What Makes Giftedness?Reexamining a Definitionby Joseph S. Renzulli

T hroughout recorded history andundoubtedly even before records

were kept, people have always been in-terested in men and women who displaysuperior ability. As early as 2200 B.C . theChinese had developed an elaborate sys-tem of competitive examinations to selectoutstanding persons for government posi-tions, t and down through the ages almostevery culture has been fascinated by itsmost able citizens . Although the areas ofperformance

in

which

one _ might berecognized as a gifted person are deter-mined by the needs and values of theprevailing culture, scholars and layper-sons alike have debated (and continue todebate) the age-old question : What makesgiftedness?

The purpose of this article is thereforethreefold. First, I shall analyze some pastand current definitions of giftedness . Sec-ond, I shall review studies that deal withcharacteristics of gifted individuals . Final-ly, I shall present a new definition ofgiftedness that is operational, i.e., usefulto school personnel, and defensible interms of research findings .

The Definition Continuum

Numerous conceptions and countlessdefinitions of giftedness have been putforth over the years. Oneway ofanalyzingexisting definitions is to view them along acontinuum ranging from "conservative"to "liberal," i.e ., according to the degreeof restrictiveness used in determining whois eligible for special programs and ser-vices .

Restrictiveness can be expressed in two

JOSEPH S. RENZULL! (University ofVirginia Chapters is associate director of theBureau ofEducational Research, University ofConnecticut, Storrs. © 1978 by Joseph S. Ren-zulli.

PHI DELTA KAPPAN

ways. . First,

a definition

can - limit

thenumber of performance areas that areconsidered in determining eligibility forspecial programs. A conservative defini-tion, for example, might limit eligibility toacademic performance only and excludeother areas such as music, art, drama,leadership, public speaking, social service,and creative writing. Second, a definitionmay specify the degree or level of ex-cellence one must attain to be consideredgifted .

At the conservative end of the con-tinuum is Lewis Terman's definition ofgiftedness, "the top 1 076 level in generalintellectual ability, .as measured by theStanford-Binet Intelligence Scale or acomparable instrument ." 2

- "Sue," 1970,by Ramon B. Price. Bronze.

.1lr. Ren=ulli offers a nFU, research-hosed definition of the gifted and talented .!t i% an operational definition intended to help the practitioner .

In this definition restrictiveness is pres-ent in terms of both the type of perfor-mance specified (i .e ., how well one scoreson an intelligence test) and the level ofperformance one must attain to be con-sidered gifted (top 1 17o) . At the other endof the continuum may be found more lib-eral definitions, such as the following oneby Paul Witty:

There are children whose outstand .ing potentialities in art, in writing, or insocial leadership can be recognizedlargely by their performance . Hence, wehave recommended that the definitionof giftedness be expanded and that weconsider any child gifted whosc perfor-mance, in a potentially valuable line ofhuman activity, is consistently re-markablc . 3

Although_ liberal definitions have theobvious advantage of expanding the con-ception

. of ,giftedness, they also�open up-two 'cansof worms'.' by introducing thevalues issue, (What, are the potentiallyvaluablelines of human activity?) and, theage-old problem of subjectivity inmeasurement .

In recent years the values issue hasbeen largely resolved . There are very feweducators who cling to a "straight IQ" orpurely academic definition of giftedness ."Multiple talent" and "multiple criteria"are almost the bywords of the present-daygifted student movement, and most edu-cators would have little difficulty in ac-cepting a definition that includes almostevery area of human activity that mani-fests itself in a socially useful form .

The problem of subjectivity in meas-urement is not as easily resolved . As thedefinition of giftedness is extendedbeyond those abilities clearly reflected intests of intelligence, achievement, andacademic aptitude, it becomes necessary

,o put less emphasis on precise estimatesof performance and potential and moreemphasis on the opinions of qualifiedhuman judges in making decisions aboutadmission to special programs . The issueboils down to a simple and yet very impor-tant question : How much of a trade-offare we willing to make on the objec-tive/subjective continuum in order toallow recognition of a broader spectrumof human abilities? If some degree of sub-jectivity cannot be tolerated, then ourdefinition of giftedness and the resultingprograms will logically be limited toabilities that can only be measured by ob-jective tests .

