Dr. Devon MacEachron\'s Blog

    SUBSCRIBE

    Sign up and I'll let you know when I update the blog.
    * = required field

Breaking News! Full Scale IQ is out for identifying 2e students as gifted! Measures that capture their strengths better are in!

What is the WISC-V? The most common IQ test most of us use to assess intelligence is the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). It was first published in 1949 and is updated about every 10-12 years. We’re now on the WISC-V which came out in 2014.

What was wrong with the WISC-IV? Why did they have to change it? There are several reasons the WISC is updated. One is to reflect what we’ve learned about abilities. For example, the WISC-V places a greater emphasis on fluid intelligence which we’ve learned is a critical higher order process. It also separates fluid and visual-spatial reasoning into separate processes, as they should be. Tests are also updated in order to re-norm them. The “norm group” is the group of people in the test sample that constitute the comparison group. Newer versions of the WISC try to ensure that the norm group is representative of the current population, with representative samples from different ethnic groups, income levels, IQ levels, etc. Also, re-norming is important to compensate for the Flynn effect. I could write a whole blog about the Flynn Effect, but the gist of it is that IQ scores in the population are increasing, so if we use older IQ tests today we are likely to get inflated scores. This is one reason why scores on tests like the Stanford Binet-LM are suspect (in my opinion) as that test was published in 1972. There are newer versions of the Stanford Binet but some testers prefer to use the older version partly because it results in higher IQ scores.

But I’m supposed to be talking about the WISC-V. At first I was excited to see it conformed better to what we know about intelligence today. But then I began noticing that there are some problems, especially for 2e gifted identification. I reached out to some colleagues and it turned out a number of us were concerned. So we decided to figure out what was going on and try to do something about it.

Why is it harder to identify gifted and 2e students with the WISC-V? There were a number of changes from the WISC-IV to the WISC-V which have made it less useful in identifying gifted and 2e learners. One was to have the Full Scale IQ score calculated from only 7 tests rather than the prior 10 subtests. I can only imagine this was to make it shorter to administer. They also reduced the number of subtests in each of the key composites (Verbal Comprehension, Working Memory, etc.) from 3 subtests to just 2. They added a fifth index (visual spatial). Nice, but the use of five indexes skews the longtime balance between verbal and visual reasoning toward visual. Yet, children are often referred for testing for giftedness based on articulate verbal expression, and we need robust measures of verbal intelligence to identify them. Furthermore, substitutions are no longer allowed to accommodate disabilities; only one substitution is permitted within the Full Scale IQ score. In the past we could substitute certain tests emphasizing higher order reasoning processes which are better measures of giftedness. Discontinue criteria (the point at which the tester stops asking questions when the student has gotten several in a row wrong) on the WISC-V (compared to the WISC-IV) were shortened from four or five items missed in a row to three for most subtests. This again makes the test shorter to administer but may prevent a student from showing all they know. Use of timing on subtests has increased on the WISC-V. Two key subtests allows only 30 seconds for the most difficult items. Gifted students who are more contemplative in nature and not as speedy are really disadvantaged. Plus – and this is egregious in my opinion – they haven’t yet published an Extended Norms table for the WISC-V for calculating IQ’s of super-bright children. That deserves another separate blog post…

But let me get to the good news. We discussed the matter in the assessment committee of the National Association for Gifted Children (NAGC), and decided to take the issue on. In August 2018 we published this Position Paper with recommended guidelines for use of the WISC-V in the assessment of gifted and twice exceptional children.

All position statements are approved by the NAGC Board of Directors and are consistent with the organization’s position that education in a democracy must respect the uniqueness of all individuals.

The NAGC recommends that the WISC-V Full Scale IQ score not be required. In fact, it states: “The Full Scale score may…impede efforts to ensure that gifted classrooms, programs, and schools are accessible to children with disabilities.” This is a disability rights issue!

Instead, the NAGC recommends that any one of the following WISC-V scores (subtests in parentheses), should be accepted for use in the selection process for gifted programs:

• The Verbal (Expanded Crystallized) Index (VECI): (Similarities, Vocabulary, Information and Comprehension),
• The Nonverbal Index (NVI): (Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Coding, Figure Weights, Visual Puzzles, and Picture Span),
• The Expanded Fluid Index (EFI): (Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights, Picture Concepts, and Arithmetic),
• The General Ability Index (GAI): (Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Vocabulary, and Figure Weights),
• The Full Scale IQ Score (FSIQ): (Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Coding, Vocabulary, and Figure Weights), and/or
• The Expanded General Ability Index (EGAI): (Similarities, Vocabulary, Information, Comprehension, Block Design, Matrix Reasoning, Figure Weights and Arithmetic).

Note: The test developers (Pearson) have a technical report in progress with tables for calculating this last index. All the other indexes can be calculated by test scoring software or the use of tables in the test manual and technical reports.

Why is this important? Because now gifted children can be more readily identified for their strengths without their relative weaknesses pulling them down. This is especially critical for the twice-exceptional who have cognitive profiles full of extreme ups and downs. You don’t want to “average” that profile to the 50th percentile! In addition, if a child is gifted in one higher order reasoning area but not the other, their strength can still shine. I often work with children who are exceptional at fluid reasoning but not verbal comprehension. Or the reverse. They’re still gifted.

What should parents do? First, make sure whoever tests your child administers enough subtests to calculate the above indexes. If they just give the 7 subtests in the Full Scale IQ you won’t have what you need. You will need at least the following 13 subtests to be administered: Block Design, Similarities, Matrix Reasoning, Digit Span, Coding, Vocabulary, Figure Weights, Visual Puzzles, Picture Span, Information, Picture Concepts, Comprehension, and Arithmetic.

