Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals
Restricted access
Research article
First published online February 27, 2016

A Welcomed Intrusion: A Response to Card and Giuliano’s Evaluation of a Gifted Program


Card and Giuliano conducted a regression discontinuity study in a large Florida school district to investigate the magnitude of academic benefits of the district’s gifted program. They found that for children identified as gifted through an intelligence test, the program provided few or no benefits. But children who were admitted to the gifted program because of high achievement test scores received academic benefits in multiple school subjects. This study—performed by economists with no vested interest in educational theory or practice—is a welcomed contribution to the gifted education research because it touches upon issues of identification, diversity, program evaluation, and more. However, Card and Giuliano’s contributions to gifted education theory are more limited. Nevertheless, gifted education is better off because of their study, and I welcome other “intrusions” from non-educational scholars into gifted education research.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.


Adelson J. L., McCoach D. B., Gavin M. K. (2012). Examining the effects of gifted programming in mathematics and reading using the ECLS-K. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 25-39.
Archambault F. X., Westberg K. L., Brown S. W., Hallmark B. W., Zhang W., Emmons C. L. (1993). Classroom practices used with gifted third and fourth grade students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 16, 103-119.
Borland J. H. (2003). Evaluating gifted programs: A broader perspective. In Colangelo N., Davis G. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 293-307). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Briggs C. J., Reis S. M., Sullivan E. E. (2008). A national view of promising programs and practices for culturally, linguistically, and ethnically diverse gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 131-145.
Callahan C. M. (1996). A critical self-study of gifted education: Healthy practice, necessary evil, or sedition? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 19, 148-163.
Callahan C. M., Moon T. R., Oh S. (2013). Status of elementary gifted programs. Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented. Retrieved from
Callahan C. M., Moon T. R., Oh S., Azano A. P., Hailey E. P. (2015). What works in gifted education: Documenting the effects of an integrated curricular/instructional model for gifted students. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 137-167.
Card D., Giuliano L. (2014). Does gifted education work? For which students? (NBER Working Paper No. 20453). Retrieved from:
Dai D. Y., Swanson J. A., Cheng H. (2011). State of research on giftedness and gifted education: A survey of empirical studies published during 1998-2010 (April). Gifted Child Quarterly, 55, 126-138.
Hertberg-Davis H. (2009). Myth 7: Differentiation in the regular classroom is equivalent to gifted programs and is sufficient: Classroom teachers have the time, the skill, and the will to differentiate adequately. Gifted Child Quarterly, 53, 251-253.
Jensen A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport. CT: Praeger.
Lipsey M. W., Farran D. C., Hofer K. G. (2015). A randomized control trial of a statewide voluntary prekindergarten program on children’s skills and behaviors through third grade. Retrieved from
Lohman D. F., Gambrell J., Lakin J. (2008). The commonality of extreme discrepancies in the ability profiles of academically gifted students. Psychology Science Quarterly, 50, 269-282.
Matthews M. S., Peters S. J., Housand A. M. (2012). Regression discontinuity design in gifted and talented education research. Gifted Child Quarterly, 56, 105-112.
McArdle J. J. (2008). Studies on the impacts of minimum academic standards (Prop 48) on the academic achievements of college student-athletes. In Kyllonen P. C., Roberts R. D., Stankov L. (Eds.), Extending intelligence: Enhancement and new constructs (pp. 133-156). New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Nomi T., Allensworth E. M. (2013). Sorting and supporting: Why double-dose algebra led to better test scores but more course failures. American Educational Research Journal, 50, 756-788.
Rambo-Hernandez K. E. (2011). How much do schools matter? Using summer growth patterns to assess the impact of schools on high achieving and gifted students (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Connecticut, Storrs.
Rambo-Hernandez K. E., Warne R. T. (2015). Measuring the outliers: An introduction to out-of-level testing with high-achieving students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47, 199-207.
Renzulli J. S., Reis S. M. (1994). Research related to the schoolwide enrichment triad model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 7-20.
Ruf D. L. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Snyder K. E., Linnenbrink-Garcia L. (2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48, 209-228.
Sonnert G., Sadler P. M. (2014). The impact of taking a college pre-calculus course on students’ college calculus performance. International Journal of Mathematical Education in Science and Technology, 45, 1188-1207.
Swiatek M. A., Lupkowski-Shoplik A. (2005). An evaluation of the elementary student Talent Search by families and schools. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 247-259.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. (2010). Head Start impact study: Final report. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from
VanTassel-Baska J. (2006a). A content analysis of evaluation findings across 20 gifted programs: A clarion call for enhanced gifted program development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 199-212.
VanTassel-Baska J. (2006b). NAGC symposium: A report card on the state of research in the field of gifted education. Gifted Child Quarterly, 50, 339-341.
Wai J., Lubinski D., Benbow C. P., Steiger J. H. (2010). Accomplishment in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and its relation to STEM educational dose: A 25-year longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 860-871.
Warne R. T. (2016). Five reasons to put the g back into giftedness: An argument for applying the Cattell–Horn–Carroll theory of intelligence to gifted education research and practice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60, 3-15.
Warne R. T., Larsen R., Anderson B., Odasso A. J. (2015). The impact of participation in the Advanced Placement program on students’ college admissions test scores. The Journal of Educational Research, 108, 400-416.
Xiang Y., Dahlin M., Cronin J., Theaker R., Durant S. (2011). Do high flyers maintain their altitude? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.


Russell T. Warne is an assistant professor of psychology in the Department of Behavioral Science at Utah Valley University. He earned his doctorate degree in educational psychology from Texas A&M University in 2011. His research interests include the intersection of giftedness and human intelligence, quantitative methodology, and advanced academics.

Cite article

Cite article

Cite article


Download to reference manager

If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice

Share options


Share this article

Share with email
Share on social media

Share access to this article

Sharing links are not relevant where the article is open access and not available if you do not have a subscription.

For more information view the SAGE Journals article sharing page.

Information, rights and permissions


Published In

Article first published online: February 27, 2016
Issue published: May 2016


  1. program evaluation
  2. educational theory
  3. gifted programs

Rights and permissions

© The Author(s) 2016.
Request permissions for this article.


Published online: February 27, 2016
Issue published: May 2016



Russell T. Warne


Russell T. Warne, Department of Behavioral Science, Utah Valley University, 800 W. University Parkway MS 115, Orem, UT 84058, USA. Email: [email protected]

Metrics and citations


Journals metrics

This article was published in Journal of Advanced Academics.


Article usage*

Total views and downloads: 203

*Article usage tracking started in December 2016


See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores

Articles citing this one

Web of Science: 0

Crossref: 0

There are no citing articles to show.

Figures and tables

Figures & Media


View Options

Get access

Access options

If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:

Alternatively, view purchase options below:

Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.

Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.

View options


View PDF/ePub

Full Text

View Full Text