The USOE Definition

In recent years the following definitionset forth by the U .S . Office of Education(USOE) has grown in popularity, andnumerous states and school districtsthroughout the nation have adopted it fortheir programs:

Gifted and talented children arethose . . . who by virtue of outstandingabilities are capable of high perform-ance . These . . . children . . . requiredifferentiated educational programsand/or services beyond those normallyprovided by the regular school programin order to realize their (potential) con-tribution to self and society .

Children capable of high perform-ance include those who have demon-strated any of the following abilities oraptitudes, singly or in combination : I)general intellectual ability, 2) specificacademic aptitude, )) creative or pro-ductive thinking, 4) leadership ability,5) visual and performing arts aptitude,6) psychomotor ability .'

The USOE definition has served the

very useful purpose of calling attention toa wider variety of abilities that should beincluded in a definition of giftedness, butat the same time it has presented some ma-jor problems . The first lies in its failure toincludenonintellective(motivational) fac-tors . That these factors are `import'ani isborne out by an overwhelming body of re-search, which I shall consider later .A second and equally important prob-

lem relates to the nonparallel nature of the -six categories included in the definition .Two of the six categories (specific aca-demic_aptitude and visual and performingarts aptitude) call attention to fields ofhuman,endeavor or general performance�areas in which talents and abilities aremanifested . The remaining four categories

.,are more nearly processes that may bebrought to bear on performance -areas .For example, a person may bring the pro-cess of creativity to bear on a specific ap-titude (e .g ., chemistry) or a visual art(e .g ., photography). Or the processes ofleadership and general intelligence mightbe applied to a performance area such aschoreography or the management of ahigh school yearbook . In fact, it can besaid that processes such as creativity andleadership do not exist apart from a ;per-formance area to which they can be ap-plied .A third problem with the definition is

that it tends to be misinterpreted_ and .misused by practitioners . It is not uncom-mon to find educators developing entireidentification systems based on the sixUSOE categories and in the process treat-ing them as if they were mutually exclu-sive . What is equally distressing is thatmany peoplr -`talk a good game" aboutthe six categories but continue to use arelatively high intelligence or aptitudescore as a minimum requirement for en-trance into a special program. Although

both of these problems result from misap-plication rather than from the definitionitself . the definition is not entirely withoutfault, because it fails to give the kind ofguidance necessary for practitioners toavoid such pitfalls .

The Three-Ring Conception

Research on creative/productive peo-ple has consistently shown that althoughno single criterion should be used to iden-tify giftedness persons who have achievedrecognition because ofYtheir unique 1c=

¢t:omphstiMents aidereauve contnbuttohspossesssaa relative ly,-well defined set of ;`rcc interlocking cIusbtcrs of tracts These'

dusters consist of above-average though~to`f ncccs~arOy'~'3uperaotA getiet"al ability; -task -commitment, and

creativity ::-(see° +Figure I-) . ")t ts iniportant .topoint.outthatno . single cluster

"makes giftedness :"Rather, it is the interaction among thethree clusters that research has shown tobe the necessary ingredient for crea-tive/productive accomplishment . This in-teraction is represented by the shaded por-tion of Figure l . It is also important topoint out that each cluster is an "equalpartner" in contributing to giftedness .This point is important. One of the majorerrors that continues to be made in iden-tification procedures is overemphasis onsuperior abilities at the expense of theother two clusters of traits .

Figure 1 . The IngredientsOf Giftedness

Above-AverageAbillt

WIN qi

TaskCommitment

Creativity

Above-Average General Ability

Although the influence of intelligence,as traditionally measured, quite obviouslyvaries with areas of achievement, manyresearchers have found that creative ac-complishment is not necessarily a functionof measured intelligence . In a review ofseveral research studies dealing with therelationship between academic aptitudetests and professional achievement, M. A .Wallach has concluded that :

Above intermediate score levels,academic skills assessments are found to

States Define GiftednessTwenty-six states now define children who are exceptional. by virtue of

giftedness either in statutes or in state department of education regulations.'Pennsylvania, Idaho, Florida, and North Carolina require the same formal IEP(individualized education program) for the gifted as is mandated for the handi-capped in the federal Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P .L. 94-142) .