Second, lobby for your child using the Position Paper as support!

Where does the concept of overexcitability come from?

Overexcitability was introduced to psychology by Polish psychiatrist Kazimierz Dabrowski in the 1960’s as part of a “Theory of Positive Disintegration.” The theory proposed that psychological tension and anxiety are necessary to achieve the highest levels of personal and moral growth. Hence these “disintegrative” processes (tension and anxiety) were seen as “positive.” Dabrowski believed that some people have more “developmental potential” than others, and that high intelligence (giftedness) and overexcitability were predisposing factors.

So what exactly is overexcitability?

Dabrowski defined overexcitability as a heightened physiological experience of stimuli resulting from increased neuronal sensitivities that cause a person to experience life more intensely and to feel the extremes of joy and sorrow more profoundly. He called it a “tragic gift.”

He outlined five forms which have been elaborated by others over the years:

Psychomotor overexcitability manifests as a capacity for being active and energetic. It can include loving to move and being physically active, restlessness, speaking quickly, frequent impulsivity in action, and having high stamina.

Sensual overexcitability manifests as increased pleasure from the senses (e.g. tastes, smells, textures, sounds, and sights) and, conversely, extreme negative reactions to unpleasant sensations. It can include an exceptional dislike for particular stimuli or sensations, like the sensation of a shirt’s tag on one’s neck or the texture of certain foods.

Intellectual overexcitability manifests as an extreme desire to seek understanding, gain knowledge, and analyze and categorize information. It can include asking a lot of questions, being a quick thinker and observer, love of ideas and theoretical analysis, and the search for truth.

Imaginational overexcitability manifests as an intensified play of the imagination and vividness of imagery. It can include fantasizing, day-dreaming, a craving for novelty, and dramatization.

Emotional overexcitability manifests as a capacity for feeling emotions intensely and deeply. It can include being highly sensitive, empathetic, anxious, sad, lonely, nervous, fearful, having a heightened sense of responsibility, and a tendency toward self-examination.

What’s the link between giftedness and overexcitability?

Dąbrowski’s followers suggest that the gifted disproportionately display overexcitabilities, positive disintegration, and hence the potential to attain higher levels of personal and moral growth. The notion was popularized in the gifted education and research communities by Michael Piechowski initially in the 1970’s, Sal Mendaglio, who edited the book Dabrowski’s Theory of Positive Integration (2008), Susan Daniels and Michael Piechowski, who edited Living with Intensity (also published in 2008) and by Linda Silverman of the Gifted Development Center in Colorado, who worked with Piechowski and others on the development of the Overexcitability Questionnaire II, a self-report form widely used as a research instrument. You can try it out yourself by following the link.

I think parents find the concept appealing because it links giftedness and experiences and behaviors that could otherwise seem problematic or dysfunctional (like melt-downs over labels in clothes and extreme emotional reactivity), suggesting these are just part of the child’s gifted temperament. I personally found solace in the idea when my daughter was hypersensitive as a young child. However I have seen parents who take it to an extreme by attributing everything to only one aspect of their child’s profile (their giftedness), and ignoring areas of challenge that need to be addressed.

Is a link validated by the research?

I don’t think so. But I may get in trouble with my friends and colleagues in the gifted community for saying so. The idea that overexcitabilities are higher in the gifted has so captured the imagination and loyalty of researchers, practitioners, and parents that it has, in effect, become accepted as an article of faith or ideology. Practically every website and book written for parents on the social and emotional aspects of giftedness promulgates the view. There’s very little debate about it in the presentation to the public – it’s simply accepted as truth. That’s why I’m writing about it. It bothers me when everyone jumps on the same bandwagon without questioning where it’s going. Also, I have a problem with the idea that the gifted are more capable of attaining higher levels of moral and personal growth than the non-gifted.

Let’s look at the research literature:

On the “pro” side, in 1984 Colangelo and Piechowski summarized the literature, noting that overexcitabilities were consistently present in the gifted. Falk and Miller conducted a literature review of 28 studies in 2009, reporting that gifted individuals were significantly more overexcitable than the non-gifted, especially in the Emotional, Intellectual, and Imaginational areas. In Taiwan, Kuo and Chang (2013) concluded that gifted persons are significantly overexcitable. Many professionals involved in counseling the gifted (e.g. Linda Silverman, Ann Marie Roeper, Susan Daniels) have cited their personal professional experience as evidence that the gifted are more intense, sensitive, and overexcitable.

On the “con” side, in 2006 Mendaglio and Tillier conducted a literature review and concluded that gifted groups did not significantly outscore non-gifted groups. When Pyrt (2008) analyzed the effect sizes (strength) of the relationships reported in research studies he found most to be “small” and “trivial.” The only relationship that had a decent-sized effect was with Intellectual overexcitability. Jane Piirto, a researcher who’s made overexcitabilities her primary research focus, has administered the overexcitability questionnaire to over 600 gifted students, and who personally organized three of the first Dabrowski conferences in the U.S., was an “early adopter” but has grown skeptical over time. In an article titled “21 Years with Dabrowski Theory” she wrote that almost all the studies conducted have had small numbers of participants, making conclusions suspect, and that the only consistent finding has been for Intellectual overexcitability. A 2014 meta-analysis conducted by Daniel Winkler focused on answering the question: “Do the gifted have greater excitabilities than the non-gifted?” He did find a relationship between Intellectual overexcitability and giftedness. For the Emotional and Imaginational overexcitabilities he found that more studies failed to find a relationship than succeeded. The findings for Sensory overexcitability were deemed “insufficient.” And he reported that no studies conducted in the United States have found that the gifted have greater Psychomotor overexcitability.

