relatively large overtime costs and that continuing budget pressures led the District to suspend the screening program. This supports the claim that it was discontinued because of costs. (LLM, conf=0.94)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“some participants in the talent search are assessed for spatial ability, which has proven useful in providing more specificity in predicting educational trajectories and occupations (Kell et al. 2013, Lubinski 2010).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Talent search.
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“In Canada and Australia, Gagné's (2005) differentiating model of giftedness and talent (DMGT) is most popular”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > MODELS OF GIFTEDNESS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Gagné 2005 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, they highlight the importance of other psychological factors, such as motivation, in moving from potential to fully developed talent.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Giftedness as Talent Development
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Outside the United States, the talent search model (Olszewski-Kubilius 2015;Stanley 1976Stanley , 1985) ) has served the most youth.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > MODELS OF GIFTEDNESS
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Numerous models of giftedness have been formulated (Coleman & Cross 2005;Sternberg & Davidson 1986, 2005), with no consensus on what the gifted label means.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Coleman & Cross 2005
- Not matchedcites Sternberg & Davidson 1986, 2005
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“There is also substantial evidence that deliberate practice contributes to superior performance across a wide variety of domains, including chess, music performance, sports, board games, video games, and dance”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Ericsson & Pool 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ullén et al. 2016 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 53
- Probably not a substantial claim. 44
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Psychosocial variables also play an important role in supporting gifted students in developing their potential gifts, although some of these variables are likely to be more useful than others (Dixson et al. 2016(Dixson et al. , 2017)).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Supportedcites Dixson et al. 2016 source
The Broader implications of the study section says psychosocial factors contribute to achievement in academically talented students and may support talent-development opportunities. The Integrity and utility of the psychosocial variables section says the factors are not equally useful, with self-efficacy contributing more to academic achievement than hope or grit. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dixson et al. 2017 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Although the newly identified students had lower achievement, as evidenced by their scores on standardized achievement tests, they were successful in the gifted program, achieving greater gains on reading and math than students referred under the old system.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Card & Giuliano 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Conclusions report that newly identified students had lower standardized achievement scores. Section V examines reading and math gains and finds slightly higher gains at schools with more newly identified students, but calls the evidence only suggestive that these students benefited more than those identified under the old referral system. The claim overstates that tentative, school-level comparison as a definite finding of greater gains for the newly identified students. (LLM, conf=0.88)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“Card & Giuliano reported that the percentage of students identified as gifted within the district rose from 3.3% to 5.5%, with the number of low-income and minority students increasing by 180%.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Card & Giuliano 2015 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The section on net impacts reports that the district’s gifted rate among third graders rose after screening, but gives a 1.7-percentage-point increase, not the claimed rise from 3.3% to 5.5% (2.2 points). A passage labeled VI. Conclusions reports a 180% increase for disadvantaged gifted third graders; it reports separate increases of about 80% for Black students and 130% for Hispanic students, not 180% for low-income and minority students collectively. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.90)
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
The cited sources support only part of this claim — read each source’s verdict below.
In the paper
“There is ample evidence that the opportunity gap affects all low-income students, contributing to lower achievement on the part of low-income, high-potential students (Hoxby & Avery 2013, Wai & Worrell 2016, Wyner et al. 2007).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Partly supportedcites Hoxby & Avery 2013 sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The “High-Achieving Students” section reports that low-income students are less likely than high-income students to be high achievers at the end of high school. It does not establish that an opportunity gap affects all low-income students or causes lower achievement among those with high potential; the Introduction explicitly describes the paper’s evidence as descriptive, not causal. Page numbers are unavailable in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.87)
- Not matchedcites Wai & Worrell 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Wyner et al. 2007
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Partly supported
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although research strongly supports accelerated programming for gifted students (Assouline et al. 2015, Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016), even support for acceleration is not universal.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Assouline et al. 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016 source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Research suggests that gifted students are at least as well adjusted as and no more vulnerable than their nonidentified peers (Erwin 2015).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Erwin 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“in some European and Asian countries, Ziegler's (2005;Phillipson et al. 2013) actiotope model has been widely implemented.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > MODELS OF GIFTEDNESS
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, several contemporary conceptualizations extend giftedness beyond g to other theories of intelligence and domain-specific abilities.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Giftedness as Ability
