View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice
Language: English
Authors: Susan G. Assouline (ORCID 0000-0002-3706-2446), Katherine Schabilion, Madison Trog (ORCID 0009-0003-5835-2113)
Source: Gifted Child Today. 2026 49(1):76-84.
Availability: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 9
Publication Date: 2026
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Descriptive
Descriptors: Educational Legislation, Educational Policy, Twice Exceptional, Student Needs, Definitions, Academically Gifted, Students with Disabilities, Educational Practices, Student Characteristics, Equal Education, Federal Legislation, Educational Research, Talent Identification, Disability Identification, Written Language, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, Autism Spectrum Disorders, Learning Disabilities, Suicide, Psychological Patterns, Acceleration (Education)
Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers: Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Jacob K Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act 1988
DOI: 10.1177/10762175251381364
ISSN: 1076-2175
2162-951X
Abstract: This article describes the historical evolution of U.S. federal education policy as it pertains to the constructs of disability and giftedness, which were originally treated as distinct domains. However, policy shifts and research initiatives revealed the intersection of the two domains, which led to recognition of twice-exceptional individuals as learners with unique needs related to talent development. Evolving definitions and educational practice shaped two decades of research. A case-example highlights the importance of comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations to understand the nuanced educational and social-emotional needs of twice-exceptional learners. Seven recommendations focus on strength-based approaches to educational practice.
Abstractor: As Provided
Entry Date: 2026
Accession Number: EJ1492139
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwEb5Q2oOai0kauSOxDHJFFyAAAA4zCB4AYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHSMIHPAgEAMIHJBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDF-XDamqtMzZ8XJTdAIBEICBm65InK7hiVuL0b3ZKK-lEBk0UFzVqJDAFzyqGErlgOUUIkt4SDbs4eE-qbTFffAOlByeP3XWsWEQUzp_YjBjpKke4R8FiNBO8r5v7fRGYQ3VJcY6VsB3HhybvXrc-9MEV_cff5Y4Qf9UxDqwf0CE-xoTObwk31qtuIbDb61STCiwH8ILGi7A0vI-XTZu39ndvkvyB-cFezyHIAJo
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: <anid>AN0190206209;gct01jan.26;2025Dec15.05:40;v2.2.500</anid> <title id="AN0190206209-1">Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice </title> <p>This article describes the historical evolution of U.S. federal education policy as it pertains to the constructs of disability and giftedness, which were originally treated as distinct domains. However, policy shifts and research initiatives revealed the intersection of the two domains, which led to recognition of twice-exceptional individuals as learners with unique needs related to talent development. Evolving definitions and educational practice shaped two decades of research. A case-example highlights the importance of comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations to understand the nuanced educational and social-emotional needs of twice-exceptional learners. Seven recommendations focus on strength-based approaches to educational practice.</p> <p>Keywords: twice-exceptionality; IDEA legislation; gifted education; talent development</p> <p>Giftedness and disability, the two foundational constructs to understanding twice-exceptionality, started as isolated concepts that were separately codified into distinct federal legislative acts."</p> <p>Individuals with unique strengths and co-occurring challenges existed long before the emergence of now-familiar social constructs such as intelligence, gifted, disabled, underrepresented, and twice-exceptional. Social constructs have limitations; yet they provide conceptual frameworks for organizing and interpreting complex observations such as individual differences that exist in multiple developmental areas, including ability, achievement, and psychosocial skills. Conceptual frameworks also lay the foundation for a system's approach to understanding patterns of student development thereby allowing both researchers and practitioners to examine how various processes interact with one another and across the broader educational environment to drive the evolution of educational systems. Below, we discuss the evolution of the constructs of disability, giftedness, and twice-exceptionality through historical context, including a summary of results from an expanding research agenda initially funded through the <emph>Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Education Act</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref1">24</reflink>]). A case-example highlights conclusions from two decades of Javits-sponsored research.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-2">Federal Legislation and the Emergence of Twice-Exceptionality</hd> <p>A relatively recent evolution of student-centered systems occurred when two seemingly unrelated constructs, disability and giftedness, were each systemically codified through two distinct acts of federal legislation. The watershed legislation, <emph>Education of All Handicapped Children Act</emph> ([<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref2">6</reflink>]), ensured that students with disabilities had access to a free and appropriate public education, including specialized services as detailed in a student's Individual Education Plans (IEP). Prescient psychologists, [<reflink idref="bib12" id="ref3">12</reflink>] and [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref4">27</reflink>] were among the first to write about individuals with disabilities who also have gifts.</p> <p>The first major reauthorization of EHA, which included a name change to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), occurred in 1990 ([<reflink idref="bib26" id="ref5">26</reflink>]). Around the same time the federal government was shifting from EHA to IDEA, the U.S. Congress passed the <emph>Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act (</emph>[<reflink idref="bib24" id="ref6">24</reflink>]<emph>)</emph>.[<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref7">3</reflink>] The broad aim of the Javits Act was to support the educational needs of gifted and talented students across the United States through talent development opportunities, professional development, and research, all within a conceptual framework that emphasized the importance of addressing underrepresentation (i.e., ensuring that that gifted and talented students who may not be identified by traditional assessments had access to educational opportunities). Gallagher's seminal article, which set forth a national agenda and priorities for the education of gifted students, referred to "gifted handicapped" ([<reflink idref="bib11" id="ref8">11</reflink>], p. 110). However, gifted and talented students with disabilities were neither specifically included nor excluded from the Javits Act's focus on underrepresentation, perhaps because the general educational system was not well-informed regarding the complexities and nuances of this population.