I agree that the data indicates a link between giftedness and Intellectual overexcitability, but this doesn’t impress me.  I expected it. When you look for a relationship between two things that are conflated – like height and basketball prowess – you are likely to find one. The Big Five Factor Model of Personality, which has been strongly validated by the research, has a factor called “Openness” which is near identical to the concept of Intellectual overexcitability. Openness is the degree of intellectual curiosity that a person has. Of course it is associated with giftedness, and of course Intellectual overexcitability is associated with giftedness as well. As for the other excitabilities, it seems the evidence is just not there.

Why, then, is there such a strong ideology built up around this notion?

This makes me wonder why the gifted community has been so dogmatic about its belief in overexcitabilities, despite the lack of empirical evidence. It may be that people decided they liked the idea when it was just a hypothesis and haven’t kept up with the research findings. It was striking how fast thought-leaders in the gifted community jumped on the wagon when the hypothesis was first popularized in the 1980’s, despite a near total lack of any evidence at the time. I think it could also be due to the “halo effect.” Professionals in the gifted community want to see the people they work with through a positive lens. For parents, the idea that their child is oversensitive as part of their giftedness and that’s a good thing may be more appealing than an additional diagnosis of AHDH or Asperger’s or anxiety. Finally, we all want to think that pain and suffering will prove, in the long run, to be for the best. We want to believe it, and so we do.

Why does this matter, and what should parents do?

It matters because making the assumption that a gifted child is more excitable because they are gifted and that it’s fine (even good) to be that way can focus attention away from challenges that need to be addressed. Let’s remove the halo of giftedness, and look at the whole child. The potential for a child to realize their potential and to grow into a happy and productive (and personally and morally developed) member of society is increased when we support both their strengths and their weaknesses.

Mindfulness meditation has enjoyed a tremendous surge in popularity in the past decade. The practice has moved from a largely obscure Buddhist concept founded about 2,600 years ago to a mainstream psychotherapy and educational construct.

What is Mindfulness Meditation?

It’s a technique of meditation that focuses awareness on breathing and encourages positive attitudes to distracting thoughts and feelings that are not ignored, but are rather acknowledged and observed nonjudgmentally as they arise to create a detachment from them and to gain insight and awareness. It involves training attention and awareness in order to bring mental processes under greater voluntary control. It promotes metacognitive awareness. Mindfulness meditation is a western adaptation of Vipasna, or mindful breathing meditation, with influences from other methods.

Other forms of meditation include: transcendental meditation, in which one sits in lotus position and chants internally with the goal of “enlightenment;” Kundalini meditation in which one tries to channel an upstream of energy and experience an altered state of consciousness; Qi Gong meditation from ancient China which utilizes breathing, movement, and posture to circulate energy through the bodies “energy centers;” and Zazen Zen Buddhist meditation, a straight-backed, seated meditation in which one aims to forget all judgmental thoughts, ideas, and images.

One of the main influencers behind the popularity of mindfulness meditation in the west is John Kabat-Zinn. Dr. Kabat-Zinn has written a number of best-selling books including: Full Catastrophe Living: Using the Wisdom of Your Body and Mind to Face Stress, Pain and Illness; Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life; and Everyday Blessings: The Inner Work of Mindful Parenting. He approaches mindfulness as a scientist (PhD in molecular biology, MIT) and has published scientific articles in peer-reviewed journals (e.g. Journal of the American Medical Association) on mindfulness in medicine. His Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program, developed in 1979 at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, has been used in hospitals and health clinics to help patients improve the quality of their lives.

What has my personal experience been with it?

My 26-year old 2e son got me into it. He gave me Full Catastrophe Living for Christmas and we did an 8-week self-guided MBSR meditation course based on Kabat-Zinn’s teachings. We’d text each other when it was time to meditate then text again afterward and call to chat about the experience. I also took a 6-week online course from Mindful Schools for educators. I still feel like an amateur! In my experience this is not something one can read a book about or take one course and immediately implement successfully. I think that’s one reason it’s called a “practice.” You have to practice a lot to get it down and even then you may lose direction. My son, who has been practicing on a daily basis for several years now, feels it is very helpful for improving his attention and focus (he has ADHD) and for reducing anxiety and a tendency to ruminate on negative thoughts. He thinks one of the biggest challenges with implementing it as a “treatment” is that teaching and coaching methods are not standardized and one often doesn’t know if one is “doing it right.”

How could it help 2e learners?

Mindfulness meditation could help 2e learners who have ADHD, autism, anxiety, and/or depression. The following benefits are mentioned:

• Improved attentional control and focus. Boosts to working memory.
• Stress reduction.
• Less emotional reactivity and emotional dysregulation.
• Reduced rumination via disengagement from perseverative cognitive activities.

Is it effective?

A 2017 article was published by science reporter Brian Resnick on Vox.com called: Is mindfulness meditation good for kids? Here’s what the science actually says. Resnick read more than a dozen studies — including systematic meta-reviews, which accounted for thousands of other papers — analyzing the research on mindfulness in both children and adults (there was much more research available on adults). He writes: “The evidence for mindfulness in adults is limited but promising” – especially for anxiety, depression, and stress reduction. He found less evidence for children, in part because there were so few studies.

