THEORY INTO PRACTICE, 44(2), 115124

Lilia M. Ruban
Sally M. Reis

Identification and Assessment of

Gifted Students With Learning
Disabilities

More is known about the characteristics and

needs of gifted students with learning disabilities
today than in the past, as more educators understand that children with high potential can simultaneously struggle with academic tasks at school.
However, many of these students are not identified as requiring services, and if they are, it is for
only 1 exceptionality. This absence of knowledge
about the consequences of the coincidence of
gifts and disabilities has resulted in misidentification and minimal services for many students.
In this article, current identification and assessment practices are reviewed within a framework
of a broadened view of giftedness; connections

Lilia M. Ruban is an assistant professor in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction and a researcher at
the Urban Talent Research Institute of the University of
Houston. Sally M. Reis is a professor in and the Department Head of the Department of Educational Psychology at The University of Connecticut.
Requests for reprints can be sent to Lilia Ruban, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, University of
Houston, 256 Farish Hall, Houston, TX 77204-5027.
E-mail: [email protected]

are made between identification and assessment,

and the provision of appropriate interventions.
The authors contend that a scholarly exchange of
ideas in the fields of learning disabilities and
giftedness can enable researchers and practitioners to discuss the best ways to translate research into practice to find the most appropriate
methods to identify students with dual exceptionalities.

N A RECENT VOLUME of research on students

with both gifts and learning disabilities
(gifted/LD), Baum (2004) summarized the major
questions in the field of gifted education during
the last 30 years. These include whether students
can be both gifted and learning disabled, the
characteristics these students exhibit, how they
can be appropriately identified, and how educators can appropriately meet their needs. Many researchers understand that academically talented
children can simultaneously struggle with academic tasks at school (e.g., Baum, Cooper, &
Neu, 2001; Baum & Owen, 2004). The origins of

115

Gifted Education

the belief that students with gifts and talents

could also have learning disabilities began a
quarter century ago with the seminal work by
Maker (1977) who suggested an unexplored and
provocative area of research on a special population of students initially referred to as gifted
handicapped. Makers book added a new dimension to the idea that students can simultaneously
have gifts, talents, and disabilities, and her pioneering concept of gifted handicapped, or
twice-exceptional children, resulted in a line of
inquiry devoted to this important topic.
Researchers currently know more about the
characteristics and needs of gifted students with
learning disabilities; however, disagreements exist about how these students can be appropriately
identified (McCoach, Kehle, Bray, & Siegle,
2004; Olenchak, 1994; Reis & Ruban, 2004). For
instance, the concept of masking and the use of
profile analysis have been challenged, and a potential disappearance of the discrepancy formula
from the proposed 2004 reauthorization of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA) will result in debate about the viable alternatives for identifying gifted/LD students.
Areas of consensus exist as well as others that require further work. On a positive side, many educators and professionals believe in the importance of capitalizing on strengths and minimizing
weaknesses. As increasing numbers of researchers continue to make a compelling argument for
adopting a broadened definition of giftedness
beyond the traditional IQ-based definition
(Gardner, 1993; Renzulli, 1986; Sternberg,
1997), a stronger need exists to align the broader
view of giftedness with the provision of appropriate services for students with diverse gifts and
learning disabilities.
In this article, current identification and assessment practices are reviewed within the
framework of a broadened view of giftedness and
a link is drawn between identification, assessment and the provision of appropriate interventions for this unique student population. Promising approaches for solving problems in this
area are described and a framework for current
identification and assessment procedures related

116

to gifted students with learning disabilities is

briefly discussed.

Definitions of Giftedness, Learning

Disabilities, and Gifted/LD
Many current theorists define conceptions of
giftedness in terms of multiple qualities, conceding
that aptitude or IQ scores are not synonymous with
giftedness and are, therefore, inadequate measures
of giftedness. For example, motivation, self-concept, and creativity are often included in many of
these broadened conceptions of giftedness and the
role of culture is often discussed as interwoven with
giftedness (Sternberg & Davidson, 1986). One of
the most popular broadened conceptions of
giftedness developed by Renzulli (1986) includes
three interlocking clusters of above average ability,
creativity, and task commitment. One authoritative
definition of learning disability adopted in the federal regulations of the U.S. Office of Education
(USOE, 1977) explained
Specific learning disability means a disorder in
one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, which may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write,
spell, or to do mathematical calculations. The terms
includes such conditions as perceptual handicaps,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia,
and developmental aphasia. The term does not include children who have learning problems which
are primarily the results of visual, hearing, or motor
handicaps, or mental retardation, or emotional disturbance, or environmental, cultural, or economic
disadvantage. (USOE, 1977, p. 65083)