</p> <p>Although the 1988 Javits Act has been reauthorized multiple times, it did not initially address twice-exceptionality. Rather, legislative recognition of giftedness <emph>and</emph> disability occurred through the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which acknowledged that students who are eligible for special education services under one or more of the 13 disability categories[<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref9">4</reflink>] may also demonstrate high cognitive ability. Despite legislative awareness of the intersection of disability and giftedness, the term twice-exceptional was not explicitly used in the 2004 IDEA legislation. Nevertheless, the evolving intersection of the dual constructs of disability and giftedness has contributed to multiple research initiatives that also enhanced awareness ([<reflink idref="bib9" id="ref10">9</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref11">22</reflink>], [<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref12">20</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-3">Javits-Funded Research Enhances Awareness of Twice-Exceptionality</hd> <p>IDEA legislation acknowledged high-ability students within the context of disability; however, IDEA regulations do not explicitly state <emph>how</emph> to address their needs. The onus of evidence-based research for guiding pedagogical practice was on researchers from the gifted education and talent development arenas. Much of our improved understanding of the intersection of twice-exceptionality stems from research funded through the Javits Act. The following sections highlight selected findings from two decades of twice-exceptional research at the University of Iowa, sparked by initial funding through a Javits grant in 2005.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-4">Phase 1 Javits-Funded (2005–2009) Twice-Exceptional Research: Proof of Concept</hd> <p>The chance coincidence of the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, which recognized the potential overlap of high cognitive ability and disability, and the 2005 call for applications for funding through the Javits Act inspired psychologists and researchers at the University of Iowa to collaborate with the Iowa Department of Education to submit a research proposal to the Javits Program. The primary aim of the proposed research project was to learn more about students with high cognitive ability whose parents or educators were concerned about their students' achievement and/or their social development. The Javits award initiated a comprehensive research agenda focused on increasing awareness and understanding of twice-exceptionality.</p> <p>Phase 1 of our Javits research occurred between 2005 and 2009. Results, which were primarily descriptive in nature, were based upon an original cohort of 75 K-12 students from Iowa whose parents or teachers were concerned about learning difficulties and/or social impairments and referred their student for a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation at the university-based clinic specializing in giftedness and twice-exceptionality.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-5">Clinic Assessment Procedures and Score Interpretation</hd> <p>The clinic's assessment procedures start with the intake process, which includes parent/guardian completion of a self-report of background information that documents demographic information, concerns about their student's achievement and behaviors, as well as information about the student's participation in gifted programming, acceleration, and special education. The background information is the foundation for an interview with the parent prior to the assessment with the student. Following the intake, the assessment includes administration of (a) an individual intelligence test; (b) an individual achievement test; (c) various behavioral and psychosocial assessments; (d) measures of visual-motor and psychomotor skills; as well as (e) relevant diagnosis-specific measures necessary to determine the presence of certain disabilities (e.g., specialized diagnostic instruments for an autism spectrum diagnosis).</p> <p>The clinic's comprehensive individualized assessment process extends the information available through common educational procedures used for school-based identification for gifted programs. The student's individual assessment results are converted to standard scores, and percentile ranks. Standard scores (yielded by individual intelligence and achievement tests) have an average score of 100, which is represented by the 50<sups>th</sups> percentile, and a standard deviation (SD) of 15 points in either direction. The further away from the average score, the greater the number of standard deviations. Thus, the average range for a standardized test with a standard score of 100 is 85 (low average, i.e., one SD below average) to 115 (high average, i.e., one SD above average). An individual with an IQ of 130 is 2 SD above the mean score of 100 (approximately the 98<sups>th</sups> percentile, which is often described as superior).</p> <p>As we consider educational and diagnostic recommendations based upon the results of these measures, it is beneficial to account for both relative comparisons within the individual's profile (i.e., intraindividual comparisons) as well as absolute comparisons to the normative sample (i.e., interindividual comparisons). The standard deviation from the mean can have diagnostic implications through both intraindividual and interindividual comparisons. Diagnostic implications also concern educational best practices with respect to intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-6">Phase 1 Javits Data Collection and Summary of Results</hd> <p>All data from the comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations were collected under the approval of IRB. Parents who had concerns about their highly able student's learning difficulties and/or social impairments were invited to refer their student. Over the period of the Phase 1 Javits grant, 75 students were evaluated and the data from the assessments were analyzed. Results from the analyses were disseminated through publications and presentations. The importance of providing empirical data was made salient by [<reflink idref="bib8" id="ref13">8</reflink>] who found a dearth of empirical results about twice-exceptionality. Javits-funded research, along with other research foundations, helped to fill in the gap created by the lack of evidence-based research that is essential for providing guidelines for identification, ensuring access to programs, and supporting development of programs that foster talent discovery and development.</p> <p>Below, we summarize three investigations, starting with a study focused on Specific Learning Disorder with impairment in written language (SLD-WL). SLD is generally characterized by unexpected underachievement relative to a student's ability and/or the achievement of peers of the same age or grade. The second investigation concerns attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), which is generally characterized by difficulty regulating attention and/or level of activity. A third study examined psychosocial functioning among high-ability students with a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder (ASD). ASD is characterized by significant social impairment and the presence of restricted interests and/or repetitive behaviors, which are often accompanied by challenges with daily living and difficulty in organization and processing of information.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-7">Phase 1 Javits Investigation of SLD-Written Language (SLD-WL)</hd> <p>From the study sample of 75 students, [<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref14">1</reflink>] found a subsample of 14 students with high cognitive ability and a diagnosed SLD in Written Language (SLD-WL). The students demonstrated very high cognitive ability with an ability score of 120 or higher (percentile ranking of 91 or higher) on an individualized intelligence test. In general, the subsample possessed strengths in verbal and nonverbal reasoning compared to age-peers, with verbal skills higher than nonverbal skills, but demonstrated relative weaknesses in working memory and processing speed. The 14 high-ability students with a diagnosed learning disorder in written expression (not based solely on spelling or handwriting) had a discrepancy of at least one standard deviation (15 points) below their ability score of 120, indicating significantly lower than average written language achievement scores Many of these students also displayed visual-motor weakness.