This information comes from Christine Lewis, the Montgomery County In-termediate Unit IEP facilitator for the gifted in Norristown . Pennsylvania .

'F . A. Karnes and E. C. Collins . "State Definitions of Gifted and Talented :A Report and AnalysisJournal of the Education of the Gifted, February, 1979 . pp . 44-62.

show so little criterion validity as to be aquestionable basis on which to makeconsequential decisions about students'futures . What the academic tests dopredict are the results a person will ob-tain on other tests of the same kinds

Wallach goes on to point out thatacademic test scores at the upperranges - precisely the score levels thatare most often used for selecting personsfor entrance into special programs - donot necessarily reflect the potential forcreative/productive accomplishment. Hesuggests that test scores be used to screenout persons who score in the lower rangesand that beyond this point decisions bebased on other indicators of potential forsuperior performance.

Numerous research studies supportWallach's finding that there is little;rela-tionship :between test scores and schoolgrades on the one hand and real world ac-complishments on the other. 6 -3n fact, astudy dealing with the prediction ofvarious dimensions of achievement amongcollege students, made by J. L. Hollandand A. W. Astin, found that

. . . getting good grades in college haslittle connection with more remote andmore socially relevant kinds of achieve-ment ; indeed, in some colleges, thehigher the student's grades, the less like-ly it is that he is a person with creativepotential. So it seems desirable to ex-tend our criteria of talented perform-ance.

-

A study by the American CollegeTesting Program titled "Varieties of Ac-complishment After College: Perspectiveson the Meaning of Academic Talent"concluded :

The adult accomplishments werefound to be uncorrelated with academictalent, including test scores, high schoolgrades, and college grades . However,the adult accomplishments were relatedto comparable high school nonacademic(extracurricular) accomplishments. Thissuggests that there are many kinds oftalents related to later success whichmight be identified and nurtured byeducational institutions .a

The pervasiveness of this general find-ing is demonstrated by D. P. Hoyt, whoreviewed 46 studies dealing with the rela-tionship between traditional indicationsof academic success and post-college per-formance in the fields of business, teach-ing, engineering, medicine, scientific re-search, and other areas such as theministry, journalism, government, andmiscellaneous professions .9 From this ex-tensive review, Hoyt concluded that tradi-tional 'indications of academic successhave no more than a very modest correla-tion with various indicators of success inthe adult world. He observes, "There isgood reason to believe that academicachievement (knowledge) and other typesof educational growth and developmentare relatively independent of each other."

These studies raise some basic ques-tions about the use of tests in makingselection decisions. The studies clearly in-dicate that vast .numbersandproportions .of our most productive persons are notthose who scored at the ninety-fifth orabove percentile on standardized tests,nor, were they necessarily straight-A,students whodiscoveredearly howto playthe"esson-learning game! In other words,more creative/productive persons comefrom below the ninety-fifth percentilethan above it, and if such cut-off scoresare needed to determine entrance intospecial programs, we may be guilty of ac-tually discriminating against persons whohave the greatest potential_ for high levelsof accomplishment.

Task Commitment

A second cluster of traits that are con-sistently found in creative/productive per-sons constitutes a refined or focused formof motivation known as task commit-ment . Whereas motivation is usually de-fined in terms of a general energizingprocess that triggers responses in organ-isms, task commitment represents energybrought to bear on a particular problem(task) or specific performance area .

The argument for including this non-intellective cluster of traits in a definitionof giftedness is nothing short of over-

whelming. From popular maxims andautobiographical accounts to hard-coreresearch findings, one of the key ingre-dients that has characterized the work ofgifted persons is the ability to involveoneself totally in a problem or area for anextended period of time .