The notion of IQachievement discrepancy

was not initially incorporated into the federal
learning disability (LD) definition. However, it
later became part of the regulations outlining procedures for identification of specific learning disabilities (SLD) issued by the Bureau of Education
for the Handicapped (USOE, 1976). In 2004,
Baum and Owen defined gifted students with
learning disabilities as having outstanding talents

Ruban and Reis

Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

in some areas and debilitating weaknesses in others. Brody and Mills (1997) proposed the definition of gifted/LD students to include a statement
about their superior abilities, as well as their performance deficits, as follows:
Gifted/LD students are students of superior intellectual ability who exhibit a significant discrepancy
in their level of performance in a particular academic area such as reading, mathematics, spelling,
or written expression. Their academic performance
is substantially below what would be expected
based on their general intellectual ability. As with
other children exhibiting learning disabilities, this
discrepancy is not due to the lack of educational
opportunity in that academic area or other health
impairment. Because academically gifted students
with learning disabilities demonstrate such high academic potential, their academic achievement may
not be as low as that of students with learning disabilities who demonstrate average academic potential. Consequently, these students may be less
likely to be referred for special education testing.
(p. 285)

Characteristics of Gifted Students with

Learning Disabilities
During the last 2 decades, much has been
learned about the characteristics and traits of this
unique population of students (Davis & Rimm,
2002). In a thorough review of the literature on
gifted /LD students, Reis, Neu, and McGuire (1995)
summarized the characteristics of gifted/LD students that reflect their giftedness but also hamper
their identification as gifted. These positive and
challenging characteristics seem to stem from the
unique and perplexing interaction of their abilities
and their disabilities as summarized in Table 1.
Some high-ability students with SLDs may
display very different characteristics from each
other. For example, those with reading disabilities may have high verbal or visual-motor aptitude, possible creativity, boredom with grade
level or below grade level reading, variable
scores on achievement tests in reading sections,
improved performance with compensation strategies (e.g., information presented orally, word

Table 1
Characteristics of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities
Characteristics Which Hamper
Identification as Gifted
Frustration with inability to master certain
academic skill
Learned helplessness
General lack of motivation
Disruptive classroom behavior
Perfectionism
Supersensitivity (e.g., to criticism, to feeling of
others)
Failure to complete assignments
Lack of organizational skills
Careless in ones work
Demonstration of poor listening and concentration
skills
Deficiency in tasks emphasizing memory and
perceptual abilities
Low self-esteem
Unrealistic self-expectations
Absence of social skills with some peers (e.g., can
be aggressive and defensive in relationships)

Characteristic Strengths

Advanced vocabulary use

Exceptional analytic abilities
High levels of creativity
High levels of productivity (particularly in the area
of interest)
Advanced problem-solving skills
Ability to think of divergent ideas and solutions
Specific aptitude (artistic, musical, or mechanical)
Wide variety of interests
Good memory
Strong critical-thinking skills
Unusual ability to see interrelationships among
ideas and concepts
Extraordinary reasoning skills
Task commitment
Desire for knowledge, desire to explore and
discover
Sense of humor
A variety of special abilities

117

Gifted Education

processor, spell-checkers, additional time for assignments), low tolerance for frustration with
rote-drill reading tasks, possible inattention, and
unrealistically high or low self-concept
(Hishinuma & Tadaki, 1996). High-ability students with math disabilities may display different
characteristics including: high verbal aptitude,
possible creativity, boredom with grade level or
below grade level math, variable scores on
achievement tests in math sections, improved
performance with compensation (emphasis on
word problems, calculator use, additional time
for assignments), low tolerance for frustration
with rote-drill math tasks, possible inattention,
and unrealistically high or low self-concept
(Hishinuma & Tadaki, 1996).
Students who exhibit characteristics of both academic talents and learning disabilities pose quandaries for educators. The misconceptions, definitions, and expected outcomes for these types of
students further complicate the issues facing appropriate programming for this population.
Awareness of these students needs is becoming
more common with teachers of both gifted students and those with learning disabilities, yet few
school districts provide interventions or programs
for this group (Boodoo et al., 1989; Newman,
2004). Problems with identification and delivery
of services to these students may exist at many levels, including varying definitions and criteria for
eligibility, referral process, masking effects (i.e.,
when a students giftedness masks his or her disability and vice versa), political issues, and other
issues. It appears that better understanding of
these complex issues may arise from exploring the
connections of ideas from both the fields of
giftedness and learning disabilities.