</p> <p>Within this subsample, academic skills other than written language (e.g., reading or math), psychosocial skills (e.g., task commitment), and behavioral characteristics (e.g. hyperactivity) were quite variable. For example, mean overall reading scores showed a range of 71 standard score points, which equates to more than five standard deviations. Parent ratings of hyperactive behaviors showed a range of more than four standard deviations and teacher ratings of the same behaviors showed a range of more than five standard deviations. These findings highlight the importance of comprehensive, individualized evaluations that consider coexisting academic, emotional and/or behavioral difficulties. Comprehensive assessments are essential for identification and for providing recommendations to support the student's academic strengths while addressing learning and behavioral challenges.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-8">Phase 1 Javits Investigation of ADHD</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref15">10</reflink>] examined the differences in self-concept and self-esteem among gifted students (standard IQ scores of 120, 91<sups>st</sups> percentile) with an ADHD diagnosis (<emph>n</emph> = 54) compared to gifted peers without a formal diagnosis (<emph>n</emph> = 58), Foley-Nicpon and colleagues found that gifted students with ADHD scored significantly lower on measures of self-esteem, behavioral self-concept, and overall happiness compared to their non-ADHD gifted peers. Despite having similar high cognitive abilities, the presence of ADHD was associated with diminishing self-perception in these areas. Additionally, age-related differences showed that younger students reported higher overall happiness than adolescents, suggesting that there may be developmental variations in emotional well-being and self-concept. The research by Foley-Nicpon and colleagues highlights the unique challenges faced by high-ability students with an ADHD diagnosis, thereby emphasizing the importance of parents, educators, and clinicians to recognize and address the unique areas of strength and challenges so that interventions can be tailored to address all developmental areas ranging from their cognitive strengths to challenges with behaviors and self-concept.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-9">Phase 1 Javits Investigation of ASD</hd> <p>In a separate comparative study of two similarly able (ability score ≥ 120, 91<sups>st</sups> percentile) groups of students, [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref16">5</reflink>] found significant differences across cognitive performance and psychosocial domains between the students with an ASD diagnosis (<emph>n</emph> = 40) compared to the control group without an ASD diagnosis (<emph>n</emph> = 41). Although both groups of high-ability youth demonstrated notable strengths in academic achievement and ability, the subsample with ASD had a unique cognitive and achievement profile compared to that of their high-ability peers without a diagnosis.</p> <p>Both samples demonstrated strengths in verbal fluency, memory, reading and math achievement; however, the group with high cognitive ability and an ASD diagnosis had a very significant weakness in their ability to process information. Additional notable findings of differences between the two groups occurred within the psychosocial realm, with the students having an ASD diagnosis demonstrating an increased risk for social withdrawal and internalizing symptoms, such as depression. As with the other Phase 1 Javits investigations, this study makes salient the importance of a comprehensive psychoeducational evaluation to diminish the likelihood of either a missed or misdiagnosis. Furthermore, this study reinforces the value in identifying the potential for psychosocial or behavioral challenges (e.g., daily living skills, social challenges) as they relate to an ASD diagnosis, which may be addressed through intervention.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-10">Larger Sample Sizes Enhance Our Understanding</hd> <p>The importance of a comprehensive assessment was one of the primary conclusions from Phase 1 (2005–2009) Javits research results, which led to the establishment of clinic procedures that guided the evaluations of twice-exceptional students. Over a ten-year period (2009–2019), 1,345 students received a comprehensive evaluation as described above, which meant that the dataset was more than tenfold that of the original dataset of 75. An additional initiative led to research collaborations at the University of Iowa, specifically an extensive collaboration with the Iowa Neuroscience Institute (INI), which involved sophisticated analyses of the large dataset based upon the 1,345 comprehensive assessments.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-11">Phase 2 Javits-Adjacent Research (2009-2019) Data Collection and Results</hd> <p>Through funding obtained in collaboration with the INI, we were able to digitize the clinic files from this larger cohort (<emph>N</emph> = 1,345), which allowed for more extensive investigations into the unique academic and social-emotional challenges and successes, as well as the nuanced behaviors among twice-exceptional students ([<reflink idref="bib18" id="ref17">18</reflink>]). Below, we summarize three studies from Phase 2 of our twice-exceptional research agenda. The first two studies focus on academic concerns; the third study shifts our attention to clinical findings, specifically the incidence of suicide ideation among students with high cognitive ability and an ASD diagnosis. It is important to note that all Phase 2 studies were based on existing data from evaluations that were completed to address clinical referral questions.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-12">Phase 2 Javits-Adjacent SLD-WL</hd> <p>Building upon the [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref18">2</reflink>] study of SLD-WL, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref19">23</reflink>] further explored cognitive, academic, and psychosocial profiles of a sample of high-ability students with and without SLD-WL (<emph>N</emph> = 339). The inclusion criteria for the subsample of high-ability students with SLD-WL (<emph>n</emph> = 84) provided evidence of high cognitive abilities (one or more cognitive domain standard scores of 120 or greater) and presence of an SLD-WL diagnosis. The inclusion criteria for the subsample of high-ability students without SLD-WL (<emph>n</emph> = 225) were evidence of high cognitive abilities (one or more cognitive domain standard scores of 120 or greater) and no co-occurring clinical diagnoses. Using logistic regression analyses, Schabilion found that verbal abilities were an area of strength for all high-ability students in the sample, including those diagnosed with SLD-WL, and that both working memory and processing speed were areas of relative weakness for both high-ability/no diagnosis and high-ability/SLD-WL groups. These results were consistent with the findings of [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref20">2</reflink>], although the 2010 study did not include a high-ability/no-diagnosis comparison group. In addition, [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref21">23</reflink>] found that the mean writing score for the SLD-WL group was within the lower half of the average range compared to standardized norms (approximately the 42<sups>nd</sups> percentile), but 1.5 standard deviations below both the mean writing score for the high-ability group as well as the mean verbal ability score for the SLD-WL group.