The legacy of both Sir Francis Gallonand Lewis Terman clearly indicates thattask commitment is an important part ofthe making of a gifted person . AlthoughGalton was a strong proponent of thehereditary basis for what he called"natural ability," he nevertheless sub-scribed strongly to the belief that hardwork was part and parcel of giftedness :

By natural ability I mean thosequalities of intellect and dispositionwhich urge and .qualify a man to per-form acts that lead to r:putation . 1 donot mean capacity without zeal, nor zealwithout capacity, nor even a combina-tion of both of them. without an ade-quate power of doing a great deal ofvery laborious work . But I mean anature which, when left to itself, will,urged by an inherent stimulus, climb thepath that leads to eminence and hasstrength to reach the summit - onwhich, if hindered o. thwarted, it willfret and strive until the hindrance isovercome, and it is again free to followits laboring instinct . 10

Terman's monumental studies un-doubtedly represent the most widelyrecognized and frequently quoted re-search on the characteristics of gifted per-sons . Terman's studies, however, haveunintentionally left a mixed legacy,because most persons have dwelt (andcontinue to dwell) on "early Terman"rather than on the conclusions he reachedafter several decades of intensive research .Therefore it is important to consider thefollowing conclusion, reached after 30years of follow-up studies on his initialpopulation :

. . . (Al detailed analysis was made ofthe 150 most successful and 150 leastsuccessful men among the gifted sub-jects in an attempt to identify come ofthe nonintellectual factors that affectlife success . . . . Since the less suc-cessful subjects do not differ to any ex-tent in intelligence as measured by tests,it u clear that notable achievement callsfor more than a high order of intelli-gence.

The results lof the follow-upl in-dicated [hat =personality factors are ax--'Irerhely,-`important . <determ tters . ofachievement . . : . The . four, Irarts, on -'which Ithe.,.most and least :successful .: .groups) differed most widely were_ per--=srstence rn the accomplishment ofends.integration . toward kbafi. self-con .idence and jreerium Born_

rnfrnor relyfeeltnx~. In the totalpiefuii the greatest''contrast between the two groups was inall-round ,emotional and,iocial -adjust-meet -and . in -.drive to -achieve .' 1 (Em-phisis `Added)

Oh cursed be it that bade me seeoh inefficient clarityoh clarion clarinet's reedy wheezewhich, while on pitch,is still unclearis still some distant other's tunerising stillso faint I can't quite catch the beatcan't march in time my tapping feet feel but the rhythms of the moonwhich rises even in the midstoh sweet oblivionthou kissed but fools and left me crutches clutched and fallingto this half-heard songthis ill-reared impwho pecks from fernsnow here, now wherewhat frolicking fiendish flutist thouwon't let me hearwon't let me bewho keeps me but a helpless mutewho hears yet can't return a phrasewhat cryptic crippling arias raisethis ambered antthis muscle frozen in mid-reacheach to eachit calls, it callsthat tortuous truth that won't be goodor understoodit falls.Would that I could rest,nay fall asleepthat it would fall on canceled earsor veiled eyes, inert to weepthe silent cold .and running winean opiatea tonic weedin anesthetic healing artpretends, complete, the pauper's peace.

JESSICA MAXWELL is one of 69 gifted children whose careers are beingfollowed by Mary Meeker, president of the SOI Institute in El Segundo, Calif.A former Mademoiselle editor, Ms. Maxwell is now a Los Angeles Timescolumnist .

Although Terman never suggested thattask commitment should replace intelli-gence in our conception of giftedness, hedid state that "intellect and achievementare far from perfectly correlated ."

Several more recent studies support thefindings of Galton and Terman and haveshown that creative/productive personsare far more task oriented and involved intheir work than are. people in the generalpopulation, Perhaps the best known ofthese studies is the work of A. . Roe and D.W. MacKinnon. Roe conducted an inten-sive study of the characteristics of 64 emi-nent scientists and found that all of hersubjects had a high level of commitmentto their work . 12 MacKinnon pointed outtraits that were important in creative ac-complishments: "It is clear that creativearchitects more often stress their inven-tiveness, independence, and individuality .

Kohlberg's Level Sixby Jessica Maxwell

their enthusiasm, determination, and in-dustry" 13 (emphasis added) .