Prevalence Rates as a Function of the

Adherence to a Particular Definition
The views on the nature and definitions of
giftedness have changed continually, and their
evolutions have moved toward including an increasingly more diverse set of capabilities; however, no universally agreed-on definition of
giftedness exists. Drawing attention to this lack of

118

consensus, McCoach and colleagues (2004) suggested that a school districts implicit or explicit
definition can actually determine eligibility for
specialized services. In some states, for example,
only 12% of the school-aged student population
is identified as gifted, whereas in others the percentages are 5% or higher. In the talent pool approach, reflecting broadened conceptions of
giftedness, as many as 1015% of students in the
total population in a particular school can be identified as having high potential using a flexible and
inclusive system with multiple criteria (Renzulli
& Reis, 1997).
An interesting similar phenomenon has been
reported in the field of learning disabilities. According to Gresham (2002), findings in the last 15
years have pointed to a lack of consistent definition in policy or practice in the identification of
LD students, a major stumbling block to effective
research and practice. MacMillan and Siperstein
(2002) explained that the population of LD students has changed over the years as public schools
have responded to societal and policy changes and
the ways in which these have affected both general
and special education. For example, between
197677 and 199293, the number of children
served as LD nationwide increased by 198% (U.S.
Department of Education, 1995). Commenting on
the magnitude of this increase, MacMillan, Gresham, Siperstein, and Bocian (1996) wrote: Were
these epidemic-like figures interpreted by the
Center for Disease Control one might reasonably
expect to find a quarantine imposed on the public
schools of America (p. 169). Presently, students
with LD account for 52% of all children with disabilities in the public school system, and represent
more than 5% of the total school population, but
these numbers greatly vary by state (U.S. Department of Education, 1998). Gresham (2002) qualified the process by which schools identify students as learning disabled as confusing, unfair,
and logically inconsistent (p. 467). MacMillan
and Siperstein (2002) provided an interesting explanation for understanding the trends in the number and nature of LD students being served by emphasizing that, in reality, a distinction exists
between research-identified and school-identified perspectives.

Ruban and Reis

Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

With regards to prevalence rates of gifted students with LDs, a similar situation occurs. In reviewing research over the last few decades, Nielsen (2002) suggested that many estimates
concerning the prevalence of gifted children with
LDs have been reported. These rather conservative estimates range from 2% to 5% of the total
population of children with disabilities. Nielsen
also pointed out the dearth of empirical data regarding the incidence of gifted children with LD
and cited the available statistics relating to estimates of gifted students from a population of students with LD, as well as estimates of students
with LD from the population of gifted students.
Baum and Owen (1988) found that 36% of the students in their study who had been identified by
school personnel as possessing a learning disability simultaneously demonstrated behaviors associated with giftedness. Mauser (1981) found that
2.3% of children with LD also met gifted criteria.
In contrast, Silverman (1989) investigated the
number of children with LD within the intellectually gifted student population, reviewing test protocols for 14,000 children at the Child Development Center and finding 200 (1.4%) of those who
were gifted also had a learning disability. Nielsen
also reported findings from her federally funded
Twice-Exceptional Child Project in New Mexico
(Nielsen, Higgins, & Hammond, 1995). She and
her colleagues examined public school district diagnostic data for 22,000 children receiving special
education services who had been tested over a
7-year period to calculate the incidence rate of
children who were gifted/LD. According to Nielsen, prior to the implementation of the collaborative universitydistrict projects, 1.04% of children
with LD in the large urban district were identified
as gifted. After 3 years of project outreach and advocacy, 3.5% of the children were identified as
gifted students with learning disabilities.
In examining critical issues related to definition and identification it appears that these issues
exist across the boundaries of the fields of
giftedness and learning disabilities. It is unfortunate, however, that the proponents of the
reauthorization of the IDEA have chosen not to include in their discussions issues related to identification and services for students with learning dis-

abilities who may also be academically talented

and gifted. Developments in research and practice
in these two fields should interact with the issues
that apply to students with both gifts and learning
disabilities.