Dr. Erica Sibinga, a pediatrician  at Johns Hopkins, conducts well-controlled trials using mindfulness in Baltimore’s poorest public schools. She and her colleagues recently conducted a randomized clinical trial with 300 fifth- to eighth-graders. Half the students got mindfulness instruction for 12 weeks. The other half got 12 weeks of health education and were the study’s controls. The results were quite strong: depression, anxiety, self-hostility, coping, and post-traumatic symptoms moved from “concerning levels” to “normal levels.”

A 2014 review published in Frontiers in Psychology found, across 24 studies (11 which had not been published in peer-reviewed journals), that mindfulness improved measures of cognitive performance but had less impact on stress and coping.

A second 2014  meta-analysis published in Education Psychological Review looked at 15 studies of school meditation programs and found “school based meditation is beneficial in the majority of cases,” but “the majority of effects of meditation upon student outcomes are small.”

And a third meta review, published in the Journal of School Psychology in August 2017, compiled 72 mindfulness studies of youth both in and outside of classroom settings. They found “universally small, positive therapeutic effects” for attention, introspection, and emotion regulation.

Overall, the evidence suggests that mindfulness does appear to have a positive effect for children, especially on anxiety and cognitive measures. The studies suggest that it is most beneficial for children who are disadvantaged or at-risk, and may not be as effective for children who are closer to a “normal” baseline. I feel our 2e children are “at-risk” and stand to benefit.

How do you teach a child how to do it?

Some schools incorporate the teaching of mindfulness in the school day. Mindful Schools  and MindUP are great programs designed for implementation in schools. Parents might be able to find a local private instructor, parent/child, or child-centered course to enroll in. They might find a therapist to engage their child in mindfulness-based therapy. There are numerous apps designed for children including Headspace for Kids and Mindfulness for Children. Parents willing to develop their own knowledge and skills might “home school” their child in mindfulness. Practitioners suggest that however a parent chooses to teach their child mindfulness, parents who also practice it themselves tend to have the greatest impact on their children.

Recommendation: 

I often recommend mindfulness meditation to the families of 2e learners I work with, as I do think it can help. I am concerned, though, that instruction and methodology can be a bit vague and many families may not know how best to go about it. Also, it’s not a “quick fix” but more of a “lifestyle change” requiring a  significant commitment to see results. I feel that the most benefit is gained when some rigor is put into implementation (e.g. scheduled daily family practice, instruction and ongoing guidance by a trained professional). Practice makes perfect!

What is sensory integration and sensory integration therapy?

Sensory integration refers to the process by which the brain organizes and interprets external stimuli such as touch, movement, body awareness, sight, sound, and gravity. Sensory integration therapy is an occupational therapy intervention that uses individually tailored  activities in an effort to facilitate adaptive responses and functional behaviors. The therapy sessions typically involve months to years of 1-3 times per week, 30-60 minutes sessions and some homework.

Practitioners of sensory integration therapy propose that there is something called “sensory integration dysfunction” or “sensory processing disorder” that impairs the central nervous system, affecting the vestibular, proprioceptive, and/or tactile systems. The vestibular system provides sensory input to the brain about the body’s movement through space. Ostensible signs of vestibular impairment include poor posture and dyspraxia (difficulty planning motor activities). Therapy intended to stimulate the vestibular system might include swinging, rolling, jumping on a trampoline, or riding on scooter boards. The proprioceptive system provides sensory input from the muscles and joints. Proprioceptive impairment is said to be revealed by the presence of stereotyped body movements, such as flapping one’s hands or rocking one’s body back and forth. Impairments in the tactile system are supposed to be evidenced by over- or under-sensitivity to sensory stimuli. Activities to stimulate the proprioceptive or tactile systems might include “smooshing” the child between gym pads or pillows to provide “deep pressure,” brushing the child’s body, providing “joint compression” by repeatedly tightening the joints at the wrist or elbow, and playing with textured toys.

The goal of sensory integration therapy is to remediate sensory difficulties so the child’s overall functioning will improve over time, and allow the child to process and react to sensations more efficiently.

Is there really such a thing as a “Sensory Processing Disorder?”

Practitioners of sensory integration therapy are the sole users of the terms “sensory processing disorder” and “sensory integration dysfunction.” The prevailing view in the broader scientific community is that “sensory symptoms” are ill-defined for purposes of diagnostic categorization and also for identification of a course of treatment or intervention. Sensory “issues” are seen as a nonspecific indicator of neurodevelopmental immaturity rather than as a distinct disorder.

In 2012 the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement recommending that pediatricians not use sensory processing disorder as a diagnosis. The AAP left the window open for therapy by adding that while there may not be a diagnostic category, occupational therapy using sensory-based therapies “may be acceptable as one component of a comprehensive treatment plan.”

Why would sensory integration therapy be recommended for a child with Asperger’s/autism?

Many children with Asperger’s and autism have “sensory issues,” such as over-sensitivity to touch, sounds, smells, tastes, brightness, and movement. They may have trouble tolerating scratchy clothing, shirt tags, or “squishy” substances on their skin. They may be overly sensitive to loud noises or very picky about what they eat. They may evidence repetitive motor acts such as hand flapping. These difficulties can make ordinary situations overwhelming, create extreme stress, and trigger meltdowns. In fact, the latest edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic manual, the DSM-5, lists sensory problems as a criteria for autism diagnosis.