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For many years, the most widely used model in US schools has been Renzulli's (1977Renzulli's ( , 2016;;Renzulli & Reis 1997) enrichment triad.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > MODELS OF GIFTEDNESS
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Renzulli 1977 source
- Not matchedcites Renzulli 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Renzulli & Reis 1997
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“for gifted adults in at least some domains, associations between achieved eminence and psychopathology (Simonton & Song 2009) have been reported.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > INTRODUCTION
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Simonton & Song 2009 source
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, although they acknowledge the importance of ability, either explicitly or implicitly, they emphasize the fact that giftedness in childhood is based on potential that must be developed to produce a gifted adult.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Giftedness as Talent Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although they do not argue that deliberate practice without potential is sufficient to explain outstanding performance.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Subotnik & Jarvin's (2005) SP/A model, which was developed to explain musical talent, highlights how musical potential is transformed into musical talent, and exploratory investigations have provided support for this model in the domain of mathematics using domain relevant variables.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik & Jarvin 2005 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These models are developmental into adulthood and include a focus beyond the academic domains.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Integrative Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“perhaps due to the fact that talent search participants frequently engage in accelerated classes, which are also well supported in the empirical literature”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Steenbergen-Hu et al. 2016 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(e) mental and social skills are essential in transforming abilities into competencies, competencies into expertise, and expertise into eminence;”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Not matchedcites Subotnik et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(c) opportunities must be offered at the developmentally appropriate time;”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Not matchedcites Subotnik et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“almost all of which begin with potential and note the need for opportunities and resources to allow talent to develop.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The role of psychosocial variables and the idea of developmental trajectories are also explicit in the talent development and integrative models.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This idea that the gifted child does not necessarily become a gifted adult is more explicit in the talent development and integrated models”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The final three models reviewed are integrative models, in that they are based on combinations of other models in the literature.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Integrative Models
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“many scholars agree that giftedness is manifested as expert performance (e.g., Ericsson et al. 2005).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ericsson et al. 2005 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“the majority of variance is not accounted for by deliberate practice, indicating that it cannot be the sole determinant of expertise.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Hambrick et al. 2014 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is an appropriate framework to include in thinking about gifted students.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“According to this model, grouping children for advanced instruction should be based on past performance in the subject rather than on tests of ability or gifted identification”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Giftedness as Talent Development
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Peters et al. 2014
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“the differential prediction of mathematical versus verbal versus spatial ability (e.g., Kell et al. 2013, Lubinski 2010) also supports the integrated models and contradicts the notion that any single factor predicts giftedness or expert performance.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This model is viewed favorably by teachers and administrators: It increases positive attitudes toward providing gifted education, and some studies indicate that students receiving instruction on the basis of the model outperform comparisongroup peers (Renzulli & Reis 1994).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Renzulli & Reis 1994 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“high ability, whether general or more specific (e.g., mathematical, creative, bodily-kinesthetic), is an explicit prerequisite for giftedness in the ability-focused models”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The megamodel, developed by Subotnik et al. (2011Subotnik et al. ( , 2018)), synthesizes the psychological science on giftedness, talent, creativity, high performance, expertise, and eminence, as well as the major models of giftedness in the extant literature.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Not matchedcites Subotnik et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the megamodel defines giftedness as potential in the early years, which transitions into expertise in a domain through effort and opportunity, and sometimes into eminence, in fully developed talents, reflected in enduring contributions in a domain.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Not matchedcites Subotnik et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“(d ) opportunities must be taken by individuals to enhance talent;”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Multifactorial gene-environment interaction model.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