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref22">23</reflink>] findings added to the growing evidence of the importance of a comprehensive individualized assessment to identify high-ability students with learning challenges. Determining the presence of an SLD based solely on either absolute impairment or intraindividual differences has been shown to lead to inaccurate identification ([<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref23">15</reflink>]). Additionally, Schabilion's results showed that diagnosis of SLD-WL in high-ability students was more likely in later grades, likely because academic difficulties in high-ability students are typically identified later ([<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref24">7</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib21" id="ref25">21</reflink>]) and because across students, writing difficulties are identified later, on average, than other academic difficulties ([<reflink idref="bib17" id="ref26">17</reflink>]). Diagnosis of SLD-WL was also more likely in this clinic sample when parent ratings of attention problems were higher, although it is important to note that almost 62% of Schabilion's sample with SLD-WL had a coexisting diagnosis of ADHD.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-13">Phase 2 Javits-Adjacent Twice-Exceptionality and Likelihood of Acceleration</hd> <p>The paradoxical nature of twice-exceptionality has sometimes led educators and/or parents to assume that academic acceleration is not a valid intervention for bright students with a diagnosed disability. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref27">14</reflink>] challenged that assumption by investigating the likelihood of whole-grade or subject acceleration (as reported by parents on the clinic intake form) among high-ability students who were evaluated in the clinic for presence of a co-occurring diagnosis, specifically, ADHD, SLD, ASD, Anxiety, Depression, or Adjustment Disorder in comparison to high-ability students without a diagnosis, as well as to more typically developing students with a diagnosis.</p> <p>[<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref28">14</reflink>] found that, in general, parents of students from the sample were more likely to report that their students were subject-accelerated (44% from the entire sample) relative to whole-grade accelerated (approximately 8% from the entire sample). However, within the diagnostic categories, there was variability among likelihood of acceleration according to diagnosis, suggesting that each diagnostic category represented academic needs unique to that diagnosis. For instance, the research team found that students whose psychoeducational assessment indicated an ASD diagnosis were more likely to have been subject-accelerated compared to their high-ability peers without a diagnosis. However, students whose evaluations resulted in an ASD diagnosis, as well as students whose evaluations resulted in a diagnosis of ADHD or SLD, were—not surprisingly—less likely to have experienced whole-grade acceleration as reported by their parents. Furthermore, students whose evaluations resulted in an SLD-WL diagnosis were least likely, as reported by their parents, to have been either subject-accelerated or whole-grade accelerated.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-14">Phase 2 Javits-Adjacent ASD and Suicidal Ideation</hd> <p>[<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref29">5</reflink>] found that students with very high cognitive ability and ASD were at increased risk for depression. This finding inspired [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref30">4</reflink>] to conduct a comprehensive comparison study across three samples, one of which was a clinical analytic sample (<emph>n</emph> = 1,074) that came from the larger Belin-Blank Center clinic sample. Casten et al. aimed to further explore the links between cognitive ability, autism, and depression ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref31">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib13" id="ref32">13</reflink>]), as well as suicidal ideation as reported by parents on the background form. From analyses of the Belin-Blank Center sample of students with an ASD diagnosis and at least one IQ index score at or above the 90<sups>th</sups> percentile, rates of suicidal ideation were at 12.9% compared to 2.4% in IQ-matched controls without an ASD diagnosis. The primary conclusion to the [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref33">4</reflink>] findings was that as cognitive ability increases there is an increased risk for suicidal ideation (as reported by parents) among individuals with an ASD diagnosis.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-15">Phases 1 and 2 Intersect</hd> <p>The total sample (<emph>N</emph> = 75) from Phase 1 Javits Research focused on students with ASD and SLD. Within that relatively small sample, approximately two-thirds of the referrals were concerns related to severe social impairment and the comprehensive evaluation resulted in an ASD diagnosis. Fewer participants (<emph>n</emph> = 14) were referred due to concerns about academic progress, and a comprehensive evaluation resulted in a SLD-WL diagnosis. In their analysis of Phase 1 Javits, [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref34">2</reflink>] described the unique attributes of the sample with a diagnosis of SLD-WL, with a specific example of one representative student, Andy, who was referred as a 17-year-old to the clinic by his parents because of overall high intelligence coupled with difficulty completing his school assignments. Andy's assessment results, discussed below, demonstrate the intersection of Javits 1 and Javits 2 research.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-16">A Case Example</hd> <p>Andy's parents described him as a bright, highly articulate and verbal, high school student. However, they noted that teachers were concerned about his difficulty completing written assignments and his struggles with writing fluency and composition. Some teachers questioned his motivation and effort.</p> <p>A licensed psychologist conducted a comprehensive evaluation that assessed both academic and cognitive abilities, verbal skills, perceptual reasoning, working memory, and processing speed. Scores from these measures revealed a complex intraindividual profile. Andy demonstrated exceptional verbal skills, which were in the superior range, and significant challenges in written expression, which were average, yet more than two standard deviations below his extremely high verbal skills. These standardized scores highlighted both intraindividual strengths and difficulties, as well as interindividual differences—showing how Andy differed from typically developing peers and his high-ability peers without a diagnosis (see Figure 1 for a bell curve depicting Andy's scores on selected measures from the evaluation). As well, these scores were among the many factors that led the psychologist to conclude that Andy met eligibility criteria for a Specific Learning Disability in Written Language (SLD-WL).