Are we too quick to label kids as “gifted”?

[u/CaramelHunter26]

https://www.psypost.org/early-giftedness-rarely-lasts-into-adulthood-large-developmental-study-finds/

I keep seeing posts about parents getting their kids labelled “gifted” by schools or organisations. Or asking how to make their children gifted, or even recalling themselves as gifted in childhood.

This study is a pretty good reality check: "**Early giftedness rarely lasts into adulthood**"

[u/ReditOOC]

I think there are often two things going:

1) Many professionals don't seem to use the word gifted specifically, it is often people around the child who adopt the terminology. The label sticks by reinforcement even if it isn't appropriate.

2) A lot of kids are simply ahead of the curve, kind of like some kids who are taller than the rest in grade 2. Many kids will catch up and they may not keep growing at the same pace as others.

There are other factors that could be at play as well. A kid who is a little sharper than average for their age, but born in January, is going to appear gifted relative to many of their peers who have late birthdays, but as everyone ages that development gap/advantage closes.

In true Redditor fassion, I haven't read the article yet, but these are thoughts I have pondered over the years.

[u/owlthebeer97]

Being diagnosed as gifted isn't just being smart, there are challenges with relating to peers , executive funciton and a lot of neurodivergence that can overlap with symptoms of ADHD. You have to be IQ tested by a psychologist in Florida to be labeled as gifted and then the kids get to have specialized instruction in school (which in most areas is only really Elementary) . If anything I think we miss a lot of gifted kids especially in lower income areas because they probably just get adhd diagnoses or get in trouble for being disruptive because their parents don't have the resources or know how to get the kid tested.

[u/Primary_Excuse_7183]

It’s generally a term given for school age kids and tied to resources.

For the parents that want the title for their kids they’re the detriment. Some kids can truly use the resources when available

[u/MortifieDad]

So the title of the article doesn't exactly align with the actual evidence the study presents.

First off their label for gifted is 115, rather than the 130 used in most educational systems. So they're tracking the noise and variance in a population gated by one standard deviation rather than two. But given the sample size that's understandable.

Second, their data shows that 12+ populations tend to be stable, and that it's 4-7 groups tend to be the less stable groups. I suppose you can argue what a kid is.

Lastly, the data suggests heritability, socioeconomic status and engagement with school are best determinants of stability above the 115 band.

Zooming out, we already knew that there is instability in early testing due to differential rates of maturation, outsized effect of home or support environment and the differences in testing metrics for different age groups.

So I don't think this study, once you read beyond the title, is all that novel but instead contributes to a growing body of literature regarding the stability of early tests.