- Not matchedcites Subotnik et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“many models of giftedness are not easily translatable into criteria for identification.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > IDENTIFYING GIFTED STUDENTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“More than 70% of the sample believed that gifted students would be selfmotivated and independent learners, suggesting that they would miss children with potential who did not manifest such well-developed skill sets.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Speirs Neumeister et al. 2007 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most states require a teacher or parent referral as an initial step in their identification protocols, followed by further assessment for gifted services at multiple points across grades K-12.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“NNAT scores not only have larger standard errors of measurement than other nonverbal tests, but also”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lohman et al. 2008 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More specifically, spatial and mathematical reasoning abilities herald adult creative achievements in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields (e.g., patents, publications in prestigious journals), and verbal ability predicts comparable accomplishments in the social sciences and humanities (e.g., books, awards, publications).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“often attributed to biased teachers and identification practices (Ford 1998).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Identification of Underrepresented Groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ford 1998 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Lohman (2005b) argued that the NNAT normative sample was not representative of the US population and particularly unrepresentative of ethnic and racial subgroups.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lohman 2005b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Historically, the field of gifted education has relied on measures of general cognitive ability-IQ-as the hallmark of giftedness, and the field has been widely criticized for doing so”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In their definitions, 34 states recognize students with high IQ, 24 recognize general academic achievement, 21 list talent in the performing or visual arts, 21 list the creatively gifted, and 20 include students gifted in a specific academic area such as mathematics or science.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Assoc.Gifted Child.& Counc.State Dir.Programs Gifted 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The most frequently required criteria for identification include IQ scores, achievement data, teacher nominations, performance on state assessments, and student portfolios.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“When these students entered high school, they were outperforming their minority peers and their performance was almost”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Olszewski-Kubilius & Steenbergen-Hu 2017 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“although IQ has been shown to be a substantive predictor of both school achievement and job performance (Neisser et al. 1996, Nisbett et al. 2012).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To date, however, other than the research on the role of identification via talent search on long-term outcomes, there are few large-scale studies of any gifted models in the literature and no comparisons of the efficacy of models.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In gifted education circles, the achievement gap among students in the highest proficiency levels has been labeled the excellence gap by researchers (e.g., Plucker & Peters 2016), reflecting the small percentages of African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinx students.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Identification of Underrepresented Groups
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Plucker & Peters 2016
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Some Asian American groups are in the top tier of performance, on average, with European Americans and multiethnic individuals making up the second tier; African Americans, Native Americans, and Latinx groups fall in the lowest tier of performance, on average.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Identification of Underrepresented Groups
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Traditional cognitive instruments have been dismissed as biased or unfair (Ford & Helms 2012), and nonverbal ability tests have been put forward as a valid alternative in some circumstances.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ford & Helms 2012 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“McBee et al. (2012b) showed via propensity analysis that school districts using the alternative plans doubled the probability that low-income students would be identified for gifted services, although these students still remained underrepresented overall.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McBee et al. 2012b
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Only nine states specifically mention identifying low-income students, eight mention English learners, eight mention culturally or ethnically diverse students, six mention students who are twice exceptional, and three mention students who are geographically isolated or live in rural areas.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Natl.Assoc.Gifted Child.& Counc.State Dir.Programs Gifted 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Naglieri & Ford (2003) reported that similar percentages (4.4-5.6%) of African American, European American, and Latinx students in the NNAT normative sample obtained scores at or above the 95th percentile, indicating that the traditional ability gap was not present for this nonverbal instrument.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Naglieri & Ford 2003 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Although nonverbal measures may be excellent in identifying students in some STEM domains, like other assessments, they need to be used with other measures and will not solve the issue of underrepresentation (Worrell 2018).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Worrell 2018 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there is no consensus definition either within the field or in federal legislation”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > IDENTIFYING GIFTED STUDENTS
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“For example, measures of mathematical, verbal, and spatial reasoning, when assessed via tests such as the SAT or ACT, predict successful performance in accelerated courses and programs (Olszewski-Kubilius 2015) and also predict adult achievement in related domains of practice (Lubinski 2016, Makel et al. 2016).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Current Identification Practices in Schools and Districts
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Worrell & Dixson (2018) suggested that the percentage of students in the school population may not be the appropriate comparison group to use.They argued that a viable comparison group consists of students who are performing at the advanced levels in reading and mathematics based on national statistics.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Worrell & Dixson 2018 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“most of the definitions in the field reflect neither extreme; rather, they point toward the more nuanced view of potential (nature) being transformed by appropriate talent development opportunities (nurture).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Reconciling Multiple Definitions in Gifted Education