Similar symptoms may occur with other neurodevelopmental and behavioral problems, especially ADHD and anxiety. My daughter, who has both, had sensory integration therapy. She couldn’t tolerate labels in clothing and loud noises (automatically flushing toilets were to be avoided at all costs). After a family vacation to Disneyland where she was overwhelmed by the noises and smells, she said “that would have been a great vacation except for that awful theme park.” For the most part, she’s outgrown her sensitivities. And I think she would have outgrown her sensitivities without a year of OT. But many children with autism continue to have sensory issues of one kind or another throughout their lives.

Is there a sound theoretical argument for sensory integration therapy? 

Not really. A major limitation with sensory integration theory is the dearth of evidence for its main tenet, which is that the integration of sensory input is necessary for higher level functioning. This tenet is based on the outmoded view that the development of the child mirrors the evolutionary development of the species. The argument is that sensory systems arose relatively early in the evolutionary history of humans and were a prerequisite for the emergence of more complex cognitive skills. The vestibular, proprioceptive, and tactile systems are thus said to reside in the “primitive” subcortical pathways that need to develop before the formation of more advanced cortical systems. There is no sound scientific basis for this idea, and it sounds a lot like the specious arguments made by Brain Balance Centers (see my Myth Busters Blog on that topic). Rather, the functional organization of the nervous system is better conceptualized as a co-occurring and interactive network of cortical and subcortical systems that mediate voluntary and involuntary responses to stimuli. As such, a linear model that posits that one system must reach some prerequisite level of development in order for a “higher” system to function properly is just inaccurate.

In some of the sensory integration literature biological theories are complemented by hypothetical constructs such as “inner drives” for self-actualization, “sensory deprivation and/or overload,” and “sensory defensiveness.” These constructs do not have any demonstrated scientific basis or even clear definition that would permit their valid and reliable measurement.

O.K. So maybe there’s not much scientific logic to support the theory. But does it work anyway?

Does sensory integration therapy help children with Asperger’s/autism? 

Many parents think it does. Many colleagues who I respect think it does. More colleagues who I respect think it doesn’t. The research evidence (so far) is rather unconvincing.

I took a close look at four analyses published since 2012. Lang, et. al.  reported in 2012 in the journal Research in Autism Disorders that when 25 studies were analyzed, 3 studies suggested it was effective, 8 studies found mixed results, and 14 reported no benefits. Not very compelling. Many of the studies (including the 3 that found positive results) had “serious methodological flaws” (e.g. no experimental design), precluding any valid conclusions. The authors concluded: “There is insufficient evidence to support the use of sensory integration therapy for children with ASD.”

Case-Smith and Scaff reported in 2014 in the journal Autism that among 5 studies, 1 was a case study so could not be generalized, 1 found no treatment effect, and the other 3 had mixed results. Of the 3 with mixed results, one utilized scientifically rigorous methodology (e.g. a control group). The findings from that study were positive according to parent and teacher report: children who received sensory integration therapy had a greater reduction in ASD symptoms. However, the authors cautioned: “additional rigorous trials using manualized protocols for sensory integration therapy are needed to evaluate the effects for children with autism spectrum disorders.”

Barton, et. al.  reported in the journal Research in Developmental Disabilities in 2015 on the findings from 30 studies. They concluded that there was so much heterogeneity in implementation, measurement, and study rigor that not much could be ascertained. They wrote: “The research on sensory-based treatments is limited to insubstantial treatment outcomes, weak experimental designs, or high risk of bias. Although many people use and advocate for the use of sensory-based treatments and there is substantial empirical literature on sensory-based treatments for children with disabilities, insufficient evidence exists to support its use.”

Finally, there is a chapter on sensory integration in the 2015 book  Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice by Foxx and Mulick. In addition to reporting in detail on prior studies, the authors report their own review of  data from 2011-2014. When they analyzed 10 studies, 3 were single-subject (one child) studies that did not show any benefit. 4 studies reported positive results but were criticized as “speculative at best” because they did not randomly assign children to groups and examiners were not “blinded” to group assignment. The 2 studies that did utilize sound scientific methodology provided inconclusive results, The authors conclude that sensory integration therapy has “limited scientific support,” but note that it “remains popular despite professional ethical guidelines that call for the use of evidence-based practice.” In other words, they feel it’s unethical for professionals to recommend sensory integration therapy because its not an evidence-based practice.

Why do families engage in sensory integration therapy if the evidence is so scanty? 

In an online survey about 60% of parents of children with ASD reported that their children engaged in a course of sensory integration therapy.

Why do they do it given the weak scientific evidence?

Maybe they haven’t looked at the science. Maybe they were convinced by the pseudoscientific arguments. Maybe they hope scientific research will someday catch up with practice and show it to be efficacious. Maybe they relied on a story from a friend or a friend of a friend that was convinced it helped their child. I think this happens a lot. Or maybe parents are so desperate to do anything to help their child they will grasp at straws.

Recommendation: While it probably won’t do much, if you want to do sensory integration therapy as one part of a comprehensive treatment plan, there’s probably no harm in proceeding. But please don’t divert time, money, and attention away from therapies that are scientifically validated as effective.

 

I’ve decided this series on alternative therapies will first tackle the mistakes I made myself as a parent. The last blog (Part 1) was on vision therapy as a cure for dyslexia. Today, in Part 2, I’ll address Dr. Daniel Amen’s Brain Clinics and how they purport to diagnose and cure ADHD.

Dr. Amen is larger than life. A media star, best-selling author of 30 books (5 New York Times bestsellers), producer of a t.v. show aired on PBS (or rather, infomercial) about his theories, paid motivational speaker, and master salesman promoting proprietary nutritional supplements.

