View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Gifted Profiles of Hope: Being Hopeful Is Associated with a Talent Development Psychosocial Profile in Gifted Students

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Gifted Profiles of Hope: Being Hopeful Is Associated with a Talent Development Psychosocial Profile in Gifted Students
Language: English
Authors: Dante D. Dixson (ORCID 0000-0001-8211-4711), Leah Jansen, Ersie-Anastasia Gentzis, Frank C. Worrell (ORCID 0000-0002-7122-527X)
Source: High Ability Studies. 2024 35(1):21-43.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 23
Publication Date: 2024
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Secondary Education
Descriptors: Academically Gifted, Adolescents, Predictor Variables, Student Characteristics, Talent Identification, Psychological Patterns, Student Attitudes, Expectation, Talent Development, Summer Programs, Secondary School Students, Work Ethic, Self Efficacy, Personality Traits
DOI: 10.1080/13598139.2023.2206114
ISSN: 1359-8139
1469-834X
Abstract: In this study, the relationship between clusters of hope and a psychosocial profile of academic talent development is examined in a sample of 466 academically gifted adolescents. First, cluster analysis is leveraged to examine whether interpretable three- and four-cluster hope solutions can be found in the sample. Second, differences among a group of psychosocial variables that predict academic talent development were examined to assess whether hope clusters were meaningfully related to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development. This study had several notable findings: (a) an interpretable three-cluster hope solution was found with the hope clusters exhibiting meaningfully different profiles of academic talent development, (b) the high hope cluster reported the psychosocial profile most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average hope cluster and the low hope cluster, respectively, and (c) this study did not find an interpretable four-cluster hope solution. These findings have implications for both academic talent development and hope theory.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2024
Accession Number: EJ1424371
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwFCdE44F3eBxQkwhsCkJl6HAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDCj_rGHYjLiTNoLHtAIBEICBm4L6PenoRR2Wov6y6HxyvdoqQaNwLMp3YPWGs7NY4v4GZvU_iohe-ZVcXXNz3u2-vRD1wnCrHaNmD9j6cgJd_tAciOF8Nze2pHXYZY2Z0xgwBgQaBqC2RrHkLA7EeCvkldWfcTrNoPlARC4Xf6PbiQrCoKjaRpNX7YctEdhghaU9k5KAfaz1iEvQ--5qyYiIMmKOQs9aWxmq1Zhz
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0177217940;0v001jun.24;2024May16.04:37;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0177217940-1">Gifted profiles of hope: Being hopeful is associated with a talent development psychosocial profile in gifted students </title> <p>In this study, the relationship between clusters of hope and a psychosocial profile of academic talent development is examined in a sample of 466 academically gifted adolescents. First, cluster analysis is leveraged to examine whether interpretable three- and four-cluster hope solutions can be found in the sample. Second, differences among a group of psychosocial variables that predict academic talent development were examined to assess whether hope clusters were meaningfully related to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development. This study had several notable findings: (a) an interpretable three-cluster hope solution was found with the hope clusters exhibiting meaningfully different profiles of academic talent development, (b) the high hope cluster reported the psychosocial profile most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average hope cluster and the low hope cluster, respectively, and (c) this study did not find an interpretable four-cluster hope solution. These findings have implications for both academic talent development and hope theory.</p> <p>Keywords: Hope; academic talent development; psychosocial variables; academically gifted students; adolescents</p> <p>Most research conducted within the gifted and talented education (GATE) literature is centered around GATE identification practices, services, and program goals/orientations (e.g., Dixson, Peters, et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref1">21</reflink>]; Peters, [<reflink idref="bib39" id="ref2">39</reflink>]; Worrell et al., [<reflink idref="bib52" id="ref3">52</reflink>]). However, given that the goal of most gifted programs is to aid students in living up to their full potential (Dixson, Peters, et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref4">21</reflink>]), the GATE research literature has overlooked a key component of the equation – psychosocial perceptions. An important factor in advanced potential becoming advanced ability is one's psychosocial perceptions (i.e., one's thoughts, beliefs, and attitudes). For example, if a student has advanced potential within mathematics, but is not motivated to develop their math ability or dislikes math, it is unlikely that the student will develop an advanced ability in mathematics. It is unlikely because the student's psychosocial perceptions make it less probable that the student will overcome the challenges necessary to develop their advanced potential in mathematics long-term.</p> <p>One psychosocial perception with the potential to be influential for academic talent development is hope. Hope has been found to (a) predict a subsequent psychosocial profile that is conducive to academic talent development within a general education sample (Dixson & Gentzis, [<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref5">19</reflink>]), (b) respond positively (average <emph>d</emph> =.40) to quick school-based interventions (Feldman & Dreher, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]; Weis & Speridakos, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref7">50</reflink>]), and (c) predict positive academic and life outcomes (e.g., <emph>r</emph> =.38 with academic achievement, Gallagher et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref8">26</reflink>]<emph>r</emph> =.54 with life satisfaction, Marques et al., [<reflink idref="bib36" id="ref9">36</reflink>]). However, there are currently very few studies that examine hope in gifted samples (Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref10">15</reflink>]). Moreover, there are even fewer studies, if any, that examine how hope relates to a psychosocial profile of talent development for gifted students (i.e., a psychosocial mind-set conducive to academic talent development).</p> <p>In this study, the relationship between hope and nine psychosocial perceptions that are conducive to academic talent development is examined in order to better understand how well hope predicts a psychosocial profile of academic talent development. The manuscript begins with a discussion of hope, including a review of hope research in gifted samples. Next, previous research of psychosocial perceptions and academic talent development is reviewed. Then, hope's relationship to a psychosocial profile of achievement is reported and analyzed. Finally, the theoretical relationship between hope and a psychological profile of academic talent development is provided.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-2">Hope</hd> <p>Hope is a cognitive-motivational process that encompasses one's perceived ability to visualize and execute the necessary steps to achieve one's future goals, regardless of current circumstances (Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref11">15</reflink>]; Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref12">42</reflink>]). Hope, as theorized by Snyder ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref13">42</reflink>]), is comprised of two independent but synergistic components: pathways and agency. The first component, pathways, refers to one's perceived ability to visualize detailed routes to accomplish one's desired future goals. The second component, agency, refers to one's perceived capacity to follow through on one's envisioned routes to accomplish their future goals. Although the two components are independent, a minimum degree of both are required for hopeful thinking (Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref14">42</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hope is typically measured using the Children's Hope Scale (CHS; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref15">43</reflink>]) in children and adolescent populations. Within the school context, hope has been found to meaningfully predict positive outcomes. For example, hope has been found to correlate with perseverance (<emph>r</emph> =.28; Gallagher et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref16">26</reflink>]), goal-directed thinking (<emph>r</emph> =.38; Marques et al., Gallagher et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref17">26</reflink>]), and school performance (<emph>r</emph> =.36–.38; Gallagher et al., [<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref18">26</reflink>]).</p> <p>Hope has been repeatedly differentiated from similar constructs such as optimism and self-efficacy in previous research (e.g., Bryant & Cvengros, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref19">6</reflink>]; Feldman & Kubota, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref20">25</reflink>]). For example, in a sample of 204 college students, Magaletta and Oliver ([<reflink idref="bib34" id="ref21">34</reflink>]) conducted an exploratory factor analysis using the items that comprise the most widely used scales for hope, optimism, and self-efficacy. In general, they found the items for each scale loaded on different factors, indicating that the scales measure unique latent constructs. Similarly, multiple studies have found that hope only shares about 20%−45% of its variance with optimism and self-efficacy, indicating that the majority of hope's variance is unique (Bryant & Cvengros, [<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref22">6</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref23">16</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref24">14</reflink>]; Feldman & Kubota, [<reflink idref="bib25" id="ref25">25</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-3">Hope in gifted students</hd> <p>There is currently very little research on hope within the gifted education research literature. Hope research within this specific population is important because previous research indicates that the relationship between psychosocial perceptions and academic achievement is stronger in gifted populations versus non-gifted populations (e.g., academic achievement and conscientiousness <emph>r</emph>s =.63 vs..33, <emph>p</emph> <.001, academic achievement and school belonging <emph>r</emph>s =.43 vs..23, <emph>p</emph> <.001; Vialle et al., [<reflink idref="bib49" id="ref26">49</reflink>]). Nonetheless, despite the vast research indicating that hopeful thinking is beneficial within general education populations (see Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>] for review), as of this writing, only seven articles could be found on hope in gifted samples within the ERIC and PsycInfo databases. These articles were generally centered around either resilience or academic achievement.