</p> <p>Graph: Figure 1.Author-Generated Bell Curve Showing the Normal Distribution of Intelligence Scores and Andy's Standard Scores and Corresponding Percentile Ranks. Note. The average score for ability and achievement tests is 100 (50th percentile). The average range for the general population, plus or minus one standard deviation (SD), is very broad; the average range extends from a standard score of 85 (16th percentile) to a standard score of 115 (84th percentile). Descriptive terms for the average range are below average, average, and above average. Andy's index scores, relative to age-peers, are indicated in the table and via the corresponding icons on the graph. Andy's Verbal Comprehension Index (VCI, 138; >99th percentile), which is more than 2 SD above average, is in the superior range, and his Processing Speed Index (PSI, 96, 39th percentile), is considered low average. His Perceptual Reasoning Index (PRI, 109; 73rd percentile) and Working Memory Index (WMI, 108; 70th percentile) are average. Andy's Reading performance (<reflink idref="bib117" id="ref35">117</reflink>, 87th percentile) is above average; however, his Written Language Composite Score (<reflink idref="bib99" id="ref36">99</reflink>, 47th percentile), is slightly below average. Note. Author-generated bell curve adapted from these sources: https://<ulink href="http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Bell-Curve-Diagram-Standard-Scores-T-Scores-Percentiles-11385180">www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Bell-Curve-Diagram-Standard-Scores-T-Scores-Percentiles-11385180</ulink> Click to follow link.">https://<ulink href="http://www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Bell-Curve-Diagram-Standard-Scores-T-Scores-Percentiles-11385180">www.teacherspayteachers.com/Product/Bell-Curve-Diagram-Standard-Scores-T-Scores-Percentiles-11385180</ulink> and "Free Bell Curve Vector," by Ery[<reflink idref="bib19" id="ref37">19</reflink>], retrieved from Vecteezy (https://<ulink href="http://www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/bell-curve),">www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/bell-curve),</ulink> used under the Vecteezy Free License; icons appearing in the bell curve and the key were adapted from Microsoft Office 365 and used under Microsoft's content usage guidelines.</p> <p>Given Andy's extremely high verbal skills coupled with lack of productivity completing assignments, some educators initially speculated that his writing difficulties stemmed from lack of effort and/or motivation. However, the assessment confirmed that his challenges were linked to fine-motor difficulties as well as reduced speed in processing information, not lack of effort or interest.</p> <p>Based on the comprehensive evaluation, it was recommended that Andy continue advanced coursework in his area of strength (i.e., verbal skills). Subject acceleration through Advanced Placement coursework was deemed both appropriate and essential because it provides advanced learning experience that are typical for college-bound, high-ability students. However, this advanced coursework needed to be supported by formal academic accommodations including assistive technology (e.g., voice recognition software), organizational support for managing writing tasks, and extended time on tests.</p> <p>Andy was one of 14 students from the [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref38">2</reflink>] subsample, drawn from the larger Phase 1 research sample (<emph>N</emph> = 75). Phase 1 projects were designed to raise awareness of the complexity of twice-exceptionality through proof of concept. Andy's case also reflects broader patterns of strengths and challenges identified in the larger Phase 2 sample (<emph>N</emph> = 1,345). Findings from Phase 2 have important implications for future research, clinical interventions ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref39">4</reflink>]), and educational practices necessary to support the talent development of twice-exceptional students ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref40">14</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref41">23</reflink>]).</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-17">Discussion and Summary</hd> <p>Giftedness and disability, the two foundational constructs to understanding twice-exceptionality, started as isolated concepts that were separately codified into distinct federal legislative acts. These two separate legislative acts unintentionally gave the false impression that giftedness and disability were mutually exclusive, despite grassroots efforts by parents and early researchers and leaders ([<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref42">3</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib22" id="ref43">22</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib27" id="ref44">27</reflink>]) to increase awareness of the intersection of giftedness and disability, now known as twice-exceptional ([<reflink idref="bib20" id="ref45">20</reflink>]).</p> <p>The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, which acknowledged that students with disabilities may have high cognitive ability, ensured access to special education services for students with disabilities. Though the initial focus of the Jacob K. Javits Act of 1988 did not include twice-exceptional students within the conceptualization of underrepresented high-ability students, over the years, the legislation evolved to include twice-exceptional as a population at risk for under-identification with limited access to talent development programs.</p> <p>University of Iowa researchers, starting with Javits funding in 2005, conducted comprehensive clinical psychoeducational assessments with 75 students. These Phase 1 Javits-funded research results emphasized the importance of comprehensive evaluations for differential diagnosis of disorders such as specific learning disabilities (SLD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD). Each diagnosis manifests uniquely in individuals with high cognitive ability, which has nuanced implications in terms of educational and behavioral interventions (see [<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref46">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref47">5</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib10" id="ref48">10</reflink>]).</p> <p>Phase 2 Javits-adjacent research investigations built upon descriptive findings and further explored trends, patterns, and specific learning profiles ([<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref49">23</reflink>]) through variable-centered analyses such as logistic regression. [<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref50">14</reflink>] found distinct patterns of subject- and whole-grade acceleration among twice-exceptional students that varied according to diagnosis. [<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref51">4</reflink>] investigated the incidence of suicidal ideation among very highly able students with ASD and made salient the importance of taking mental health concerns into consideration.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-18">Guidelines for Practitioners and Policymakers</hd> <p>The preceding discussion highlights our evolving understanding of twice-exceptionality and makes salient the importance of evidence-based approaches to identification and intervention. The following, grounded in more than two decades of research and clinical experience, provide guidelines for practitioners and policymakers that align with the goals of the Javits Act: to increase educational access and talent development for underserved learners.