Connecting Ideas from the Fields

of Giftedness and Learning Disabilities:
Common Areas of Concern
An examination of key issues about identification, assessment, and appropriate programming
for gifted students with learning disabilities reveals common areas of concern. Researchers in
the LD field have worked to reach a consensus on
key issues related to identification and services for
students with LD, in what has became known as
the Learning Disabilities Initiative (Bradley,
Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002). These efforts are
currently at the forefront of the changes in the proposed reauthorization of the IDEA (IDEA, 1997)
anticipated in 2004. Of immediate concern for researchers and practitioners in the field of gifted
education, who study identification issues and
programming options for gifted students with
learning disabilities, is the proposed elimination
of the aptitudeachievement discrepancy. Many
researchers in the field of learning disabilities
have questioned the use of IQ tests as a measure of
a students potential, as these tests do not often
help to determine services that address students
specific learning needs. After years of debate and
research on the benefits and drawbacks of using a
discrepancy formula for the identification, researchers and practitioners summarized their consensus, by stating that the IQ/achievement approach has become outdated and no longer reflects
current research (Bradley et al., 2002, p. 796) and
providing a convincing argument that the use of
IQ tests is neither sufficient nor necessary for LD
identification. Researchers and school psychologists in gifted education, however, rely on the use
of the discrepancy formula to identify gifted students with learning disabilities, arguing that if the
IQachievement discrepancy approach is eliminated, it would be increasingly difficult to identify
these students (McCoach et al., 2004). With the

119

Gifted Education

advent of the proposed changes to the IDEA, researchers and practitioners in the field of gifted
education must consider alternatives to the
IQachievement discrepancy formula.
The proponents of the reauthorization of the
IDEA propose an alternative called a dual discrepancy model, based on childrens failure to respond to well-planned general education interventions. Fuchs, Fuchs, and Fernstrom (1993) suggest
that special education should be considered only
when a childs performance shows a dual discrepancy: The student both performs below the level
evidenced by classroom peers and shows a learning rate substantially below that of classroom
peers. Researchers and practitioners participating
in the Learning Disabilities Initiative agreed that
alternative methods can help to identify students
with SLD in addition to achievement testing, history, and observations of the child. Their consensus statement suggests that response to quality
intervention is the most promising method of alternative identification to promote effective practices in schools and close the gap between identification and treatment. Researchers in gifted
education also recognize the need to link assessment and diagnosis to intervention for gifted students with learning disabilities (Brody & Mills,
2004). Providing gifted/LD students with appropriate interventions that focus on the development
of their gifts rather than emphasizing weaknesses
is consistent with the proposition that these students should be viewed as being at promise
rather than at risk (Nielsen, 2002, p. 93).

Identification of Academically Talented

Students with Learning Disabilities
Identification of students with talents and disabilities is problematic and challenges educators.
Most school personnel rely on discrepancy formulae between intelligence and ability test scores,
analyses of intelligence test results for differences
across subtests (scatter), and multidimensional
approaches that incorporate interviews, observations, and other qualitative data (Lyon, Gray,
Kavanagh, & Krasnegor, 1993). However, short-

120

comings exist with these approaches, including

identification later in school, despite having problems in earlier grades (Reis, Neu, & McGuire,
1997). In summary, students who are academically talented and gifted and also have learning
disabilities are at risk of underidentification or exclusion from both programs for students with
learning disabilities and programs for gifted and
talented students.
Inadequate identification of students with LD
is attributable to a number of factors. First, the label of learning disability is largely viewed as an
educational rather than a medical diagnosis, and
the criteria and methods used for diagnosis vary
from state to state and from school to school. Second, many types of LD, such as nonverbal disabilities, are more difficult to identify. Certain cognitive processing disabilities are challenging to
identify in the early elementary grades. Third,
other psychosocial, attention deficit, or conduct
disorders may mask an academically talented students LDs, and these become the primary and
sole focus of medical attention and treatment.
Other reasons for the low number of identified academically talented students with LDs include the
high cost of evaluation and parental concerns regarding possible damage to academically talented
students who are labeled as having a learning
disability.
Recently, McCoach et al. (2004) proposed a
comprehensive eight-step system for identifying
gifted students as learning disabled longitudinally,
providing a rationale for using a complete assessment battery to identify and plan interventions for
these students. In their view, assessment should
include behavioral observations, an individual intelligence test, measures of cognitive processing,
and a full achievement battery. They also recognize the importance of assessing the students
level of functioning in the regular classroom environment, curriculum-based assessments, and interviews with students to assess their perceptions
and attitudes toward academics. This researchbased approach, however, raises questions about
its feasibility and replication on a large scale, particularly in light of financial, social, and political
concerns in public schools. Concerns also exist