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“African American, American Indian and Alaska Native, Asian American, European American, and Latinx students constitute 16%, 1%, 5%, 50%, and 25% of the school-aged population, respectively (McFarland et al. 2017), but constitute 10%, 1%, 10%, 62%, and 16% of gifted students, respectively (Off.Civil Rights 2012).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites McFarland et al. 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Off. Civil Rights 2012
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As these numbers indicate, Asian American and European American students are overrepresented, and African American and Latinx students are underrepresented in the gifted student group, based on population statistics.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Gifted students reported significantly less relational and verbal victimization, albeit with small effect sizes and a similar level of physical victimization, and fewer gifted students reported being victimized across all victimization categories.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Erwin 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Warne et al. (2013), in a study of diversity within gifted programs in Utah, showed that much of the disparity in identification and participation of minority and low-income students in gifted programs was due to these students' lower achievement test scores, which may imply the lack of prior opportunity to learn.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Underrepresentation and Achievement Gaps in Gifted Education
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Warne et al. 2013 source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Between 2004 and 2012, the number of children in public schools in the United States increased from approximately 47.8 million to 49.8 million (Snyder et al. 2016).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Snyder et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, disproportionality is domain specific.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Subotnik et al. (2011) attempted to integrate multiple definitions in the field, arguing that potential is transformed into achievement and then expertise, and that some experts go on to become eminent due to the transformative and enduring nature of their contributions.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Reconciling Multiple Definitions in Gifted Education
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Almarode et al. (2014) also found that the disparities in gifted students in STEM schools were associated with disparities in parental education: Nearly 57% of specialized science school graduates had a parent in a STEM-related career, and only 20% had parents who had not completed an education beyond high school.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Almarode et al. 2014 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Studies from literature on developing expertise (e.g., Hambrick et al. 2018) have challenged the role of disciplined practice or nurture as the primary discriminator between good and outstanding performance, with data suggesting that exceptional ability enhances the effectiveness of practice and contributes to greater self-management of talent development, as well as faster growth with practice”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Reconciling Multiple Definitions in Gifted Education
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Hambrick et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, gifted students, with tragic exceptions, are no more vulnerable than their nongifted peers and are likely to become happier and healthier adults.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“gifted students not only reported higher positive outcomes, but also did not have higher levels of psychopathology than their peers (Suldo et al. 2018).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Suldo et al. 2018 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Of this number, 6.7% (3.2 million) were classified gifted in 2004, and 6.4% (3.19 million) were classified as gifted in 2012 (Snyder et al. 2016(Snyder et al. , 2018)).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Snyder et al. 2016
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Snyder et al. 2018
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, if opportunity to learn is the primary driver of underrepresentation, then gifted identification practices are valid and should not be blamed.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Underrepresentation and Achievement Gaps in Gifted Education
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Lubinski et al. (2014) reported similar findings for the SMPY samples who were chosen by way of very high mathematical or verbal ability: Participants reported high scores on flourishing, positive feelings, life satisfaction, career direction, and romantic satisfaction.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lubinski et al. 2014 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Using reading level in fourth grade as the benchmark, where 2% of African American, 4% of American Indian and Alaska Native, 15% of Asian American, 11% of European American, and 3% of Latinx students are scoring at the advanced levels (Aud et al. 2010), African American and Latinx students are overrepresented, and Asian American students are underrepresented.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Aud et al. 2010
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“A 2-year follow-up study on the students revealed that those identified with the performance tasks had general performance levels below that of traditionally identified students, but their performance was near the mean of traditional students in their areas of strength (VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Universal screening.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites VanTassel-Baska et al. 2007 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Third, and perhaps most importantly, disproportionality in a particular domain may be driven in part by the individuals who aspire to outstanding achievement in that domain, which may in turn be related to the visibility of high achievers who are role models for specific groups.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“individuals from groups that are underrepresented in gifted and talented programs are overrepresented in three of the major sports leagues: African Americans make up over 70% of the players in the National Basketball Association (Lapchick & Guiao 2015) and over 65% of the players in the National Football League (Gertz 2017), and over 25% of the players in Major League Baseball are Latinx (Lapchick”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE IDENTIFIED AS GIFTED AND TALENTED?