</p> <p></p> <ulist> <item> (<reflink idref="bib1" id="ref52">1</reflink>) Conduct comprehensive individual evaluations to reveal both intraindividual (i.e., relative) and interindividual (i.e., absolute or normative) strengths and challenges. Do not rely on interindividual differences as the sole determinant of the presence of a disorder. Reliance on only interindividual differences increases the likelihood of missed or misdiagnosis of twice-exceptional students ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref53">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib15" id="ref54">15</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref55">23</reflink>]). Intraindividual differences can reveal the student's relative weaknesses in academic performance, which may warrant accommodations and/or interventions to address the challenges.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref56">2</reflink>) Recognize that the high likelihood of co-occurring diagnoses among twice-exceptional students may further complicate diagnosis and intervention, as well as research, with these students. [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref57">23</reflink>] found that 60% of her analytic sample of individuals with SLD-WL also had a diagnosis of ADHD, which may have conflated findings regarding psychosocial profiles.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib3" id="ref58">3</reflink>) Prioritize domain-specific data when making decisions regarding programming and services, especially talent development opportunities, for twice-exceptional students. Because of the frequent intraindividual variation within twice-exceptional students' profiles, use of overall composite scores that integrate multiple domains will prevent thorough understanding of twice-exceptional students' strengths and weaknesses. For example, use of the Full Scale IQ as an eligibility criterion for talent development programs is likely to exclude twice-exceptional students because of their weaknesses in working memory and processing speed ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref59">2</reflink>]; [<reflink idref="bib23" id="ref60">23</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref61">4</reflink>) Thoroughly explore the student's individual strengths and weaknesses to avoid misattributing the origin of difficulties to attitude or behavior. Often, observed behaviors that adults describe as "laziness" or lack of motivation reflect skill deficits that are overshadowed by strengths ([<reflink idref="bib2" id="ref62">2</reflink>]); yet these deficits require intervention.</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref63">5</reflink>) Understand the interplay between psychosocial skills and academic achievement and provide supportive learning environments ([<reflink idref="bib5" id="ref64">5</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib6" id="ref65">6</reflink>) Consider academic acceleration, including subject and/or whole-grade acceleration, as a talent development intervention for twice-exceptional students. However, as with all acceleration decisions, a child-study team must consider the individual student's readiness vis-à-vis the diagnosis and domain-specific strengths as well as the learning environment ([<reflink idref="bib14" id="ref66">14</reflink>]).</item> <p></p> <item> (<reflink idref="bib7" id="ref67">7</reflink>) Recognize the complex mental health concerns when high cognitive ability and neurodevelopmental diagnoses intersect ([<reflink idref="bib4" id="ref68">4</reflink>]).</item> </ulist> <hd id="AN0190206209-19">Implications for Future Research</hd> <p>Whereas variable-centered, diagnosis-focused approaches are valuable for understanding broad patterns, they may result in conclusions that overlook the diversity within the twice-exceptional population. Large scale, person-centered methods such as Latent profile analysis (LPA) may generate nuanced profiles that reflect the heterogeneity of twice-exceptionality thereby yielding additional insights for addressing the academic and social needs of twice-exceptional students beyond the diagnosis. Enhancing our understanding of the heterogeneity of twice-exceptionality can further inform practitioners and policymakers about unique educational interventions and supports. Future research that integrates both variable- and person-centered methodologies will be essential to more fully capture the complexity of twice-exceptionality and enhance efforts to equitably support students' talent development and well-being.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-20">Conclusion</hd> <p>Twice-exceptional learners are a uniquely diverse population with exceptional abilities and specific needs. This seemingly paradoxical combination challenges traditional approaches to gifted education and special education. However, through continued research that informs the application of evidence-based practices, educators and policymakers are well-positioned ensure equitable access to talent development opportunities for their students.</p> <hd id="AN0190206209-21">ORCID iDs</hd> <p>Susan G. Assouline https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3706-2446</p> <p>Madison Trog https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5835-2113</p> <ref id="AN0190206209-22"> <title> Notes </title> <blist> <bibl id="bib1" idref="ref14" type="bt">1</bibl> <bibtext> The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib2" idref="ref18" type="bt">2</bibl> <bibtext> The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib3" idref="ref7" type="bt">3</bibl> <bibtext> Predating the Jacob K. Javits Act was a report ([16]) commissioned by the U.S. Congress, which set forth a description of gifted and talented students. A full discussion of the evolution of the initial definition from 1972 to the current NAGC definition is beyond the scope of this article.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib4" idref="ref9" type="bt">4</bibl> <bibtext> IDEA Disability Categories ([25]; [26]): Autism, Deaf Blindness, Deafness, Developmental Delay, Emotional Disability, Hearing impairment, Intellectual Disability, Multiple Disabilities, Orthopedic Impairment, Other Health Impairments, Speech or Language Impairment, Traumatic Brain Injury, Visual Impairment.</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <ref id="AN0190206209-23"> <title> References </title> <blist> <bibtext> Assouline S. G., Foley Nicpon M., Dockery L. (2012). Predicting the academic achievement of gifted students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42(9), 1781–1789. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-011-1403-x</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Assouline S. G., Foley-Nicpon M., Whiteman C. S. (2010). Cognitive and psychosocial characteristics of gifted students with written language disability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54(2), 102–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986209355974</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Assouline S. G., Whiteman C. S. (2011). Twice-exceptionality: Implications for school psychologists in the post–IDEA 2004 era. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27(4), 380–402. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377903.2011.616576</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Casten L. G., Thomas T. R., Doobay A. F., Foley-Nicpon M., Kramer S., Nickl-Jockschat T., Abel T., Assouline S., Michaelson J. J. (2023). The combination of autism and exceptional cognitive ability is associated with suicidal ideation. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 188, 107–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2022.107698</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib5" idref="ref16" type="bt">5</bibl> <bibtext> Doobay A. F., Foley-Nicpon M., Ali S. R., Assouline S. G. (2014). Cognitive, adaptive, and psychosocial differences between high ability youth with and without autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(8), 2026–2040. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-014-2082-1</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib6" idref="ref2" type="bt">6</bibl> <bibtext> Education for All Handicapped Children Act. (1975). Pub. L. No. 94-142, 89 Stat. 773.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib7" idref="ref24" type="bt">7</bibl> <bibtext> Ferri B. A., Gregg N., Heggoy S. J. (1997). Profiles of college students demonstrating learning disabilities with and without giftedness. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(5), 552–559. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949703000511</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib8" idref="ref13" type="bt">8</bibl> <bibtext> Foley Nicpon M., Allmon A., Sieck B., Stinson R. D. (2011). Empirical investigation of twice-exceptionality: Where have we been and where are we going? Gifted Child Quarterly, 55(1), 3–17. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986210382575</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibl id="bib9" idref="ref10" type="bt">9</bibl> <bibtext> Foley-Nicpon M., Assouline S. G. (2020). High ability students with coexisting disabilities: Implications for school psychological practice. Psychology in the Schools, 57, 1615–1626. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.22342</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Foley-Nicpon M., Rickels H., Assouline S. G., Richards A. (2012). Self-esteem and self-concept examination among gifted students with ADHD. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 35(3), 220–240. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353212451735</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gallagher J. J. (1988). National agenda for educating gifted students: Statement of priorities. Exceptional Children, 55(2), 107–114. (Original work published 1988). https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298805500202</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Gerken K. (1978). An unseen minority: Handicapped individual who are gifted and talented. In Colangelo N., Zaffran R. (Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 117–130). Kendall/Hunt.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Hedley D., Uljarević M., Foley K.-R., Richdale A., Troller J. (2018). Risk and protective factors underlying depression and suicidal ideation in autism spectrum disorder. Depression and Anxiety, 35(7), 648–657. https://doi.org/10.1002/da.22759</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> LeBeau B., Assouline S. G., Foley-Nicpon M., Lupkowski-Shoplik A., Schabilion K. (2025). Likelihood of whole-grade or subject acceleration for twice-exceptional students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 69(3), 237–254. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862241302813</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Maddocks D. (2018). The identification of students who are gifted and have a learning disability: A comparison of different diagnostic criteria. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 175–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752096</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Marland S. P. Jr. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by the U.S. Commissioner of education (vols. 1–2). U.S. Government Printing Office. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED056243</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Mather N., Wendling B. J. (2010). How SLD manifests in writing. In Flanagan D. P., Alfonso V. (Eds.), Essentials of specific learning disability identification (pp. 65–88). John Wiley & Sons.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Michaelson J. J., Doobay A., Cardenas C., Schabilion K., Foley-Nicpon M., Nickl-Jochschat T., Abel T., Assouline S. G. (2022). Autism in gifted youth is associated with low processing speed and high verbal ability. medRxiv. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.02.21265802</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Prihananto E. (n.d.). Free bell curve vector. Vecteezy. [Vector graphic]. https://<ulink href="http://www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/bell-curve">www.vecteezy.com/free-vector/bell-curve</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis S. M., Baum S. M., Burke E. (2014). An operational definition of twice-exceptional learners: Implications and applications. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(3), 217–230. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986214534976</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> 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(2), 123–134. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620004400205</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Reis S. M., Neu T. W., McGuire J. M. (1995). Talents in two places: Case studies of high ability students with learning disabilities who have achieved (research monograph 95114). The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. University of Connecticut. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED388021</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Schabilion K. (2020). Investigating cognitive and psychosocial variables related to diagnosis of SLD in writing among high-ability students. (Publication No. 27830663) [Doctoral Dissertation, University of Iowa]. ProQuest Dissertations and Theses.</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> United States Congress. (1988). Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented Students education act of 1988. Pub. L. No. 100–297, 102 Stat. 130. https://<ulink href="http://www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/senate-bill/303">www.congress.gov/bill/100th-congress/senate-bill/303</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-a). Individuals with disabilities education act (IDEA). https://<ulink href="http://www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/idea">www.ed.gov/laws-and-policy/individuals-disabilities/idea</ulink></bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.-b). A history of the individuals with disabilities education act. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/IDEA-History</bibtext> </blist> <blist> <bibtext> Whitmore J. R. (1981). Gifted children with handicapping conditions: A new frontier. Exceptional Children, 48(2), 106–114. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440298104800203</bibtext> </blist> </ref> <aug> <p>By Susan G. Assouline; Katherine Schabilion and Madison Trog</p> <p>Reported by Author; Author; Author</p> </aug> <nolink nlid="nl1" bibid="bib24" firstref="ref1"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl2" bibid="bib12" firstref="ref3"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl3" bibid="bib27" firstref="ref4"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl4" bibid="bib26" firstref="ref5"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl5" bibid="bib11" firstref="ref8"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl6" bibid="bib22" firstref="ref11"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl7" bibid="bib20" firstref="ref12"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl8" bibid="bib10" firstref="ref15"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl9" bibid="bib18" firstref="ref17"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl10" bibid="bib23" firstref="ref19"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl11" bibid="bib15" firstref="ref23"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl12" bibid="bib21" firstref="ref25"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl13" bibid="bib17" firstref="ref26"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl14" bibid="bib14" firstref="ref27"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl15" bibid="bib13" firstref="ref32"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl16" bibid="bib117" firstref="ref35"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl17" bibid="bib99" firstref="ref36"></nolink> <nolink nlid="nl18" bibid="bib19" firstref="ref37"></nolink>