</p> <p>In the resilience-themed articles, the studies generally concluded that hope was a protective factor for academically gifted students. For instance, in a sample of 484 gifted secondary students in China, Chen and colleagues (2017) found that the subcomponents of hope significantly predicted multiple variables that are key for academic persistence including resiliency (<emph>r</emph> = 37–.47, <emph>p</emph> <.01), creativity (<emph>r</emph> = 25–.28, <emph>p</emph> <.01), and curiosity (<emph>r</emph> = 26–.46, <emph>p</emph> <.01). Similar results were reported in Boazman and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref28">5</reflink>]), Chen and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref29">7</reflink>]), and Kaya and Islekeller-Bozca ([<reflink idref="bib32" id="ref30">32</reflink>]).</p> <p>In the academic achievement-themed articles, studies generally concluded that hope positively related to students' academic performance. For instance, in a sample of 609 academically gifted adolescents, Dixson and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref31">23</reflink>]) found that hope was a positive predictor of both perceived academic ability (<emph>r</emph> =.24; <emph>p</emph> <.01) and academic achievement (<emph>r</emph> =.26; <emph>p</emph> <.01). Similar results were reported in Vialle and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib48" id="ref32">48</reflink>]). In sum, there is currently very little research on hope in gifted populations. However, all of the current research indicates that hope has the potential to be a positive force for gifted students.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-4">Psychosocial perceptions and academic talent development</hd> <p>The field of psychosocial perceptions is broad, including thousands of attitudes and beliefs. Within this manuscript, psychosocial perceptions include a small subset of constructs that have a documented relationship with academic talent development. Consistent with previous research that outlines the major contributors to talent development (e.g., Subotnik et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref33">44</reflink>]), the outcome variables in this study are split into three umbrella categories that represent major aspects of academic talent development: (a) engagement in the academic talent development process, (b) psychosocial facilitators of improving academic talent, and (c) orientation toward improving academic talent.</p> <p>The engagement in the academic talent development process category includes behavioral and emotional engagement. Behavioral engagement is defined as the extent to which a student exhibits effort, concentration, and persistence to physically participate in academic activities (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref34">41</reflink>]). Emotional engagement is defined as the extent to which a student experiences interest, enthusiasm, internal motivation, and enjoyment during academic activities (Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref35">41</reflink>]). Taken together, these variables indicate the extent to which students report they are engaging in the academic talent development process within the school setting.</p> <p>The psychosocial facilitators of improving academic talent category includes (a) work ethic – how much one values hard work and believes their hard work will be productive (Blau & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref36">4</reflink>]), (b) academic self-efficacy – how much one believes they can accomplish specific academic tasks within a domain (Willams & Coombs, [<reflink idref="bib51" id="ref37">51</reflink>]), (c) self-efficacy for self-regulation – how much one believes they can systematically control themselves and their environment to accomplish specific academic outcomes, (d) curiosity – how much one actively seeks out new information and experiences (Kashdan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref38">31</reflink>]), and (e) perceived belonging within gifted contexts – how much one feels respected and accepted by others within their gifted community (Goodenow & Grady, [<reflink idref="bib29" id="ref39">29</reflink>]). As a group, these variables represent the beliefs and attitudes of students that can facilitate progress throughout the academic talent development process.</p> <p>The orientation toward improving academic talent category includes (a) competitiveness for self-development – how much one enjoys actively developing their academic talents, and (b) perceived productivity of talent development experiences – how much one perceives they gain from talent development opportunities. Jointly, these variables represent a student's interest in and perceived value of academic talent development experiences.</p> <p>The above variables that compose all three aspects of talent development were selected because they (a) have all been found to be a significant predictor of academic achievement (a way to measure academic talent development within school settings; e.g., <emph>r</emph> range:.17–.53, <emph>p</emph>s <.01; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref40">10</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref41">14</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref42">17</reflink>]; Thornton et al., [<reflink idref="bib45" id="ref43">45</reflink>]), and (b) have been identified as falling within one of the categories that contributes to academic talent development (see Subotnik et al., [<reflink idref="bib44" id="ref44">44</reflink>] for review).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-5">Profiles of hope</hd> <p>A psychosocial profile is a collection of one's relevant psychosocial perceptions on a topic. In 2017, Dixson and colleagues explored (a) whether hope theory's four theoretical groups – high hopers (i.e., those with high agency and high pathways), high agency thinkers (i.e., those with high agency and average to low pathways), high pathways thinkers (e.g., those with high pathways and average to low agency), and low hopers (i.e., those with low agency and low pathways)—could be found via cluster analysis, and (b) whether these groups differed in their psychosocial profiles of academic success. In their sample of 297 general education adolescents, aged 13–19, they found four clusters consistent with the four hope groups theorized by Snyder ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref45">42</reflink>]), using pathways and agency scores as variables. In addition, they found that these four groups had meaningfully different psychosocial profiles of academic success. Across hope clusters, they found 36 meaningful differences (i.e., <emph>d</emph> ≥.40, of 54 total differences, 67%) among the study variables, including school belonging, educational expectations, academic investment, academic self-concept, perceived stress, perceived life chances, consideration of future consequences, and self-esteem as psychosocial constructs. The high hopers reported the most success-oriented academic psychosocial profiles followed by the high agency thinkers, high pathways thinkers, and low hopers respectively.</p> <p>Dixson and colleagues concluded that, as a result of their respective psychosocial profiles, each hope group had substantially different educational experiences that placed them on different academic trajectories with different probabilities for academic success. They based this conclusion on the premise that each group's psychosocial profile gave them differing probabilities of engaging in achievement-oriented behaviors, and subsequently, differing levels of academic success. Finally, Dixson and colleagues speculated that increasing the hope of students in the high agency thinkers, high pathways thinkers, and low hopers could possibly drive these students to also have more success-oriented academic psychosocial profiles.</p> <p>In a follow-up study, Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref46">16</reflink>]) tested a key assumption in the 2017 study, that is, whether an academically-oriented psychosocial profile results in more achievement-oriented behaviors. In a sample of 447 high school students, he again used cluster analysis to find the four hope groups theorized by Snyder. In this sample, he did not find them. Instead, he found three hope groups – high hope, average hope, and low hope – that were consistent with a three-cluster solution previously reported within the literature (i.e., Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref47">28</reflink>]). With the three-cluster solution, Dixson examined whether different hope groups reported differing levels of academic engagement. He found that the high hope cluster reported the most success-oriented behavioral profile followed by the average and low hope clusters (33 of 39 possible differences groups had a <emph>d</emph> >.40). Mirroring the results of this study, Chen and colleagues not only found that hope was both cross-sectionally (<emph>r</emph>s ranged from.51–.53, <emph>p</emph> <.001) and longitudinally (<emph>r</emph>s ranged from.36–.42, <emph>p</emph> <.001) related to students' behavioral engagement, but also that behavioral engagement was a mediator for hope's positive relationship to academic achievement. Altogether, scholars have concluded that hope (a) is associated with a psychosocial profile of academic success (Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref48">22</reflink>]), (b) leads to a more success-oriented behavioral profile (Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref49">16</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref50">10</reflink>]), and (c) has the potential to be an uber-psychosocial perception – a psychosocial perception that drives a person's entire psychosocial profile (Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref51">16</reflink>]). The latter point is particularly important as most of the research conducted on psychosocial perceptions focuses on improving one at a time (Yeager & Walton, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref52">54</reflink>]). If hope is an uber-psychosocial perception, it may be able to positively shape many other psychosocial perceptions (e.g., academic motivation, academic confidence) and bring about a wide range of positive effects within the area of academic achievement and academic talent development after targeted intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-6">Profiles of hope and academic talent development</hd> <p>Several previous studies indicate that hope has the potential to play a key role in academic talent development (e.g., Dixson, Olszewski-Kubilius, et al., [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref53">20</reflink>]). More specifically, Dixson et al., (Blau & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref54">4</reflink>]) indicate that increasing the hope of gifted students could drive them to have a more talent development-oriented psychosocial profile. Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref55">16</reflink>]) and Chen and colleagues ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref56">9</reflink>]) indicate that a talent development-oriented psychosocial profile could lead students to be on a trajectory toward more academically-oriented behaviors that directly develop their academic talents. Finally, Yarcheski and Mahon's ([<reflink idref="bib53" id="ref57">53</reflink>]) meta-analysis of twelve studies indicates that academic achievement (i.e., the likely result of more academically-oriented behaviors and a measure of academic talent development within a school setting) could lead to higher hope (WES <emph>r</emph> =.21, <emph>p</emph> <.01), beginning a positive psychosocial feedback loop found in other areas of psychology (Yeager & Walton, [<reflink idref="bib54" id="ref58">54</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-7">The current study</hd> <p>In the current study, we examined how hope relates to three umbrella categories that are conducive to academic talent development: engagement in the academic talent development process, psychosocial facilitators of improving academic talent, and orientation toward improving academic talent. More specifically, leveraging both the three- and four-cluster solutions of hope found in previous research (i.e., Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref59">22</reflink>]; Gilman et al., [<reflink idref="bib28" id="ref60">28</reflink>]), the current study will examine how well hope clusters related to a psychosocial profile of academic talent development. The variables making up the psychosocial profile of academic talent development include behavioral engagement, emotional engagement, work ethic, academic self-efficacy, academic self-efficacy for self-regulation, curiosity, perceived belonging within gifted contexts, competitiveness for self-development, and perceived productivity of talent development experiences. This examination will provide insight into whether hope warrants further examination as a potential avenue for researchers and school personnel to increase the academic talent of gifted students.</p> <p>This examination is driven by two research questions. First, does cluster analysis based on pathways and agency scores yield interpretable three- and four-cluster solutions of hope that are consistent with hope theory and have been found within previous research (i.e., Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref61">22</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref62">16</reflink>])? Consistent with previous research (i.e., Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref63">22</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref64">16</reflink>]), it was hypothesized that cluster analysis would yield interpretable three- and four-cluster solutions of hope.</p> <p>Second, are the clusters of hope related to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development? Consistent with previous research (i.e., Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref65">22</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref66">16</reflink>]), it was hypothesized that hope clusters would meaningfully relate to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development, with more hopeful clusters reporting more adaptive talent development variable scores.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-8">Method</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177217940-9">Participants and procedure</hd> <p>This study's sample consisted of 446 adolescents (49.8% male) aged 8–17 (<emph>M</emph><subs>age</subs> = 13.80, <emph>SD</emph> = 1.39) from a summer program for the academically gifted in a Western state. The university-based commuter program is an annual six-week program where students can apply to take a variety of academic courses that range from traditional topics (e.g., analytical writing, precalculus, and cognitive neuroscience) to more interest-based courses (e.g., understanding climate change, introduction to innovation and entrepreneurship, and artificial intelligence in the economy). Classes meet two to three days a week and are offered in an online, hybrid, or in-person format. The gifted program generally consists of about 550 middle and high school students from around the world. Typically, students apply to the program to enroll in one or two classes. Students are admitted to the academic talent development program on the basis of a personal essay, teacher recommendations, grades, and standardized achievement test scores. The current study had an 81.09% participation rate (i.e., about 81% of all students in the program participated in the current study). The self-reported grade breakdown of the sample was 4.5% 7<sups>th</sups> grade, 17.4% 8<sups>th</sups> grade, 17.6% 9<sups>th</sups> grade, 27.0% 10<sups>th</sups> grade, 25.1% 11<sups>th</sups> grade, and 8.4% 12<sups>th</sups> grade. The mean grade point average of the sample was 3.74. The self-reported race/ethnic breakdown of the sample was 59.1% Asian American/Asian, 14.3% European American/White, 4.5% African American/Black, 2.4% Latinx, and 19.7% Multi-racial/Other. The self-reported socio-economic status of the sample was 2.7% Poor/Working Class, 4.5% Lower Middle Class, 52.0% Middle Class, 32.7% Lower Upper Class, and 8.1% Wealthy. The racial and SES breakdown of the program was identical to that of the sample.</p> <p>Data for this study were collected as a part of the summer program evaluation. During the last week of the summer program, an e-mail was sent to students' parents to request that their child complete the program evaluation. After parents clicked an embedded link within the e-mail, they were provided parental consent information. After the students completed the program evaluation, they were presented with student assent information. After both parent consent and student assent were received, students were allowed to complete the survey that makes up the current research. In total, students responded to around 60 Likert-scale questions on this supplemental research survey. This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at the fourth author's institution.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-10">Measures</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177217940-11">Hope</hd> <p>Hope was measured using the Children's Hope Scale (CHS; Snyder et al., [<reflink idref="bib43" id="ref67">43</reflink>]; see Table 1). The CHS included six items rated on a 6-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>None of the time)</emph> to 6 (<emph>All of the time)</emph>, with higher scores indicating higher hope. Three items measured students' agency (e.g., "I am doing just as well as other kids my age") and three items measured students' pathways (e.g., "When I have a problem, I can come up with lots of ways to solve it"). Agency and pathways scores were combined to create a total hope score. Scores on the CHS have previously been found to be internally consistent with previous alpha estimates ranging from.72 to.85 (Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref68">15</reflink>]). Previous examinations of the structural, convergent, and discriminant validity of scores on the CHS concluded that it was sound (see Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref69">15</reflink>]; Valle et al., [<reflink idref="bib47" id="ref70">47</reflink>] for review). In the current sample, CHS scores were concluded to be both structurally sound and reliable, with an alpha estimate above the commonly accepted cutoff of.7 (see Table 2) and an exploratory factor analysis (principal axis factoring) yielding communalities above.3 and factor loadings above.4 (communalities ranged from.37 to.63; factor loadings ranged from.60 to.80; recommended cutoffs from Costello & Osborne, [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref71">13</reflink>]).</p> <p>Table 1. Study scales.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Measure</td><td>Scale Name</td><td>Number of items</td><td>Likert Range</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Hope</td><td>Children's Hope Scale</td><td>6</td><td>1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Beh. Engagement</td><td>EVDWL</td><td>5</td><td>1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Emo. Engagement</td><td>EVDWL</td><td>5</td><td>1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Work Ethic</td><td>Work Ethic Scale</td><td>6</td><td>1–7</td></tr><tr><td>Academic self-efficacy</td><td>MSPSE</td><td>9</td><td>1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Academic self-efficacy for SR</td><td>MSPSE</td><td>11</td><td>1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td>CEI-II</td><td>10</td><td>1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Belonging within gifted contexts</td><td>–</td><td>3</td><td>1–5</td></tr><tr><td>Competitiveness for self-development</td><td>MCOI</td><td>3</td><td>1–6</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived Productivity TDE</td><td>–</td><td>9</td><td>1–6</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>Table 2. Descriptive statistics.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td>1</td><td>2</td><td>3</td><td>4</td><td>5</td><td>6</td><td>7</td><td>8</td><td>9</td><td>10</td><td>11</td><td>12</td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>1. Hope</td><td>4.51</td><td>0.90</td><td>(.87)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>2. Agency</td><td>4.57</td><td>0.91</td><td>.93*</td><td>(.71)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>3. Pathways</td><td>4.45</td><td>1.00</td><td>.94*</td><td>.76*</td><td>(.83)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>4.Beh. Engagement</td><td>6.03</td><td>0.80</td><td>.52*</td><td>.54*</td><td>.44*</td><td>(.82)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>5.Emo. Engagement</td><td>5.57</td><td>1.01</td><td>.56*</td><td>.51*</td><td>.54*</td><td>.58*</td><td>(.89)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>6. Work Ethic</td><td>5.94</td><td>1.03</td><td>.45*</td><td>.45*</td><td>.41*</td><td>.54*</td><td>.47*</td><td>(.92)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>7. Academic SE</td><td>4.76</td><td>0.65</td><td>.34*</td><td>.31*</td><td>.33*</td><td>.32*</td><td>.29*</td><td>.20*</td><td>(.83)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>8.Academic SE SR</td><td>4.49</td><td>0.84</td><td>.48*</td><td>.48*</td><td>.43*</td><td>.49*</td><td>.46*</td><td>.25*</td><td>.47*</td><td>(.89)</td><td /><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>9. Curiosity</td><td>3.71</td><td>0.73</td><td>.48*</td><td>.39*</td><td>.51*</td><td>.37*</td><td>.53*</td><td>.24*</td><td>.33*</td><td>.48*</td><td>(.90)</td><td /><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>10. Belonging in GC</td><td>4.30</td><td>0.68</td><td>.29*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.28*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.44*</td><td>.17</td><td>.23*</td><td>.37*</td><td>.40*</td><td>(.88)</td><td /><td /></tr><tr><td>11.Comp. for Self-Dev.</td><td>4.64</td><td>0.98</td><td>.51*</td><td>.43*</td><td>.53*</td><td>.31*</td><td>.40*</td><td>.32*</td><td>.27*</td><td>.33*</td><td>.53*</td><td>.24*</td><td>(.79)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>12.Value of TD Exp.