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Lapchick & Guiao 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Gertz 2017
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites Lapchick & Salas 2015
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“there is an expectation that the demographic profile of gifted students should mirror the demographic profile of the school or school district ( Johnsen 2011).”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Johnsen 2011
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Gagné's (2005) focus on the top 10% and Terman's (1922) use of an IQ of 140 are arbitrary cutoffs that limit the number of identified students without distinguishing the truly gifted from the nongifted.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“identification is a complicated issue in part because many of the protocols are based on finding gifted students, although giftedness is fundamentally a classification decision rather than a discovery process.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cross & Cross (2018) concluded tentatively that suicidal ideation in gifted students is equivalent to that of their nongifted peers.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > SOCIAL AND EMOTIONAL FUNCTIONING
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cross & Cross 2018 source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Talent development supports gifted youth in fulfilling their potential by evolving into creative producers or performers in adulthood.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Addressing Value Differences in Talent Development Domains
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“No cost-benefit analyses have been conducted on investing in high-ability, low-income children's education.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Investing Public Funds in Talent Development
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Subotnik et al. (2011) defined eminence as the outcome of fully developed talent, demonstrated by some creative product, performance, or idea that changes a field or domain, and suggested that it be the ultimate goal of the talent development process.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Addressing Value Differences in Talent Development Domains
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Subotnik et al. 2011 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is clear that, without this commitment, there will be fewer creative producers and performers in adulthood, a loss both to the individual and to society.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > CONCLUSION
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A program of psychosocial strength training, which is an integral part of elite preparation for athletes or performers, can be a useful parallel curriculum for advanced work in the academic world, but there is currently no systematic, benchmarked curriculum of this nature for use with academically talented youth.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Balancing Challenge with Psychological Preparedness
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One noteworthy example is the National Defense Education Act of 1958, when Congress funded identification and programming for STEM and select foreign language talent development.”
§ Annual Review of Psychology Gifted Students > Investing Public Funds in Talent Development
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
Giftedness occurs in both academic and nonacademic domains, even though it is usually associated with schooling.
“Although giftedness is typically associated with schooling, gifted individuals exist across academic and nonacademic domains.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The practices used in a country, state, or district depend to a large extent on the specific theoretical framework of giftedness that has been adopted.
“the practices used in a country, state, or district depend to a large extent on the specific theoretical framework that has been adopted.”
The paper relies on this without support.
High cognitive ability (g) or IQ is the most common conceptualization of giftedness and continues to play a major role in most models of giftedness.
“Perhaps the most common conceptualization of giftedness is as high cognitive ability (i.e., g) or IQ, a variable that continues to play a major role in most models of giftedness.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The percentage of gifted students in private schools is at least equivalent to the percentage in public schools.
“assuming that the percentage of gifted students in private schools is at least equivalent to the percentage in public schools”
The paper relies on this without support.
Schools typically identify students as gifted without specifying subject area or domain.
“Schools typically identify students as gifted but do not specify subject area or domain.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Available data on gifted students exist only for gifted students in public schools.
“Indeed, they exist only for gifted students in public schools.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Achievement gaps can be eliminated.
“until achievement gaps are eliminated, an outcome that will require ongoing and sustained efforts”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Children will find themselves attracted to and engaged in areas they may not have encountered in family or school life.
“with the assumption that children will find themselves attracted to and engaged in areas that they may not have encountered in the course of family or school life”
Citations
Cites
The role of deliberate practice in the acquisition of expert performance
Ericsson, K. A., Krampe, R. T., & Tesch-Römer, C. (1993) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.100.3.363 · Cited by 9,564 · cited 1×
“Ericsson and his colleagues (e.g., Ericsson & Pool 2016, Ericsson et al. 1993) have argued that giftedness is expert performance, and expert performance results from “extended deliberate practice” (Ericsson et al. 2005, p. 287).”
BackgroundDigest of Education Statistics
Dillow, S. A., Snyder, T. D., Snyder, T. D., Snyder, Dillow, S. A., & Thomas (1994) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.51-5366 · Cited by 7,533
Intelligence reframed: multiple intelligences for the 21st century
(2000) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.37-5804 · Cited by 3,015
Intelligence: Knowns and unknowns.
Neisser, U., Boodoo, G., Bouchard, T. J., Boykin, A. W., Brody, N., Ceci, S. J., Halpern, D. F., Loehlin, J. C., Perloff, R., Sternberg, R. J., et al. (1996) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.51.2.77 · Cited by 2,913
Hereditary genius: An inquiry into its laws and consequences.
