Sex Differences in Underachievement and Social-Emotional Functioning of Gifted Students

IF 4 3区教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL

Gifted Child Quarterly Pub Date : 2026-04-15 DOI:10.1177/00169862261430325

Ophélie Allyssa Desmet, Tammy J. Byrd, Mariska Poelman, Marjolijn van Weerdenburg

{"title":"Sex Differences in Underachievement and Social-Emotional Functioning of Gifted Students","authors":"Ophélie Allyssa Desmet, Tammy J. Byrd, Mariska Poelman, Marjolijn van Weerdenburg","doi":"10.1177/00169862261430325","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This study examined sex differences among academically achieving and underachieving gifted students ( N = 280) in the Netherlands attending a pre-university track in secondary school. We focused on three types of underachievement: general, language arts, and STEM. Boys demonstrated higher general intelligence scores than girls, while girls showed higher general academic achievement than boys. No sex differences were found in language arts and STEM achievement. Furthermore, boys underachieved at higher rates than girls across all three achievement domains (general, language arts, and STEM). Students who underachieve in one domain are more likely to underachieve in another. Regarding social-emotional characteristics, the study identified differences between achievers and underachievers in academic-achievement motivation and social-emotional well-being, but not in academic self-concept and inquisitiveness. Our findings highlight the importance of early identification of underachievement in gifted students across multiple domains.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"133 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2026-04-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862261430325","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

This study examined sex differences among academically achieving and underachieving gifted students ( N = 280) in the Netherlands attending a pre-university track in secondary school. We focused on three types of underachievement: general, language arts, and STEM. Boys demonstrated higher general intelligence scores than girls, while girls showed higher general academic achievement than boys. No sex differences were found in language arts and STEM achievement. Furthermore, boys underachieved at higher rates than girls across all three achievement domains (general, language arts, and STEM). Students who underachieve in one domain are more likely to underachieve in another. Regarding social-emotional characteristics, the study identified differences between achievers and underachievers in academic-achievement motivation and social-emotional well-being, but not in academic self-concept and inquisitiveness. Our findings highlight the importance of early identification of underachievement in gifted students across multiple domains.

查看原文本刊更多论文

资优学生学习不良与社会情绪功能的性别差异

本研究调查了荷兰参加中学大学预科课程的学业优异和成绩不佳的天才学生（N = 280）之间的性别差异。我们关注的是三种表现不佳的学生：普通、语言艺术和STEM。男孩的一般智力得分高于女孩，而女孩的一般学业成绩高于男孩。在语言艺术和STEM成绩上没有发现性别差异。此外，在所有三个成就领域（普通、语言艺术和STEM），男孩的落后率高于女孩。在一个领域表现不佳的学生更有可能在另一个领域表现不佳。在社会情感特征方面，研究发现优等生和差等生在学业成就动机和社会情感幸福感方面存在差异，但在学业自我概念和求知欲方面没有差异。我们的研究结果强调了在多个领域早期识别资优学生表现不佳的重要性。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Gifted Child Quarterly Multiple-

CiteScore

6.30

自引率

29.00%

发文量

期刊介绍： Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.