</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.87</td><td>.30*</td><td>.23*</td><td>.33*</td><td>.17</td><td>.38*</td><td>.15</td><td>.16</td><td>.30*</td><td>.45*</td><td>.49*</td><td>.34*</td><td>(.87)</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>1 Note. Beh. Engagement = Behavioral Engagement; Emo. Engagement. = Emotional Engagement; Academic SE = Academic Self-Efficacy; Academic SE SR = Academic Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation; Belonging in GC = Perceived Belonging in Gifted Contexts; Comp. for Self-Dev = Competitiveness for Self-Development; Value of TD Exp. = Perceived Value of Talent Development Experiences. *p<.0002.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-12">Behavioral and emotional engagement</hd> <p>Behavioral and emotional engagement were measured using the Engagement versus Disaffection with Learning measure (EVDWL; Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref72">41</reflink>]). Both the behavioral engagement subscale (e.g., "When I'm in class, I participate in class discussions") and the emotional engagement subscale (e.g., "When we work on something in class, I feel interested") consisted of five items. Responses options were on a 7-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>Strongly disagree)</emph> to 7 (<emph>Strongly agree)</emph>, with higher scores indicating higher levels of engagement. Previous studies have found emotional and behavioral subscales scores from the EVDWL measure to have acceptable alpha estimates ranging from.61 to.82 (only one score was below.70) and confirmation factor analysis results indicating sound structural validity (see Skinner et al., [<reflink idref="bib41" id="ref73">41</reflink>] for review). In the current sample, scores from the emotional and behavioral subscales of the EVDWL measure were concluded to be sufficiently reliable and valid. The current sample yielded acceptable alpha estimates (see Table 2) and exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.17 to.71; factor loading ranged from.41 to.84).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-13">Work ethic</hd> <p>Work ethic was measured using the hard work subscale from Blau & Ryan's Work Ethic Scale (Blau & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref74">4</reflink>]). Students ranked how much they agreed with six items (e.g., "If you work hard, you will succeed") on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>Strongly disagree)</emph> to 7 (<emph>Strongly agree)</emph>. Higher scores indicated higher work ethic. The Work Ethic Scale has previously been found to be reliable with prior reported alpha estimates being greater than.9 (Affeldt & MacDonald, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref75">1</reflink>]; Blau & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref76">4</reflink>]). In addition, previous research indicates that the structural, convergent, and discriminant validity of the scores from the hard work subscale are sound (Blau & Ryan, [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref77">4</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref78">16</reflink>]). In the current sample, scores from the hard work subscale were found to be sufficiently reliable and valid with an acceptable alpha estimate (see Table 2) and exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.57 to.69; factor loading ranged from.75 to.83).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-14">Academic self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy for self-regulation</hd> <p>Academic self-efficacy and academic self-efficacy for self-regulation were measured using the respective subscales (i.e., self-efficacy for academic achievement [SEAA] and self-efficacy for self-regulated learning [SESRL]) of the Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy (MSPSE; Bandura, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref79">2</reflink>]). Prefaced with the phrase "How well can you ... ," the SEAA subscale consisted of nine items (e.g., "learn general mathematics?") and the SESRL subscale consisted of 11 items (e.g., "finish homework assignments by deadlines?"). Response options for both scales consisted of a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>Not at all)</emph> to 6 (<emph>Extremely well)</emph>. The MSPSE has previously been shown to have acceptable reliability estimates (α range from.72 to.87; Basili et al., [<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref80">3</reflink>]; Choi et al., [<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref81">11</reflink>]) and confirmatory factor analysis results (see Usher & Pajares, [<reflink idref="bib46" id="ref82">46</reflink>] & Oliveira et al., [<reflink idref="bib37" id="ref83">37</reflink>] for review). In the current sample, both SEAA and SESRL subscale scores were concluded to be structurally valid and reliable with acceptable alpha estimates (see Table 2) and exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.20 to.65; factor loading ranged from.45 to.81).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-15">Curiosity</hd> <p>Curiosity was measured using the Curiosity and Exploration Inventory II (CEI-II; Kashdan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref84">31</reflink>]). The CEI-II included 10 items (e.g., "Everywhere I go, I am looking out for new things or experiences") rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>Very slightly or Not at all)</emph> to 6 (<emph>Extremely)</emph>, with higher scores indicating higher curiosity. The CEI-II has been concluded to be reliable in prior research with previous alpha estimates ranging from.72 to.83 and past confirmatory factor analysis exhibiting acceptable results (see Kashdan et al., [<reflink idref="bib31" id="ref85">31</reflink>] and Setyowati et al., [<reflink idref="bib40" id="ref86">40</reflink>] for review). In the current sample, CEI-II scores were concluded to be both structurally valid and reliable with an acceptable alpha estimate and exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.35 to.61; factor loading ranged from.59 to.78).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-16">Belonging within gifted contexts</hd> <p>Belonging within gifted contexts was measured using three items that assessed how much students felt valued and respected by their peers, teachers, and community within their gifted setting. The three items used within the current research include, "I like [blinded name of gifted program]," "I fit in at [blinded]," and "I feel welcome at [blinded]." Response options were rated on a 5-point Likert scale from 1 (<emph>Strongly disagree)</emph> to 5 (<emph>Strongly agree)</emph>. Identical three-item scales have been used in other published research (e.g., Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref87">14</reflink>]) and have been found to be structurally valid and reliable with both previous alpha estimates (i.e., previously ranging from.79 to.85) and exploratory factor analysis revealing acceptable results (see Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref88">14</reflink>] and Lewis et al., [<reflink idref="bib33" id="ref89">33</reflink>] for review). Within the current sample, scores from the three-item school belonging scale were concluded to be structurally valid and reliable with an acceptable alpha estimate (see Table 2) and acceptable exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.62 to.76; factor loading ranged from.79 to.87).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-17">Competitiveness for self-development</hd> <p>Competitiveness for self-development was measured using the self-developmental competitive (SDC) subscale of the of the Multidimensional Competitive Orientation Inventory (MCOI; Orosz et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref90">38</reflink>]). The SDC subscale consists of three items ("I enjoy competition as it allows me to discover my abilities") that students rated on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not true at all)</emph> to 6 (<emph>completely true)</emph>, with higher scores indicating a higher desire to push oneself to better oneself. Focusing on psychometric properties, prior reliability estimates (e.g.,.86) and confirmatory factor analyses have supported the conclusion that the SDC is a valid and reliable measure of competitiveness for self-development (see Orosz et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref91">38</reflink>] for review). In the current sample, SDC scores were concluded to be structurally valid and reliable with an adequate alpha estimate and acceptable exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.66 to.78; factor loading ranged from.81 to.88).</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-18">Perceived productivity of talent development experiences</hd> <p>Perceived productivity of talent development experiences (PPTDE) was measured using nine items developed for this study. The 9-item PPTDE were prefaced with "To what extent did your [blinded name of gifted program] experience help you to ... " and consisted of (a) "learn more about a subject you already love?," (b) "accelerate your course of study?," (c) "prepare for an AP, SAT, or other exam?," (d) "challenge yourself academically?," (e) gain confidence or improve your performance in a particular subject?," (f) "experience the university campus?," (g) "make your summer productive?," (h) "work toward a college or career goal?," and (i) "approach academic challenges with persistence and flexibility?." These items were chosen as they represented the most frequently cited benefits of the program indicated by previous students. Response options for the PPTDE scale consisted of a 6-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (<emph>not at all</emph>) to 6 (<emph>a great deal</emph>). In the current sample, the scores from the PPTDE scale were concluded to be reliable and structurally valid with a moderately high reliability estimate (see Table 2) and acceptable exploratory factor analysis results (i.e., communalities ranged from.21 to.55; factor loading ranged from.46 to.74). In addition, correlations between PPTDE and both curiosity and emotional engagement (see Table 2) indicate a degree of convergent validity.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-19">Results</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177217940-20">Descriptive statistics</hd> <p>Means, standard deviations, intercorrelations, and alpha estimates for study variables can be found in Table 2. As can be seen, most correlations among study variables were moderate to large (i.e., <emph>r</emph><subs>range</subs> |.30| to |.55|). The Expectation Maximization algorithm (15 iterations) was used for missing data after a series of Little's MCAR tests indicated that the data were missing completely at random (all <emph>p</emph>s >.05). Data in this study were only imputed for the study's psychosocial constructs, with about 0.0% to 4.3% of the item data being imputed.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-21">Hope clusters</hd> <p>Hope clusters were derived using the K-means cluster analysis procedure outlined in Garson ([<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref92">27</reflink>]), with Snyder ([<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref93">42</reflink>]), Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref94">15</reflink>]), and Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref95">16</reflink>]) as guiding theory. K-means cluster analysis uses an algorithm to create homogenous subgroups within the context of a set of observations (Garson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref96">27</reflink>]). These groups are derived with the goal of minimizing within-group differences and maximizing across-group differences (Garson, [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref97">27</reflink>]). Within the context of this study, a three-cluster and a four-cluster solution were conducted.