Extensive reviews of research carriedout by J. C. Nicholls 14 and H . G. McCur-dy" found patterns of characteristics thatwere consistently similar to the findingsreported by Roe and MacKinnon . Al-though the researchers cited thus far useddifferent procedures and dealt with avariety of populations, there is a strikingsimilarity in their major conclusions .First, academic ability (as traditionallymeasured by tests or grade-point averages)showed limited relationships to crea-tive/productive accomplishment . Second,nonintellectual factors, and especiallythose that relate to task commitment, con-sistently played an important part in thecluster of . traits that characterize highlyproductive people . Although this secondcluster of traits ~s not as easily and objcc-

Figure 2. A Graphic Definition of Giftedness

Above-AverageA

q7W-1AN

TaskCommitment

Creativity

GENERAL PERFORMANCE AREAS

Mathematics " Visual Arts " Physical Sciences .Philosophy " Social Sciences " Law " Religion .Language Arts " Music " Life Sciences " MovementArts

SPECIFIC PERFORMANCE AREAS

Cartooning " Astronomy " Public Opinion Polling.Jewelry Design " Map Making " ChoreographyBiography " Film Making " Statistics " LocalHistory " Electronics " Musical CompositionLandscape Architecture " ChemistryDemography " Microphotography " City PlanningPollution Control " Poetry " Fashion Design "Weaving " Play Writing " Advertising " CostumeDesign " Meteorology " Puppetry " MarketingGame Design_ " Journalism " Electronic MuskChild Care " Consumer Protection " CookingOrnithology " Furniture Design " NavigationGenealogy " Sculpture " Wildlife Management " SetDesign " Agricultural Research " Animal LearningFilm Criticism " Etc . " Etc . " Etc .

tively identifiable as are general cognitiveabilities, they are nevertheless a majorcomponent of giftedness and shouldtherefore be reflected in our definition .

Creativity

The third cluster of traits that char-acterize gifted persons consists of factorsthat have usually been lumped togetherunder the general heading of "creativity."As one reviews the literature in this area, itbecomes readily apparent that the words"gifted," "genius," and "eminent cre-ators" or "highly creative persons" areused synonymously . In many of the re-search projects discussed above, the per-sons ultimately selected for intensive studywere in fact recognized because of theircreative accomplishments. In MacKin-non's study, for example, panels of quali-fied judges (professors of architecture andeditors of major American architecturaljournals) were asked first to nominate andlater to rate an initial pool of nominees,using the following dimensions of creativi-ty : 1) originality of thinking and freshnessof approaches to architectural problems,2) constructive ingenuity, 3) ability to setaside established conventions and pro-cedures when appropriate, and 4) a flairfor devising effective and original ful-fillments of the major demands of archi-tecture : namely, technology (firmness),visual form (delight), planning (commodi-ty), and human awareness and social pur-pose . to

When discussing creativity, it is impor-tant to consider the problems researchershave encountered in establishing relation-ships between scores on creativity testsand other more substantial accomplish-ments. A major issue that has been raisedby several investigators deals with whetheror not tests of divergent thinking actuallymeasure "true" creativity . Althoughsome validation studies have reportedlimited relationships between measures of

divergent thinking and creative perform-ance criteria, l' the research evidence forthe predictive validity of such tests hasbeen limited. Unfortunately, very fewtests have been validated against real-lifecriteria of creative accomplishment, andin cases where such studies have been con-ducted the creativity test : . ;ve done poor-ly. le Thus, although divergent ; thinking isindeed a characteristic of highly creativepersons, caution should be exercised inthe use and interpretation of tests de-,;signed to measure this capacity .

Given the inherent limitations ofcreativity tests, a number of writers havefocused attention on alternative methodsfor assessing creativity. Among others,Nicholls suggests that an analysis ofcreative products is preferable to the trait-based approach in making predictionsabout creative potential, 19 and Wallachproposes that student self-reports aboutcreative accomplishment are sufficientlyaccurate to provide a usable source ofdata .2°

Although few persons would argueagainst the importance of includingcreativity in a definition of giftedness, theconclusions and recommendations dis-cussed above raise the haunting issue ofsubjectivity in measurement . In view ofwhat the research suggests about the ques-tionable value of more objective measuresof divergent thinking, perhaps the timehas come for persons in all areas ofendeavor to develop more careful pro-cedures for evaluating the products ofcandidates for special programs .