He has 8 clinics in California, New York, Washington, D.C., Chicago, Atlanta, and Washington State. They claim to treat pretty much anything, from ADHD, addiction, anxiety and depression, autism, bipolar disorder, concussions, Lyme disease, marital conflict, dementia, and sleep disorders to weight loss. That claim alone should be enough to make anyone skeptical. Claiming to be an expert at everything is usually overreaching.

But let me zero in on how they “treat” ADHD.

I read Dr. Amen’s book: Healing ADD: The Breakthrough Program That Allows You to See and Heal the 6 Types of ADD when it came out in 2002. It sounded convincingly scientific. Neuroimaging was on the uptick and being heralded as a huge scientific breakthrough. Amen claimed he could cure ADHD by looking inside the brain with a single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT) scan using gamma rays and with injected radioactive dye and tailoring treatment to 7 different types of ADD: Classic, Inattentive, Overfocused, Temporal Lobe, Limbic, Ring of Fire, and Anxious.

As my 2e son wasn’t responding to anything else we tried, the idea that he might have a specific subtype of ADHD that required a targeted treatment was appealing. So we paid a substantial fee and drove to an appointment at Dr. Amen’s first clinic in Northern California – somewhere in the Central Valley between San Francisco and Sacramento. We went through the intake process and were scheduled for SPECT scans. But something didn’t feel quite right, and I didn’t follow through. My response was instinctual at the time. But since then I’ve earned a PhD and reviewed the literature and scientific consensus from a more informed perspective.

First, there is no research evidence (other than what comes out of Amen’s presumably biased clinics) to support the idea that there are  seven different subtypes of ADHD. Real science – the kind backed by double blind studies, NIH supported grants, and published in reputable peer reviewed journals – has identified two types (Primarily Inattentive and Primarily Hyperactive/Impulsive). We’re kind of working on a possible third type tentatively called Sluggish Cognitive Tempo. There certainly is no such thing as “limbic” or “ring of fire” ADHD.

Second, to do a SPECT scan, the child must be injected with an IV carrying radioactive material directly into his or her bloodstream. Its radiation-emitting particles are carried to every part of their growing body. There is an increase in the possibility of cancer being caused as a result of this kind of radiation exposure, particularly for children, as their growth means more cells are dividing, providing a greater risk of radiation disrupting cell development. This is why they ask you if you’re pregnant before giving you a mammogram. The risk may be small, but it’s there.

Third, the idea that you can diagnose ADHD by looking at SPECT images of blood flow in the brain is a huge leap of faith. The key question in evaluating a diagnostic test is whether or not its findings are useful in determining what treatment the patient should have. SPECT scans are not FDA-approved for diagnostics, partly because they only have a 54 percent  sensitivity, meaning they are only accurate half the time. Scientists have yet to identify reliable diagnostic markers using far more advanced technologies such as fMRIs, which provides better temporal and spatial resolution. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that SPECT scans are a useful diagnostic tool for ADHD and can inform treatment plans. The American Psychological Association has twice issued papers that dispute “claims being made that brain imaging technology … is useful for making a clinical diagnosis and for helping in treatment selections.” The most recent paper was the work of 12 scientists who spent three years assessing the latest research. The summary: “There are currently no brain imaging biomarkers that are currently clinically useful for any diagnostic category in psychiatry.”

None of the nation’s most prestigious medical organizations  — including the American Psychological Association, the National Institute of Mental Health, the American College of Radiology, the Society of Nuclear Medicine and Molecular Imaging, and the National Alliance on Mental Illness — validate his claims. Literally no major research institution takes his SPECT work seriously.

Here in New York, the extremely well-respected APA president and chairman of Psychiatry at Columbia University, Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, says: “In my opinion, what he’s doing is the modern equivalent of phrenology…The claims he makes are not supported by reliable science, and one has to be skeptical about his motivation.” Former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, President of the Society for Neuroscience (the leading professional organization for neuroscientists), and director of the Center for Psychiatric Research at MIT and Harvard, Dr. Steven E. Hyman, says: “I can’t imagine clinical decisions being guided by an imaging test.” Dr. Thomas Insel, director of the National Institute for Mental Health, says “entrepreneurial zeal capitalizing on scientific advances needs to be tempered by reality checks.”

Dr. Amen thinks he’s a “maverick” onto something that no one else in the field understands. I guess I might respect that (I do like mavericks) if he weren’t a self-promoter making a ton of money by preying on the fears and hopes of desperate families using invasive, potentially dangerous, and ineffective technology. Don’t be fooled by his brand of pseudoscience.

When interviewing parents about their child’s strengths and weaknesses, I often hear statements like the following: “I don’t think my child has a problem with attention – he can focus really intensely on his cartoon-drawing (or video-gaming or Lego-building or reading) for hours at a time! In fact I can barely get him to stop. But his teachers complain he’s inattentive and distracted in the classroom. Maybe he’s just not stimulated by the material being taught?” Does this sound like your child – or one you know?

Some of the questions I need to help answer are: Is the child gifted? Does the child have ADHD? Is the child gifted and does he or she also have ADHD (i.e. is twice-exceptional)? Which of these factors are impacting the child’s ability to thrive in and outside of school? And what can be done to help.

My friends Xavier Castellanos, MD and Felice Kauffman, PhD wrote a monograph for the National Research Center for the Gifted and Talented on this very topic. It is reproduced here in short form on SENG’s website. They note that “Some people erroneously assume that a child who demonstrates sustained attention, such as a gifted child engaged in a high-interest activity, cannot have ADHD. It is understandable that an observer might discount the possibility of ADHD because from all appearances the child is so absorbed in a task that other stimuli fade into oblivion.”