Ruban and Reis

Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

about the lack of trained personnel and the need

for teacher training to appropriately assess these
twice-exceptional students. In addition, when so
much time is spent on diverse assessments, less
time may be devoted to actually helping the child
who is in need of special services. Among the issues proposed for IDEA reauthorization is a reconsideration of how to make identification procedures less complex while placing more emphasis
on assessing student achievement (Bradley et al.,
2002). One might argue that the goals of IDEA
and gifted education seem incompatible. For students with learning disabilities, a major emphasis
is placed on assessing achievement and accountability for student learning (Bradley et al., 2002).
For talented and gifted students, although student
achievement is viewed as a desirable goal, a major
emphasis is the development of students talent
and diverse gifts (Baum, 2004; Renzulli & Reis,
1997; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004).

Linking Identification and Assessment

to Intervention for Gifted Students with
Learning Disabilities: Promising
Practices
Lupart (2004) reviewed approaches and issues
associated with identification and assessment of
gifted students with learning disabilities over the
past 3 decades, offering implications for the field
of gifted education. In her view, a preponderance
of articles deal with identification as opposed to
assessment concerns, and the practices associated
with the identification of the gifted/LD students
have borrowed from both the fields of giftedness
and LD. Despite the fact that no real consensus exists about the best means for identification of these
twice-exceptional children, widespread agreement exists concerning the difficulty of trying to
identify students who are gifted or learning disabled (Baum & Owen, 2004; Brody & Mills,
2004; Yewchuk & Lupart, 2000). Apparently, in
most school systems, whatever identification program is pursued, neither will be likely to have adequate flexibility to enable the recognition of both
gifts and learning disabilities. And, if a student is

successfully identified, interventions tend to favor

one area and consequently, are not as likely to address the unique learning needs in the other area of
exceptionality (Reis, McGuire, & Neu, 2000).
An increasing number of researchers and practitioners support the idea that the point at which a
talented student with LDs has been identified
should be regarded as the beginning rather than the
end of the assessment process. Recent trends in
moving toward broader conceptions of giftedness
and intelligence have stimulated an important paradigm shift in approaches that link identification
and assessment to interventions (Baum & Owen,
2004; Sternberg & Grigorenko, 2004). Perhaps it
is this disconnect between identification, assessment, and link to interventions that can be effectively addressed using the talent pool approach
suggested in the Schoolwide Enrichment Model
(SEM; Renzulli & Reis, 1985, 1997). Research indicates that identification of academically talented
students with learning disabilities is problematic,
but in research conducted, this approach has
emerged as a successful method of identification
of this population (e.g., Baum, Owen, & Dixon,
1991; Olenchak, 1995). According to Robinson
(1999), Renzullis model of talent development
(Renzulli, 1977) and a theory of how to foster creative productivity (Renzulli, 1992) are particularly
useful in developing an instructional approach that
meets the needs of children who are gifted and
have LD (p. 195).
In the SEM, a talent pool of 1520% of
above-average ability and high-potential students
is identified through a variety of measures including: achievement tests, teacher nominations, assessment of potential for creativity and task commitment, as well as alternative pathways of
entrance (self-nomination, parent nomination,
etc.). High achievement test and IQ test scores automatically include a student in the talent pool, enabling those students who are underachieving in
their academic schoolwork to be included. Once
students are identified for the talent pool, they are
eligible for three services. First, interest and learning styles assessments are used with talent pool
students and various methods are used to create or
identify students interests and to encourage stu-