Discussion and Generalizations

The studies reviewed above lend sup-port to a small number of basic general-izations that can be used to develop anoperational definition of giftedness. Thefirst is that giftedness consists of an in-teraction among three clusters of traits -above-average but not necessarily superior

general abilities, task commitment, andcreativity . Any definition or set of iden-tification procedures that does not giveequal attention to all three clusters issimply ignoring the results of the bestavailable research dealing with this topic.

Related to this generalization is theneed to make a distinction between tradi-tional indicators of academic proficiencyand creative productivity . A sad but truefact is that_ special programs have favoredproficient lesson learners and test takers atthe expense of persons who may scoresomewhat lower on tests but who morethan compensate for such scores by hav-ing high levels of task commitment andcreativity . Research has shown that mem-bers of this group ultimately make themost creative/productive contributions totheir respective fields of endeavor.A second generalization is that an

operational definition should be appli-cable to all socially useful performanceareas. The one thing that the three clustersdiscussed above have in common is thateach can be brought to bear on a multi-tude of specific performance areas. Aswas indicated earlier, the interaction oroverlap among the clusters "makes gifted-ness," but giftedness does not exist in avacuum. Our definition must, therefore,reflect yet another interaction ; but in thiscase it is the interaction between theoverlap of the clusters and any perform-ance area to which the overlap might beapplied. This interaction is represented bythe large arrow in Figure 2.A third and final generalization is con-

cerned with the types of information thatshould be used to identify superior per-formance in specific areas. Although it isa relatively easy task to include specificperformance areas in a definition,developing identification procedures thatwill enable us to recognize specific areasof superior performance is more difficult.Test developers have thus far devotedmost of their energy to producing

measures of general ability, and this em-phasis is undoubtedly why these tests arerested upon so heavily in identification .However, an operational definitionshould give direction to needed researchand development, especially as these ac-

tivities relate to instruments and pro-

cedures for student selection. -A defensibledefinition can thus become a model thatwill generate vast amount: of appropriateresearch in the years ahead.

A Definition of Giftedness

Although no single sta(ement can ef-fectively integrate the many ramificationsof the research studies described above,the following definition of giftedness at-tempts to summarize the major conclu-stuns and generalizations resulting fromthis review of research :

Giftedness corsis :s of an interactionamong three basic clusters of humantraits - these clusters being above-average general abilities, high levels oftask commitment, and high levels ofcrcativi(y . (lifted and talented childrenare those possessing or capable ofdeveloping this composite set of traitsand applying them to any potentiallyvaluable area of human performance.Children who manifest or arc capable ofdeveloping an interaction among thethree clusters require a wide variety ofeducational opportunities and servicesthat are not ordinarily provided throughregular instructional programs .

A graphic representation of this defini-tion is presented in Figure 2. The dclint-tion is an operational one because it meetsthree important criteria . First, it is derivedfrom the best available research studiesdealing with characteristics of gifted andtalented individuals . Second, it providesguidance for !he selection and/or develop-ment of instruments and procedures that

can be used to design defensible iden-tification systems. And finally, the defini-tion provides direction for programmingpractices that will capitalize upon thecharacteristics that bring gifted youngstersto our attention as learners with ,pecialneeds.

I .