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-22">Three hope cluster solution</hd> <p>For the three-cluster solution, three clusters were specified using pathways and agency as variables (maximum iterations = 15; convergence criterion = 0). After 13 iterations, the algorithm converged after minimal further cluster center changes. Three clusters were derived. In several previous studies, the average hope of adolescents centered around 4.00 for both pathways and 4.0 for agency (e.g., Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref98">22</reflink>]; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref99">16</reflink>]). Cluster 1 had final cluster centers of 3.33 for agency and 3.02 for pathways (initial cluster centers of 1.00 for both agency and pathways). Given this group's cluster centers being meaningfully lower than 4.00 (i.e., more than 1 SD), it was concluded to be a <emph>low hope</emph> group. Cluster 2 had final cluster centers of 4.37 for agency and 4.24 for pathways (initial cluster centers of 3.33 for agency and 3.67 for pathways). Given this group's final cluster centers being so close to 4.00 (i.e., within 1 SD), this group was concluded to be an <emph>average hope</emph> group. Cluster 3 had final cluster centers of 5.31 for agency and 5.29 for pathways (initial cluster centers of 6.00 for both agency and pathways). Given this group's final cluster centers being meaningfully higher than 4.00, this group was concluded to be a <emph>high hope</emph> group.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-23">Hope cluster validity</hd> <p>Although the K-means algorithm yielded both three- and four-cluster solutions, the four-cluster solution did not satisfy all of the requirements of cluster validity. The four-cluster solution did not satisfy the requirement of size (i.e., all clusters should be large enough to be meaningful), due to Cluster 1 only having 15 cases (3.2% of sample), or meaningfulness (i.e., meaningful within the context of theory), due to not being consistent with hope theory. As a result, no further analyses were carried out with the four-cluster solution. The three-cluster solution satisfied all five requirements of cluster validity (i.e., size, meaningfulness, separation [i.e., clusters being sufficiently separate from one another, see Figure 1], criterion validity [i.e., clusters having a theory-consistent relationship with other variables], and cross-validation [i.e., the reproducibility of the clusters]).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1. 3-Hope cluster separation based on pathway and agency scores.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-24">Profiles of hope in gifted students</hd> <p></p> <hd id="AN0177217940-25">Demographic representation in hope clusters</hd> <p>The demographic breakdown of the three-cluster hope solution is presented in Table 3. As can be seen, hope cluster membership did not differ significantly across gender or SES. Hope cluster membership across race was not examined due to several groups (e.g., African Americans, Latinx) having too few study participants. This finding indicates that students from all genders and SES backgrounds have similar representation across the three hope clusters.</p> <p>Table 3. Demographic representation in hope clusters.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Demographic</td><td>High Hope</td><td>Average Hope</td><td>Low Hope</td><td>Cramer's <italic>V</italic></td></tr><tr><td /><td>195</td><td>159</td><td>92</td><td /></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Gender</td><td /><td /><td>.038</td></tr><tr><td>Male</td><td>92 (45.8%)</td><td>71 (35.3%)</td><td>38 (18.9%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>87 (42.9%)</td><td>72 (35.5%)</td><td>44 (21.7%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>SES</td><td /><td /><td>.074</td></tr><tr><td>Working/Lower Middle Class</td><td>10 (33.3%)</td><td>11 (34.4%)</td><td>11 (34.4%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Middle Class</td><td>101 (43.5%)</td><td>86 (37.1%)</td><td>45 (19.4%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Upper Class/Wealthy</td><td>84 (46.2%)</td><td>62 (34.1%)</td><td>36 (19.8%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Race/Ethnicity</td></tr><tr><td>Europe American/White</td><td>21 (43.8%)</td><td>16 (33.3%)</td><td>11 (22.9%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Asian/Asian American</td><td>77 (38.9%)</td><td>73 (36.9%)</td><td>48 (24.2%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>African American</td><td>7 (46.7%)</td><td>4 (26.7%)</td><td>4 (26.7%)</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Latinx/Hispanic American</td><td>5 (62.5%)</td><td>3 (37.5%)</td><td>0 (0.0%)</td><td /></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <hd id="AN0177217940-26">Hope cluster group differences on a psychosocial profile of academic talent development</hd> <p>A series of ANOVAs were conducted to examine whether there were significant differences among the talent development variables across hope clusters. ANOVA test results, as well as the means and standard deviations of the talent development variables by hope cluster, are presented in Table 4. All nine ANOVAs yielded statistically significant differences (i.e., <emph>p</emph> <.001), as well as effect sizes in the medium to large range (i.e., <emph>η</emph><sups><emph>2</emph></sups> ≥.06; Cohen, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref100">12</reflink>]). This indicates that students of each hope cluster had a unique psychosocial profiles of academic talent development.</p> <p>Table 4. Hope cluster group differences on a psychosocial profile of academic talent development.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td /><td>High Hope Cluster</td><td>Average Hope Cluster</td><td>Low Hope Cluster</td><td /></tr><tr><td /><td>195</td><td>159</td><td>92</td><td /></tr><tr><td>Variable</td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>M</italic></td><td><italic>SD</italic></td><td><italic>df</italic></td><td><italic>F</italic></td><td><italic>η</italic><sup><italic>2</italic></sup></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Behavioral Engagement</td><td>6.37</td><td>0.59</td><td>5.93</td><td>0.79</td><td>5.49</td><td>0.85</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 214.65)<sup>1</sup></td><td>46.72*</td><td>.18</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Engagement</td><td>6.02</td><td>0.78</td><td>5.52</td><td>0.86</td><td>4.71</td><td>1.11</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 216.82)<sup>1</sup></td><td>56.11*</td><td>.24</td></tr><tr><td>Work Ethic</td><td>6.31</td><td>0.79</td><td>5.82</td><td>0.97</td><td>5.34</td><td>1.25</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 211.02)<sup>1</sup></td><td>29.99*</td><td>.13</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Self-Efficacy</td><td>4.96</td><td>0.67</td><td>4.74</td><td>0.57</td><td>4.41</td><td>0.57</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 246.84)<sup>1</sup></td><td>25.93*</td><td>.10</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Self-Efficacy for SR</td><td>4.86</td><td>0.74</td><td>4.40</td><td>0.74</td><td>3.89</td><td>0.81</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 443)</td><td>53.95*</td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td>4.04</td><td>0.64</td><td>3.61</td><td>0.63</td><td>3.17</td><td>0.74</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 443)</td><td>56.90*</td><td>.20</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived Belonging in Gifted Context</td><td>4.48</td><td>0.63</td><td>4.25</td><td>0.64</td><td>4.01</td><td>0.71</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 443)</td><td>16.85*</td><td>.07</td></tr><tr><td>Competitiveness for SD</td><td>5.09</td><td>0.79</td><td>4.53</td><td>0.88</td><td>3.91</td><td>1.01</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 222.79)<sup>1</sup></td><td>54.24</td><td>.21</td></tr><tr><td>Perceived Productivity of TD Exp.</td><td>4.71</td><td>0.86</td><td>4.32</td><td>0.83</td><td>4.14</td><td>0.80</td><td><italic>F</italic>(2, 443)</td><td>17.69*</td><td>.07</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <ulist> <item>2 <emph>Note.</emph> Academic Self-Efficacy for SR = Academic Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation; Competitiveness for SD = Competitiveness for Self-Development; Perceived Productivity of TD Exp. = Perceived Value of Talent Development Experiences.</item> <item>3 *<emph>p</emph> <.001.</item> <item>4 <sups>1</sups>Welch's ANOVAs were conducted when the assumption of homogeneity of variance was violated.</item> </ulist> <p>To examine specific differences across hope clusters, Tukey's Honest Significant Difference (HSD) post-hoc test was conducted for all talent development variables across hope clusters. The results of these post-hoc tests are presented in Table 5. Altogether, 25 of 27 (92.59%) Tukey HSD tests yielded statistically significant results (i.e., <emph>p</emph> ≤.001). Further, 23 of 27 (85.19%) of these differences had an effect size (i.e., Hedge's <emph>g</emph>) that was greater than 0.4, the threshold at which differences become visible to school personnel (Hattie, [<reflink idref="bib30" id="ref101">30</reflink>]). For a visual comparison, standardized mean scores of all talent development variables by hope cluster are presented in Figure 2. As can be seen, students classified within the high hope cluster had the psychosocial profile that was most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average hope cluster and the low hope cluster, respectively. Altogether, these results indicate that as students were classified in a more hopeful cluster, the more conducive their psychosocial profile was to academic talent development.</p> <p>Graph: Figure 2. Hope cluster differences across talent development variables.</p> <p>Table 5. Post hoc contrasts between different clusters of hope on talent development variables.</p> <p> <ephtml> <table><thead><tr><td>Variable</td><td>Contrast</td><td><italic>p</italic></td><td><italic>g</italic></td></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Behavioral Engagement</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.63</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.55</td></tr><tr><td>Emotional Engagement</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.46</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.60</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.85</td></tr><tr><td>Work Ethic</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.01</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.56</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.45</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Self-Efficacy</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.86</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.58</td></tr><tr><td>Academic Self-Efficacy for SR</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.27</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.62</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>Curiosity</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.28</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.65</td></tr><tr><td>Belonging in Gifted Context</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.71</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td>.001</td><td>.35</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td>.006</td><td>.36</td></tr><tr><td>Competitiveness for Self-Development</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>1.36</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td>Value of Talent Development Exp.