121

Gifted Education

dents to further develop and pursue these interests

in various ways. This information, which focuses
on strengths rather than deficits, is compiled into a
Total Talent Portfolio (Purcell & Renzulli, 1998)
used to make decisions about talent development
opportunities. Second, curriculum modification
can be provided to all eligible students for whom
the regular curriculum is modified by eliminating
portions of previously mastered content. A form,
entitled the Compactor (Renzulli & Smith, 1978),
is used to document the content areas that have
been compacted and what alternative work has
been substituted. Third, three types of enrichment
experiences are offered, based on the theoretical
approach underlying the SEM, the Enrichment
Triad Model (Renzulli, 1977; Renzulli & Reis,
1985, 1997). The goal is to encourage creative
productivity on the part of young people by exposing them to various topics, areas of interest, and
fields of study, and to further train them to apply
advanced content, process-training skills, and
methodology training to self-selected areas of
interest.

Conclusions
Many academically talented students with
learning disabilities are identified later in school,
either in middle or high school. This late identification occurs even if these students were referred
earlier by teachers or parents for testing or various
types of assistance because of difficulties in primary or elementary school (Reis et al., 1997). The
situation is complicated, as the abilities of gifted
students often mask their disabilities, and, in turn,
their disabilities can disguise their giftedness. Due
to this contradiction between high levels of ability
and critical problems with learning, students who
are academically talented but also have learning
disabilities are at risk of underidentification. They
may be excluded or underrepresented in both programs for students with learning disabilities and in
programs for gifted and talented students. More
flexible identification and assessment will enable
more twice-exceptional children to be both appropriately identified and served.

122

Acknowledgments
Research for this manuscript was supported under
the Javits Act Program (Grant No. R206R00001) as administered by The Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.
Department of Education. Grantees undertaking such
projects are encouraged to freely express their professional judgments. This manuscript does not necessarily
represent positions or policies of the Government, and
no official endorsement should be inferred.

References
Baum, S., & Owen, S. V. (1988). High ability/learning
disabled students: How are they different? Gifted
Child Quarterly, 32, 321326.
Baum, S. M. (2004). Introduction. In T. M. Newman &
R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and
learning disabilities (pp. 115). New York: Kluwer.
Baum, S. M., Cooper, C. R., & Neu, T. W. (2001). Dual
differentiation: An approach for meeting the curricular needs of gifted students with learning disabilities. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 477490.
Baum, S. M., & Owen, S. V. (2004). To be gifted and
learning disabled: Strategies for helping bright students with LD, ADHD, and more. Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Baum, S. M., Owen, S. V., & Dixon, J. (1991). To be
gifted and learning disabled: From identification to
practical identification strategies. Mansfield Center,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Boodoo, G. M., Bradley, C. L., Frontera, R. L., Pitts, J.
R., & Wright, L. B. (1989) A survey of procedures
used for identifying gifted learning disabled children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 33, 110114.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.).
(2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates, Inc.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (1997). Gifted children with
learning disabilities. Journal of learning disabilities,
30, 282296.
Brody, L., & Mills, C. (2004). Linking assessment and
diagnosis to intervention for gifted students with
learning disabilities. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning
disabilities (pp. 7394). New York: Kluwer.
Davis, G., & Rimm, S. (2002). Education of gifted and
talented students. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Fernstrom, P. (1993). A conservative approach to special education reform:

Ruban and Reis

Identification and Assessment of Gifted Students with Learning Disabilities

Mainstreaming through transenvironmental programming and curriculum-based measurement.