P. H. DuBois . .4 History ofPsychological Testing(Boston : Allyn & Bacon. 19'70)-2.

L. `( . Terman et al ., Genetic Studies of Genius:Mental and Physical Traits of a Thousand GiftedChildren tStanfurd, Calif. : Stanford University Press,19261, p. 43 .3 . P .A . Writ,, "W'liu Are the CiiIlrd?" in N. B.Hew% . ed ., pJu,vn�ri of the Gifted, fifty-seventhYcarbuok of the National Society fur the Study ofEducation, Part 11 (Chicago : University of (ChicagoPress. 195x). p. 62 .3 . S. P. Marland, Education of the Gifted andTalented. Report to the Congress of the United Statesby the U.S . Cuntmissioner of Education andBackground Paper, Submitted to the U .S . Office ofEducation (Washington. D.C . : U.S . GovernmentPrinting Office, 1972). (Definition edited for clarity.)5 . hl . A. Wallach, "Tests Tell Us Little AboutTalent," American Scientist . vol. 64, 1976, p. 57 .6- M. B. Parloff et al ., "Personality CharacteristicsWhich Differentiate Creative Male Adolescents andAdults." Journal of Personality, vol. 36, 1%8, pp .528-52 ; M . T. Mednick, "Research Creativity inPsychology Graduate Students." Journal of Con-iultinq Psychology, sot. 27, 1963 . pp . 265, 266; M. A.Wallach and C. W. Wing, Jr . . The Talented Students:.4 Validation of the Creativity Intelligence Distinction(New York : Holi, Rinehart and Winston. 1969); J. M.Richards . Jr . et al ., "Prediction of Student Ac-complishmeni in College," Journal of EducationalP,s-chology, vol. 58, 1967, pp . 343-55 ; L. R . Harmon ."The Development of a Criterion of Scientific Com-fie(cncc ." in C. W. raylur and F. Barron . eds., Scion.Wit Creutnvtv : Ir, RIIwcnition and Development(New York : John W %ley and lions, (96)1, pp . 44-52; B.S. Bloom, "Report tin Creativity Research by the Ex-aminer's Office of the University of Chicago," inTaylor and Barron . op . cit . ; and L. Hudson, "DegreeClass and Attainment in Scientific Research," BritishJournal of Psychology, vol . 51, 1960, pp . 67-73.

J . L. Holland and A. W. Astin, "The Predictionof the Academic, Artistic, Scientific . and SocialAchievement of Undergraduates of SuperiorScholastic Aptitude," Journal of EducationalPsychology, vol . 53 . 1962, pp . 132, 133.

Printed November 1979, CHRONICLE GUIDANCE Publications, Inc. . Morovia, NY 17118

United States of America

8. L. A. Munday and J . C. Davis. fariehes of .4,complishment After College: Peripecti"s -nn thMeaning ofAcademic Talent, Research Report No, 6(Iowa City, la . : Amcriean College Testing Program1974). p. 2 .9. D. P. Hoyt . The Relationship Between ColleyGrades and Adult Achievement: A Review of thLiterature . Research Report NO . 7 (Iowa City, toAmerican College Testing Program, I%5).10 . Francis Galion . as quoted in R, S . .Albcr"Toward a Behavioral Definition of Genius .American Psychologist, vol . 30, 1975, p . tat,11 .

L. M. Terman, Genetic Studies of Genius: TlGifted Group at .Mid-Life (Stanford. Calif, : SianfurUniversity Press. 1959) . p. 148 .12 .

A. Roe, The Making of a Scientist (New YoriDodd, Mead . 1952).

-13 .

D. W. MacKinnon. "Personality and the Re.ilit .lion of Creative Potential," American P,YchahigoVOL 20 . 1965, p. 365.14 . 7 . C. Nicholls, "Creativity m the Per,on WhWill Never Produce Anything Original and UvctuThe Concept of Creativity as a Normally Dwnbui,Trait," American Psychologist, vol . 27, 1972, pt717-27 .15 . H. G. McCurdy. "The Childhood Pattern ,Genius ." Horizon, vol. 2, 1960, pp 33-38 .16 . D. W. MacKinnon. "The Creativity vi .Achitects ." in C. W. Taylor, ed ., Widening HorizonsCreativity (New York : John Wiley and Sun,, 1964), ;360.17 . E. P. Torrance . "Prediction of Adult CrcawAchievement Among High School Seniors," Gift,Child Quarterly, vol . 13 . 1969, pp . 223-29: FJ . Shapiro. "Creative Research Scientist,." PichuloRw AJticana . 1968, Supplement No . 4; fit . Dell .and E. L. Gaier, "Identification of Creativity : The 1 :dividua1," Psychological Bulletin, vol . 73 . 1970, p ;55-73; and J . P. Guilford, "Some New Looks at itNature of Creative Processes." in M. Frederick.icand H. Gilliksen, eds., Contributions to MatheniaucPsychology (New York : Halt, Rinehartand Winsio:1964).I8 .

S. B. Crockenburg . "Creativity Te,ts : A BoonBoondoggle for Education?" Rrvuw of Education .Research, vol. 42, 1972 . pp . 2'.-s5 .19 . Nicholls, op . cit ., p. 721 .20 .

Wallach, up . cit .