While in fact: “This state of rapt attention can be described as “hyperfocus,” a condition that individuals with ADHD frequently experience.” Hyperfocus is the tendency for children and adults with ADHD to focus very intensely on things that interest them. At times, the focus is so strong that they become oblivious to the world around them. For more on hyperfocus see an article from Additude magazine here. Felice and Xavier point out that: “Activities that are continuously reinforcing and “automatic,” such as video or computer games or reading for pleasure, do not distinguish children who have ADHD from children who do not have ADHD, whereas effortful tasks do.” So it’s not whether the child can focus – it’s whether they can focus on effortful tasks.

They continue: “Evidence suggests that the gifted child with ADHD is particularly predisposed to exhibit this state of “hyperfocus.” While this can be a positive aspect of task commitment, it becomes a problem when the child is asked to shift from one task to another.”

Does this scenario sound familiar? You ask your child to stop doing what he is hyper focused on and come to dinner and he ignores you or objects strenuously?

Xavier and Felice write: “While cognitively this state (hyperfocus) can have positive aspects, behaviorally it can cause problems. It is important to understand that ADHD is not characterized by an inability to sustain attention, but rather by the inability to appropriately regulate the application of attention to tasks that are not intrinsically rewarding and/or that require effort. Such tasks are, sadly, characteristic of much of the work that is typically required in school, even in programs for gifted students.” So if school isn’t intrinsically rewarding, interesting, and/or requires effort, the gifted child with ADHD may tune-out and turn off.

To complicate matters, “By virtue of their giftedness, the range of tasks that are perceived as “effortless” is broader for gifted children, which is why their ADHD may be less apparent than in children who struggle more obviously and to lesser effect.” Something that would be effortful for a typical child (e.g. understanding a new math concept or comprehending sophisticated text) might not be effortful for the gifted child to whom such things come easily. So when a gifted child does have ADHD, their teachers may under-report symptoms because they appear to breeze through so much of the material. I see this most often when the child happens to be likable and internalizes rather than externalizes their frustrations.

It can take an assessment by a psychologist experienced in working with gifted and twice exceptional learners to tease out the subtleties.

It’s important to find out what’s going on because the student may be under-performing, or may be losing confidence and self-esteem. Their over-reliance on strengths to get by may “inadvertently obscure the disability.” They may get B+’s by answering questions based on superior reasoning skills, not necessarily having learned the actual material being tested. They may be frustrated and grow to distrust their abilities because they realize (consciously, or subconsciously) that they have to struggle to maintain them. They may feel they aren’t very smart after all. There may be negative impacts outside of academics: socially, emotionally, with friendships, and within the family dynamics.

When the student is accurately diagnosed, he or she can be given the opportunity to learn appropriate compensatory and coping skills. It’s especially helpful to address these issues at an early enough age before the student has turned off school, become a behavioral problem, become the class clown, or internalized frustrations in the form of anxiety or depression. While an adult can (if lucky) be happy and successful intensely pursuing their interests, few achieve success and satisfaction if they are unable to push through the less rewarding phases of an activity and keep working when something becomes effortful. These are skills and mind-sets we need to teach our twice exceptional children who are gifted and have ADHD.

If I can help you ascertain whether your child is gifted, has ADHD, or both, reach out to me at dm@drdevon.com. I do not charge for an initial 60 minute conversation.

The nature/nurture debate has been going on for centuries. Is it our genes (nature) that predict success? Or is it the environment (nurture)? In the past 20 years this topic has evolved into the innate ability/natural talent vs. practice/effort debate. One side argues that success is all about innate ability and natural talent, while the other argues that it’s all about how hard one is willing to work. In the early and mid-1900’s as researchers studied intelligence and developed tests to measure it, it was generally believed that one’s “natural endowments” predicted success. In the 1950’s and ’60’s the cold war space race was a boon for gifted education, as national polices were implemented in an effort to identify and educate the “best and the brightest.”

The pendulum swung hard from ability toward practice and effort in the 1980’s and 90’s. In a politically correct world, the practice/effort argument was appealing because it posits that anyone can achieve success if they are willing to work hard (and the right environmental factors are supplied). In 1993 Dr. Anders Ericsson published a paper arguing that training and deliberate practice could explain performance differences that had been previously ascribed to innate talent. Studying expert performance in sports, music, mathematics, and other areas he found that so-called innate ability was unnecessary to predict who would become most successful. The single greatest predictor of success was hours devoted to the activity. The more someone practiced, the better they were. It’s a provocative argument, and one that Ericsson still espouses over two decades later. If it’s true, anyone with any ability profile can follow their dreams and, with enough effort, reach them. Ericson did add one caveat: when it comes to athletics, height and body size do make a difference. Along the same line, in the book Talent is Overrated (2008), George Colvin argued that investing the right type of practice on a focused pursuit is far more important than natural ability in predicting performance. In 2011 Malcolm Gladwell popularized the “10,000 hour rule” in Outliers, attributing the success of the Beatles and Bill Gates almost entirely to intensive practice. 10,000 hours of practice was identified as the threshold level required to achieve the level of mastery associated with being a world-class expert in anything.

If this is true – that success is all about practice and effort, and that anyone can achieve anything they set their heart to – does giftedness as a construct even matter?