Galton, F. (1869) · Macmillan eBooks · doi:10.1037/13474-000 · Cited by 1,950
Developing Talent in Young People
Cutietta, R. A. (1985) · Music Educators Journal · doi:10.2307/3396580 · Cited by 1,619
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011) · Psychological Science in the Public Interest · doi:10.1177/1529100611418056 · Cited by 1,269
Self-citationTransforming gifts into talents: the DMGT as a developmental theory1
Gagné, F. (2004) · High Ability Studies · doi:10.1080/1359813042000314682 · Cited by 1,263
(2005) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511610455 · Cited by 1,193
(2010) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 1,142
Research works printed but not linked: 24
- Assouline SG, 2015, A Nation Empowered: Evidence Trumps the Excuses Holding Back America's Brightest Students
- Chung EY, 2017, School Counselling in a Chinese Context: Supporting Students in Need in Hong Kong, 94
- Coll. Board., 2014, The 10th Annual AP Report to the Nation
- Dai DY, 2014, Paradigms of Gifted Education: A Guide to Theory-Based, Practice-Focused Research
- Erwin JO, 2015, Prevalence and impact of peer victimization among gifted children
- Gardner H, 1983, Frames of Mind
- Kanevsky L, 2013, The Tool Kit for High End Curriculum Differentiation
- Lapchick R, 2015, The 2015 Racial and Gender Report Card: Major League Baseball
- McFarland J, 2017, The condition of education 2017
- Naglieri JA, 1997, NNAT Multilevel Technical Manual
- Natl. Assoc. Gifted Child., Counc. State Dir. Programs Gifted., 2015, 2014–2015 State of the States in Gifted Education: Policy and Practice Data
- Natl. Coll. Athl. Assoc., 2017, Estimated probability of competing in college athletics
- Neihart M, 2016, The Social and Emotional Development of Gifted Children: What Do We Know?
- Off. Civil Rights., 2012, The transformed Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC)
- Olszewski-Kubilius P, 2015, A Nation Empowered: How Schools Hold Back America's Brightest Students, 2, 111
- Reardon SF, 2011, Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, School and Children's Life Chances, 91
- Renzulli JS, 1978, Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180
- Renzulli JS, 2016, Reflections on Gifted Education: Critical Works by Joseph S. Renzulli and Colleagues, 193
- Renzulli JS, 1997, The Schoolwide Enrichment Model: A How-To Guide for Educational Excellence
- Snyder TD, 2018, Digest of education statistics 2016
- Sosniak L, 1999, J. Second. Gifted Educ., 10, 166
- Sternberg RJ, 1986, Conceptions of Giftedness
- Tannenbaum AJ. 1986. Giftedness: a psychosocial approach. In Sternberg & Davidson 1986, pp. 21–52
- Wyner JS, 2007, Achievement trap: how America is failing millions of high-achieving students from lower-income families
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Intellectual Precocity: What Have We Learned Since Terman?
Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/0016986220925447 · Cited by 106
Bernstein, B. O., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2020) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/edu0000500 · Cited by 76
Hornstra, L., Bakx, A. W. E. A., Mathijssen, A. C. S., & Denissen, J. J. A. (2020) · Learning and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101871 · Cited by 87
Environmental Factors and Personal Characteristics Interact to Yield High Performance in Domains
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski‐Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2019) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02804 · Cited by 61
Self-citationIntellectual Giftedness and Multidimensional Perfectionism: a Meta-Analytic Review
Stricker, J., Buecker, S., Schneider, M., & Preckel, F. (2019) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-019-09504-1 · Cited by 61
“The weighting and the precise cut-off criteria of these or other indicators differ between studies and educational contexts (Worrell et al. 2019).”
Background
Metadata
- Authors
- Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D.
- Affiliations
- University of California, Berkeley (US)
- American Psychological Association (US)
- School of Education and Social Policy, Northwestern University, Evanston, Illinois 60201, USA
- Wayne State University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Worrell, Frank C.
- Venue
- Annual Review of Psychology
- Publisher
- Annual Reviews
- Published
- 2019-01-04
- Volume
- 70
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 551-576
- ISSN
- 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
- 1545-2085
- OpenAlex
- W4250032305
- Cited by
- 245
- References
- 110
- Citations by year
- 2026: 35 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 57 · 2019: 8
- FWCI
- 3.59
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Keywords
- gifted students, gifted education, giftedness, talent development, integrative framework, gifted identification, underrepresented groups
- MeSH terms
- Academic Success, Adolescent, Aptitude, Child, Child, Gifted, Curriculum, Humans, Human Development, Intelligence, Students
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-09-28, under version 3 of the claim definition (prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-09-28 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