</td><td>HH vs LH</td><td><.001</td><td>.67</td></tr><tr><td /><td>HH vs AH</td><td><.001</td><td>.47</td></tr><tr><td /><td>AH vs LH</td><td>.109</td><td>.21</td></tr></tbody></table> </ephtml> </p> <p>5 <emph><bold>Note</bold></emph>. Academic Self-Efficacy for SR = Academic Self-Efficacy for Self-Regulation; Value of Talent Development Exp. = Perceived Value of Talent Development Experience.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-27">Discussion</hd> <p>The current study had two primary goals. The first was to leverage cluster analysis to examine whether the three- and four-cluster hope solutions found in previous research generalize to an academically gifted sample. Assuming they do, the second goal was to examine whether hope cluster profiles meaningfully relate to a psychosocial profile of academic talent development. The purpose of these goals was to better understand how hope might be an uber-psychosocial perception that can be intentionally leveraged to cultivate a psychosocial profile of academic talent development in academically gifted students.</p> <p>This study had two hypotheses. First, it was hypothesized that both the three- and four-cluster hope solution previously found in Dixson and colleagues (2017) and Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref102">16</reflink>]) would be found in the current sample. This hypothesis was only partially supported. Although the three-cluster hope solution was found and satisfied all cluster validity requirements, the four-cluster hope solution did not satisfy the cluster validity requirements of size and meaningfulness. This finding is a replication of the results in Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref103">16</reflink>]), which also found an interpretable three-cluster hope solution and a non-interpretable four-cluster hope solution. This finding also extends the results of Dixson ([<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref104">16</reflink>]) to an academically gifted sample as the original sample consisted of typically developing students. With this replication, hope researchers should start to be cautious about the four-cluster hope solution. Hope theory outlines four hope groups – high hopers, high agency thinkers, high pathway thinkers, and low hopers (Dixson et al., [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref105">22</reflink>]). However, only one of three studies in the current research literature (i.e., two samples of typically developing students and one sample of academically gifted students) has found the four-cluster hope solution. Although this does not mean that it does not exist, these findings do indicate that more research is needed in this area as the four hope groups are a core aspect of hope theory (Snyder, [<reflink idref="bib42" id="ref106">42</reflink>]). More research is needed to better understand why the four hope groups are not being regularly found via cluster analysis, or hope theory should be revised to account for current empirical results.</p> <p>Second, it was hypothesized that the three-cluster hope solution would meaningfully relate to a psychosocial profile of academic talent development. This hypothesis was supported. The high hope cluster reported the psychosocial profile that was most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average and low hope clusters, respectively. Moreover, the separation between hope clusters was meaningful, with most differences among talent development variables having at least a medium effect size. The starkest differences were reported between the high and low hope groups, with 66.67% of the differences having an effect size of at least 1. To put this into perspective, a student classified within the high hope cluster was about 34%ile points (e.g., 84<sups>th</sups> percentile vs. 50<sups>th</sups> percentile) higher than their low hope group counterparts on most talent development variables. This places the high hope group students at a significant talent development advantage as their psychosocial profile likely facilitates them carrying out actions that are more conducive to developing their academic talent development and living up to their full potential, compared to those in the low hope group. For example, if a student believes he can succeed on academic tasks, has a high work ethic, and believes that talent development experiences will be productive, he is much more likely to seek out, participate in, and gain from academic talent development activities than if he held the opposite beliefs (i.e., felt that he was not good at academic tasks, had a poor work ethic, and believed that talent development experiences would be a waste of time; Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib16" id="ref107">16</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref108">10</reflink>]; Orosz et al., [<reflink idref="bib38" id="ref109">38</reflink>]). This theoretical increased likelihood of seeking out, engaging in, and gaining from talent development experiences could likely result in high hope students developing increasingly more of their academic talent (making it more likely that they will live up to their full academic potential). Alternatively, the theoretical decreased likelihood of seeking out, engaging in, and gaining from talent development experiences in low hope students, due to their less adaptive psychosocial profiles, could likely result in them missing key talent development opportunities, ultimately making it less likely that they will live up to their full academic potential. Altogether, this study's findings are consistent with Dixson and colleagues (2017) who found support for hope being an uber-construct that drives a host of success-oriented psychosocial perceptions.</p> <p>A broad implication of this study is that hope has the potential to play a role in developing academic talent in formal GATE programs. Most GATE programs focus intensely on optimizing processes and curriculum with the goal of increasing academic potential, ability, and skills (Dixson, Peters, et al., [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref110">21</reflink>]). Given this intense focus of gifted programs since their inception many decades ago (e.g., Marland, [<reflink idref="bib35" id="ref111">35</reflink>]), it seems only natural for gifted programs and school districts to diversify the ways they intentionally try to maximize academic talent as there are probably little additional gains to be made within the areas of directly improving academic potential, ability, and skills via typical GATE practices (e.g., academic acceleration, enrichment). If school districts and gifted programs were to target students' hope <emph>alongside</emph> their academic talents, students might be in a better psychosocial mind-set to seek out and take advantage of the learning opportunities offered both within and outside of their GATE program, which would likely accelerate their academic talent development and increase the likelihood that they live up to their full academic potential. Moreover, given that many hope interventions are cheap (i.e., the cost of a single presenter), quick (i.e.,<90 minutes; Feldman & Dreher, [<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref112">24</reflink>]), and effective (i.e., average <emph>d</emph> =.40; Weis & Speridakos, [<reflink idref="bib50" id="ref113">50</reflink>]), minimal change or risk would be required by school districts and gifted programs to integrate this new component. Thus, future research should seek to better understand the potential role that hope can play within gifted samples so that it can be systematically studied and leveraged to potentially increase the academic talent development of academically gifted students.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-28">Limitations and conclusions</hd> <p>This study had three primary limitations. The data were cross-sectional, from a single program, and were not racially/ethically or socio-economically diverse. Although this study's findings are consistent with longitudinal studies that had diverse samples (e.g., Dixson, [<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref114">18</reflink>]; Chen et al., [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref115">10</reflink>]), these limitations still preclude inferences of causality, directionality, and generalization beyond the current sample. Future research utilizing multiple sources of data, a more diverse sample, a longitudinal study design, and psychological experiment methodology should replicate the current study to determine whether hope drives academic talent development over time within gifted populations. Nonetheless, this study adds to the current research literature on hope and psychosocial perceptions in gifted samples as it is the beginning of a framework for how gifted programs can intentionally leverage psychosocial perceptions to drive academic talent development. In closing, helping academically gifted students realize their full academic potential is hard, but it might be a little easier if school districts and gifted programs infuse the process with more hope.</p> <hd id="AN0177217940-29">Disclosure statement</hd> <p>No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.</p> <ref id="AN0177217940-30"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref75" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> Affeldt, D. L., & MacDonald, D. A. (2010). The relationship of spirituality to work and organizational attitudes and behaviors in a sample of employees from a health care system. The Journal of Transpersonal Psychology, 42 (2), 192 – 208.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref79" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> Bandura, A. (1990). Multidimensional scales of perceived academic efficacy. Stanford University.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref80" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Basili, E., Gomez Plata, M., Paba Barbosa, C., Gerbino, M., Thartori, E., Lunetti, C., Uribe Tirado, L., Ruiz Garcia, M., Luengo Kanacri, B. P., Tamayo Giraldo, G., Narvaez Marin, M., & Laghi F., & Pastorelli, C., Lucidi, F. (2020). Multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy (mspse): measurement invariance across Italian and Colombian adolescents. PloS One, 15 (1), e0227756. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0227756</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref36" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> Blau, G., & Ryan, J. (1997). On measuring work ethic: A neglected work commitment facet. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 51 (3), 435 – 448. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1996.1568</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref28" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Boazman, J. K., Sayler, M. F., & Easton-Brooks, D. (2012). Mediating factors of personal wellbeing in gifted college students: Early-college entrants and honors college students. Journal of Social Research & Policy, 3 (2), 111 – 131.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref19" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Bryant, F. B., & Cvengros, J. A. (2004). Distinguishing hope and optimism: Two sides of a coin, or two separate coins? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23 (2), 273 – 302. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.2.273.31018</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref29" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, X., Cheung, H., Fan, X., & Wu, J. (2018). Factors related to resilience of academically gifted students in the Chinese cultural and educational environment: CHEN et al. Psychology in the Schools, 55 (2), 55. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22044</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, X., Fan, X., Cheung, H. Y., & Wu, J. (2018). The subjective well-being of academically gifted students in the Chinese cultural context. School Psychology International, 39 (3), 291 – 311. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034318773788</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref56" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Chen, X., Fan, X., Wu, J., & Cheung, H. Y. (2020). Factors related to suicidal cognitions of academically gifted students in the chinese social–cultural context: An exploratory study. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 64 (3), 204 – 218.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Chen, J., Huebner, E. S., & Tian, L. (2020). Longitudinal relations between hope and academic achievement in elementary school students: Behavioral engagement as a mediator. Learning and Individual Differences, 78, 101824. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2020.101824</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Choi, N., Fuqua, D. R., & Griffin, B. W. (2001). Exploratory analysis of the structure of scores from the multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 61 (3), 475 – 489. https://doi.org/10.1177/00131640121971338</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Cohen, J. (1988). The effect size. Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 77 – 83.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Costello, A., & Osborne, J. (2005). Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: Four recommendations for getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment, Research, and Evaluation, 10 (1). https://doi.org/10.7275/jyj1-4868</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. (2020). Understanding and cultivating hope in school. In F. Worrell, T. Hughes, & D. Dixson (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of applied school psychology (pp. 224 – 238). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108235532.014</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D. (2017). Hope across achievement: Examining psychometric properties of the children's hope scale across the range of achievement. SAGE Open, 7 (3), 2158244017717304. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244017717304</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D. (2019). Hope into action: How clusters of hope relate to success-oriented behavior in school. Psychology in the Schools, 56 (9), 1493 – 1511. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22299</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D. (2021). Is grit worth the investment? How grit compares to other psychosocial factors in predicting achievement. Current Psychology, 40 (7), 3166 – 3173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-019-00246-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D. (2022). How hope measures up: Hope predicts school variables beyond growth mindset and school belonging. Current Psychology, 41 (7), 4612 – 4624. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00975-y</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D., & Gentzis, E. (2023). Hope into achievement: A longitudinal examination of hope, psychosocial perceptions, and academic achievement. Manuscript submitted for publication.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., Subotnik, R. F., & Worrell, F. C. (2020). Developing academic talent as a practicing school psychologist: From potential to expertise. Psychology in the Schools, 57 (10), 1582 – 1595. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22363</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D., Peters, S. J., Makel, M. C., Jolly, J. L., Matthews, M. S., Miller, E. M., Rambo-Hernandez, K. E., Rinn, A. N., Robins, J. H., & Wilson, H. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102 (4), 22 – 25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., & Mello, Z. (2017). Profiles of hope: How clusters of hope relate to school variables. Learning and Individual Differences, 59, 55 – 64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.08.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Dixson, D. D., Worrell, F. C., Olszewski kubilius, P., & Subotnik, R. F. (2016). Beyond perceived ability: The contribution of psychosocial factors to academic performance. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377 (1), 67 – 77.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, D. B., & Dreher, D. E. (2012). Can hope be changed in 90 minutes? Testing the efficacy of a single-session goal-pursuit intervention for college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 13 (4), 745 – 759. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-011-9292-4</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Feldman, D. B., & Kubota, M. (2015). Hope, self-efficacy, optimism, and academic achievement: Distinguishing constructs and levels of specificity in predicting college grade-point average. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 210 – 216. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2014.11.022</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher, M. W., Marques, S. C., & Lopez, S. J. (2017). Hope and the academic trajectory of college students. Journal of Happiness Studies, 18 (2), 341 – 352. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-016-9727-z</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Garson, G. (2014). Cluster analysis: 2014 edition. Statistical Associates Publishers.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gilman, R., Dooley, J., & Florell, D. (2006). Relative levels of hope and their relationship with academic and psychological indicators among adolescents. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25 (2), 166 – 178. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2006.25.2.166</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Goodenow, C., & Grady, K. E. (1993). The relationship of school belonging and friends' values to academic motivation among urban adolescent students. Journal of Experimental Education, 62 (1), 60 – 71. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.1993.9943831</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hattie, J. (2008). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Routledge.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., & Steger, M. F. (2009). The Curiosity and exploration inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43 (6), 987 – 998. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Kaya, F., & Islekeller-Bozca, A. (2022). Experiences of gifted students during the COVID-19 pandemic in Turkey. Gifted Education International, 38 (1), 25 – 52.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Lewis, K. L., Stout, J. G., Finkelstein, N. D., Pollock, S. J., Miyake, A., Cohen, G. L., & Ito, T. A. (2017). Fitting in to move forward: Using a belonging framework to understand gender disparities in persistence in the physical sciences, technology, engineering, and mathematics (pSTEM). Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41 (4), 420 – 436. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684317720186</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55 (5), 539 – 551. doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1097-4679(199905)55:5<539:AID-JCLP2>3.0.CO;2-G</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marland, S. (1972). Our gifted and talented children-A priceless national resource. Intellect, 101 (2343), 16 – 19.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marques, S. C., Lopez, S. J., Fontaine, A. M., Coimbra, S., & Mitchell, J. (2015). How much hope is enough? Levels of hope and students' psychological and school functioning. Psychology in the Schools, 52 (4), 325 – 334. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.21833</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Oliveira, I., Taveira, M. D. C., Porfeli, E., & Grace, R. (2018). Confirmatory study of the multidimensional scales of perceived self-efficacy with children. Universitas Psychologica, 17 (4), 1 – 12. https://doi.org/10.11144/Javeriana.upsy17-4.csms</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Orosz, G., Tóth-Király, I., Büki, N., Ivaskevics, K., Bőthe, B., & Fülöp, M. (2018). The four faces of competition: The development of the multidimensional competitive orientation inventory. Frontiers in Psychology, 9. Article 779. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00779</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Peters, S. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. The Gifted Child Quarterly, 66 (2), 82 – 94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Setyowati, A., Chung, M. -H., Yusuf, A., & Haksama, S. (2020). Psychometric of the curiosity and exploration inventory-II in Indonesia. Journal of Public Health Research, 9 (3), 1745. https://doi.org/10.4081/jphr.2020.1745</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Skinner, E. A., Kindermann, T. A., & Furrer, C. J. (2009). A motivational perspective on engagement and disaffection: Conceptualization and assessment of children's behavioral and emotional participation in academic activities in the classroom. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 69 (3), 493 – 525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, C. R. (2002). TARGET ARTICLE: Hope theory: rainbows in the mind. Psychological Inquiry, 13 (4), 249 – 275. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1304_01</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Snyder, C. R., Hoza, B., Pelham, W. E., Rapoff, M., Ware, L., Danovsky, M., Highberger, L., Ribinstein, H., & Stahl, K. J. (1997). The development and validation of the children's hope scale. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 22 (3), 399 – 421. https://doi.org/10.1093/jpepsy/22.3.399</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12 (1), 3 – 54. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100611418056</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Thornton, B., Ryckman, R. M., & Gold, J. A. (2011). Competitive orientations and the Type a behavior pattern. Psychology, 2 (5), 411 – 415. https://doi.org/10.4236/psych.2011.25064</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Self-efficacy for self-regulated learning: A validation study. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 68 (3), 443 – 463. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164407308475</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Valle, M. F., Huebner, E. S., & Suldo, S. M. (2004). Further evaluation of the children's hope scale. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 22 (4), 320 – 337. https://doi.org/10.1177/073428290402200403</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13 (6), 569 – 586.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Vialle, W., Heaven, P. C. L., & Ciarrochi, J. (2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13 (6), 569 – 586. https://doi.org/10.1080/13803610701786046</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Weis, R., & Speridakos, E. C. (2011). A meta-analysis of hope enhancement strategies in clinical and community settings. Psychology of Well-Being: Theory, Research and Practice, 1 (1), 5. https://doi.org/10.1186/2211-1522-1-5</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Williams, J. E., & Coombs, W. T. (1996). An Analysis of the Reliability and Validity of Bandura's Multidimensional Scales of Perceived Self-Efficacy.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Worrell, F. C., Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Dixson, D. D. (2019). Gifted students. Annual Review of Psychology, 70 (1), 551 – 576. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102846</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yarcheski, A., & Mahon, N. E. (2016). Meta-analyses of predictors of hope in adolescents. Western Journal of Nursing Research, 38 (3), 345 – 368. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193945914559545</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social-psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research. Review of Educational Research, 81 (2), 267 – 301. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Dante D. Dixson; Leah Jansen; Ersie-Anastasia Gentzis and Frank C. Worrell</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib39" firstref="ref2"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib52" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref6"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib50" firstref="ref7"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib36" firstref="ref9"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref10"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib42" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib43" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib25" firstref="ref20"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib34" firstref="ref21"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib16" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref24"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib49" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib32" firstref="ref30"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref31"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl19" bibid="bib48" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl20" bibid="bib44" firstref="ref33"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl21" bibid="bib41" firstref="ref34"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl22" bibid="bib51" firstref="ref37"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl23" bibid="bib31" firstref="ref38"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl24" bibid="bib29" firstref="ref39"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl25" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref40"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl26" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref42"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl27" bibid="bib45" firstref="ref43"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl28" bibid="bib28" firstref="ref47"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl29" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref48"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl30" bibid="bib54" firstref="ref52"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl31" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref53"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl32" bibid="bib53" firstref="ref57"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl33" bibid="bib47" firstref="ref70"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl34" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref71"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl35" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref81"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl36" bibid="bib46" firstref="ref82"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl37" bibid="bib37" firstref="ref83"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl38" bibid="bib40" firstref="ref86"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl39" bibid="bib33" firstref="ref89"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl40" bibid="bib38" firstref="ref90"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl41" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref92"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl42" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref100"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl43" bibid="bib30" firstref="ref101"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl44" bibid="bib35" firstref="ref111"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl45" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref114"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1424371
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Gifted Profiles of Hope: Being Hopeful Is Associated with a Talent Development Psychosocial Profile in Gifted Students
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Dante+D%2E+Dixson%22">Dante D. Dixson</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8211-4711">0000-0001-8211-4711</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Leah+Jansen%22">Leah Jansen</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Ersie-Anastasia+Gentzis%22">Ersie-Anastasia Gentzis</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Frank+C%2E+Worrell%22">Frank C. Worrell</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7122-527X">0000-0002-7122-527X</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22High+Ability+Studies%22"><i>High Ability Studies</i></searchLink>. 2024 35(1):21-43.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 530 Walnut Street Suite 850, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Tel: 215-625-8900; Fax: 215-207-0050; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 23
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="EL" term="%22Secondary+Education%22">Secondary Education</searchLink>
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academically+Gifted%22">Academically Gifted</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Adolescents%22">Adolescents</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Predictor+Variables%22">Predictor Variables</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Talent+Identification%22">Talent Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Attitudes%22">Student Attitudes</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Expectation%22">Expectation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Talent+Development%22">Talent Development</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Summer+Programs%22">Summer Programs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Secondary+School+Students%22">Secondary School Students</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Work+Ethic%22">Work Ethic</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Self+Efficacy%22">Self Efficacy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Personality+Traits%22">Personality Traits</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/13598139.2023.2206114
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1359-8139<br />1469-834X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: In this study, the relationship between clusters of hope and a psychosocial profile of academic talent development is examined in a sample of 466 academically gifted adolescents. First, cluster analysis is leveraged to examine whether interpretable three- and four-cluster hope solutions can be found in the sample. Second, differences among a group of psychosocial variables that predict academic talent development were examined to assess whether hope clusters were meaningfully related to different psychosocial profiles of academic talent development. This study had several notable findings: (a) an interpretable three-cluster hope solution was found with the hope clusters exhibiting meaningfully different profiles of academic talent development, (b) the high hope cluster reported the psychosocial profile most conducive to academic talent development, followed by the average hope cluster and the low hope cluster, respectively, and (c) this study did not find an interpretable four-cluster hope solution. These findings have implications for both academic talent development and hope theory.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2024
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1424371
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1424371
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/13598139.2023.2206114
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 23
        StartPage: 21
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Academically Gifted
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Adolescents
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Predictor Variables
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Talent Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Attitudes
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Expectation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Talent Development
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Summer Programs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Secondary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Work Ethic
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Self Efficacy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Personality Traits
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Gifted Profiles of Hope: Being Hopeful Is Associated with a Talent Development Psychosocial Profile in Gifted Students
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Dante D. Dixson
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Leah Jansen
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Ersie-Anastasia Gentzis
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Frank C. Worrell
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2024
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1359-8139
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 1469-834X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 35
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: High Ability Studies
              Type: main
ResultId 1