American Education Research Journal, 30, 149178.
Gardner, H. (1993). Multiple intelligences: The theory
in practice. New York: Basic Books.
Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention:
An alternative approach to the identification of
learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, &
D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467519).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Hishinuma, E., & Tadaki, S. (1996). Addressing diversity of the gifted/at risk: Characteristics for identification. Gifted Child Today, 19, 2025, 2829, 45,
50.
Individuals with Disabilities Act Amendments (IDEA)
of 1997. (1997). Public Law 10517.
Lupart, J. L. (2004). Unraveling the mysteries of GLD:
Toward the application of cognitive theory to assessment. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),
Students with both gifts and learning disabilities
(pp. 4972). New York: Kluwer.
Lyon, G. A., Gray, D. B., Kavanagh, J. F., & Krasnegor,
N. A. (Eds.). (1993). Better understanding learning
disabilities: New views from research and their implications for education and public policies. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
MacMillan, D. L., Gresham, F. M., Siperstein, G. N., &
Bocian, K. M. (1996). The labyrinth of I.D.E.A.:
School decisions on referred students with
subaverage general intelligence. American Journal
on Mental Retardation, 101, 161174.
MacMillan, D. L., & Siperstein, G. N. (2002). Learning
disabilities as operationally defined by schools. In R.
Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.),
Identification of learning disabilities: Research to
practice (pp. 287333). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Maker, C. J. (1977). Providing programs for the handicapped gifted. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional
Children.
Mauser, A .J. (1981). Programming strategies for pupils
with disabilities who are gifted. Rehabilitation Literature, 42, 270275.
McCoach, D. B., Kehle, T. J., Bray, M. A., & Siegle, D.
(2004). The identification of gifted students with
learning disabilities: Challenging, controversies,
and promising practices. In T. M. Newman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 3148). New York: Kluwer.
Newman, T. M. (2004). Interventions work, but we need
more! In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.),

Students with both gifts and learning disabilities

(pp. 235246). New York: Kluwer.
Nielsen, E., Higgins, D. H., & Hammond, A. (1995).
Twice exceptional learners: Gifted students with disabilities. Alburquerque: University of New Mexico.
Nielsen, M. E. (2002). Gifted students with learning
disabilities: Recommendations for identification
and programming. Exceptionality, 10, 93111.
Olenchak, F. R. (1994). Talent development: Accommodating the social and emotional needs of secondary gifted/learning disabled students. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 5, 4052.
Olenchak, F. R. (1995). Effects of enrichment on
gifted/learning disabled students. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 18, 385399.
Purcell, J. H., & Renzulli, J. S. (1998). Total Talent Portfolio. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.
Reis, S. M., McGuire, J. M., & Neu, T. W. (2000). Compensation strategies used by high ability students
with learning disabilities who succeed in college.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 123134.
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, J. M. (1997). Case
studies of high-ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved. Exceptional Children, 63,
463479.
Reis, S. M., Neu, T. W., & McGuire, S. M. (1995). Talents in two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved
(Research Monograph 95114). Storrs: The National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented, University of Connecticut.
Reis, S. M., & Ruban, L. M. (2004). Compensation
strategies used by high ability students with learning
disabilities. In T. M. Newman & R. J. Sternberg
(Eds.), Students with both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 155194). New York: Kluwer.
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A
guide for developing defensible programs for the
gifted. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of
giftedness: A developmental model for creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.),
Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 5392). New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (1992). A general theory for the development of creative productivity in young people. In F.
Mnks & W. Peters (Eds.), Talent for the future (pp.
5172). AssenMaastricht, The Netherlands: Van
Gorcum.
Renzulli, J. S., & Smith, L. H. (1978). Compactor.
Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

123

Gifted Education
Renzulli, R. J., & Reis, S. M. (1985). The Schoolwide
Enrichment Model: A comprehensive plan for educational excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative
Learning Press.
Renzulli, R. J., & Reis, S. M. (1997). The Schoolwide
Enrichment Model: A how-to guide to educational
excellence. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning
Press.
Robinson, S. M. (1999). Meeting the needs of students
who are gifted and have learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34, 195295.
Silverman, L. K. (1989). Invisible gifts, invisible handicaps. Roeper Review, 12, 3742.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Successful intelligence. New
York: Plume.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. (1986). Conceptions of
giftedness. Cambridge, CT: Cambridge University
Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Learning
disabilities, giftedness, and gifted/LD. In T. M.
Newman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Students with
both gifts and learning disabilities (pp. 1731). New
York: Kluwer.

124

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Department of Education. (1998). Twentieth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the
Individuals with Disabilities Act. Washington, DC:
Author.
U.S. Office of Education. (1976). Proposed rulemaking.
Federal Register, 41, 5440452407. Washington,
DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Office of Education. (1977). Assistance to states
for education of handicapped children: Procedures
for evaluating specific learning disabilities. Federal
Register, 42, 6508265085. Washington, DC: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Yewchuk, C., & Lupart, J. L. (2000). Inclusive education for gifted students with disabilities. In K. Heller,
F. Monks, R. Sternberg, & R. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness and talent (2nd ed.,
pp. 659670). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Science