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1492139
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Susan+G%2E+Assouline%22">Susan G. Assouline</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3706-2446">0000-0002-3706-2446</externalLink>)<br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Katherine+Schabilion%22">Katherine Schabilion</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="AR" term="%22Madison+Trog%22">Madison Trog</searchLink> (ORCID <externalLink term="https://orcid.org/0009-0003-5835-2113">0009-0003-5835-2113</externalLink>)
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SO" term="%22Gifted+Child+Today%22"><i>Gifted Child Today</i></searchLink>. 2026 49(1):76-84.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: SAGE Publications. 2455 Teller Road, Thousand Oaks, CA 91320. Tel: 800-818-7243; Tel: 805-499-9774; Fax: 800-583-2665; e-mail: journals@sagepub.com; Web site: https://sagepub.com
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 9
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles<br />Reports - Descriptive
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Legislation%22">Educational Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Policy%22">Educational Policy</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Twice+Exceptional%22">Twice Exceptional</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Needs%22">Student Needs</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Definitions%22">Definitions</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Academically+Gifted%22">Academically Gifted</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Students+with+Disabilities%22">Students with Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Practices%22">Educational Practices</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Student+Characteristics%22">Student Characteristics</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Equal+Education%22">Equal Education</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Federal+Legislation%22">Federal Legislation</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Educational+Research%22">Educational Research</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Talent+Identification%22">Talent Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Disability+Identification%22">Disability Identification</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Written+Language%22">Written Language</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Attention+Deficit+Hyperactivity+Disorder%22">Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Autism+Spectrum+Disorders%22">Autism Spectrum Disorders</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Learning+Disabilities%22">Learning Disabilities</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Suicide%22">Suicide</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Psychological+Patterns%22">Psychological Patterns</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="DE" term="%22Acceleration+%28Education%29%22">Acceleration (Education)</searchLink>
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Laws, Policies and Program Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: <searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Education+for+All+Handicapped+Children+Act%22">Education for All Handicapped Children Act</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Individuals+with+Disabilities+Education+Act%22">Individuals with Disabilities Education Act</searchLink><br /><searchLink fieldCode="SU" term="%22Jacob+K+Javits+Gifted+and+Talented+Students+Education+Act+1988%22">Jacob K Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act 1988</searchLink>
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1177/10762175251381364
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1076-2175<br />2162-951X
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: This article describes the historical evolution of U.S. federal education policy as it pertains to the constructs of disability and giftedness, which were originally treated as distinct domains. However, policy shifts and research initiatives revealed the intersection of the two domains, which led to recognition of twice-exceptional individuals as learners with unique needs related to talent development. Evolving definitions and educational practice shaped two decades of research. A case-example highlights the importance of comprehensive psychoeducational evaluations to understand the nuanced educational and social-emotional needs of twice-exceptional learners. Seven recommendations focus on strength-based approaches to educational practice.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2026
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1492139
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1492139
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1177/10762175251381364
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 9
        StartPage: 76
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Educational Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Policy
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Twice Exceptional
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Needs
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Definitions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Academically Gifted
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Students with Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Practices
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Characteristics
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Equal Education
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Federal Legislation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Educational Research
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Talent Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Disability Identification
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Written Language
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Autism Spectrum Disorders
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Learning Disabilities
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Suicide
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Psychological Patterns
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Acceleration (Education)
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Education for All Handicapped Children Act
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Jacob K Javits Gifted and Talented Students Education Act 1988
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Evolving Educational Legislation Transforms Twice-Exceptional Research and Educational Practice
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Susan G. Assouline
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Katherine Schabilion
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Madison Trog
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2026
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1076-2175
            – Type: issn-electronic
              Value: 2162-951X
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 49
            – Type: issue
              Value: 1
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Gifted Child Today
              Type: main
ResultId 1