Recently, the pendulum has swung the other way – toward innate ability. In a 2014 meta-analysis, a study analyzing the results of 90 other studies carried out across disciplines ranging from sports to the arts to academia, authors Hambrick, et. al. reported: “More than 20 years ago, researchers proposed that individual differences in performance in such domains as music, sports, and games largely reflect individual differences in amount of deliberate practice, defined as engagement in structured activities created specifically to improve performance in a domain. This view is a frequent topic of popular-science writing—but is it supported by empirical evidence? To answer this question, we conducted a meta-analysis covering all major domains in which deliberate practice has been investigated. We found that deliberate practice explained 26% of the variance in performance for games, 21% for music, 18% for sports, 4% for education, and less than 1% for professions. We conclude that deliberate practice is important, but not as important as has been argued.” In  2017 authors Wai & Rindermann studied what factors contributed to high educational and occupational achievement by examining a sample of 11,745 high achievers across disciplines. They found that about 50% of these super successful individuals were in the top 1% in terms intellectual ability (in other words, they were gifted).

I agree that innate ability is important, and I don’t think all the practice in the world can take someone who has poor native ability to a level of super high achievement in most areas. But I also feel that innate ability alone is rarely enough.

What does it take to turn giftedness into success – for gifted children to become high achievers?  Giftedness is a raw ability. In his “Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent” Robert M. Gagné made an important distinction between natural abilities or giftedness and talents. He defined giftedness as: “the possession and use of untrained and spontaneously expressed natural abilities in at least one ability domain, to a degree placing that student in the top 10% of age peers.” Talent, on the other hand, implies “the superior mastery of systematically developed abilities (or expert skills) and knowledge in at least one field of human activity to a degree that places a student in the top 10% of peers in that field.” This is an important distinction because the terms “gifted” and “talented” are often used synonymously. Gagné differentiates between giftedness as raw capacity and talent as a developed ability. Talents progressively emerge from the transformation of high aptitudes into the well-trained and systematically developed skills characteristic of a particular field of human activity or performance.

Thus, a young child might be described as gifted to highlight that they have exceptional abilities and, when they have favorably developed these abilities may be described as gifted and talented. While such a child will always (barring exceptional mishap) remain gifted, only when a high level of performance has been attained can they also be described as talented. This alludes to the common phenomenon of gifted underachievement, and points us in the direction of beginning to understand and therefore remedy this.

Gagné’s model  illustrates the process and factors influencing whether a child’s giftedness will develop into a talent. Chance is a significant factor, but so are the environment and intrapersonal catalysts. Environmental influences include culture and family, teachers, peers, and the provision of programs and services. Intrapersonal catalysts include health, motivation, concentration, and temperament. Efforts can be made to facilitate the development of gifts into talents through a developmental process encompassing informal and formal learning and practice, enriched curriculum and training, a goal of challenging excellence, systemic and regular practice, regular and objective assessment of progress, and personalized accelerated pacing. Sounds like a great gifted education program to me!

So, to answer the question posed at the beginning of this blog: giftedness does matter. I feel that in many domains, it’s a necessary but not sufficient condition to predict high achievement. The development of gifts into talents is a process impacted by environmental, intrapersonal, and chance factors.

Let me add a caveat of my own that the discussion above focuses solely on the outcomes of “success,” “high achievement” and  “talent.” I believe it is quite possible for a gifted person to eschew such outward measures of achievement, and perhaps not contribute their talents to society at large in any measurable way, but to still be a happy and fulfilled person in part because of their giftedness. Giftedness can provide the individual with a rich inner life entirely separate from societal measures of success.

Ever since my mind-blowing trip to the Galapagos last January I’ve been thinking about evolution, the environment, and organism-environment interaction. Each island in the Galapagos has a slightly different environment, and the islands as a whole are very different from the Ecuadorean mainland. The animals who ended up flourishing on the islands adapted to their environment. Or they moved on.

I’m a psychologist, not an ecologist. The world I concern myself with is that of children and their development. But it occurs to me that we often don’t spend enough time thinking about that from an ecological perspective. An organism is an individual living animal, plant, or single-celled life form. A child is an “organism.” An environment is the surroundings or conditions in which a person, animal or plant lives or operates. School is an “environment.” The child and their school are part of an ecosystem, and they have important impacts on one another.

When something is not working well in the child-school ecosystem we often focus on what’s “wrong” with the child and why they don’t “fit in.” We sometimes pathologize the child’s behavior and diagnose ADHD, a learning disability, autism, or a behavioral disorder. The diagnosis may fit, but I often wonder whether the same child would be diagnosed with the same disability if they were in an environment better suited to them as an individual. Would the twice exceptional student who blurts out answers and won’t do what the teacher tells him to do be diagnosed with ADHD in a school where he could control his own pace of learning? Perhaps a move to a different environment would allow that particular organism – that child – to flourish.

I know that we often feel stuck with the school our child attends. We may have moved to a public school district specifically for the highly ranked schools. We may have gone through an onerous private school admission process to get a spot for our child at what we thought would be the best possible school. But sometimes it just isn’t working out and attention should be paid to not just the child and what might be “wrong” with him or her, but also to the environment and what might be “wrong” with it – for that child. The school your child attends may be perfectly fine for some children and even optimal for others. But it may not be the best fit for your child.

Many of us may have had the experience (I know I have) of spending our political capital in the principal’s office requesting a specific teacher because we heard from other parents how wonderful he or she was, only to discover that the teacher we begged for wasn’t so great for our child. Or discovering that although our daughter thrived at XYZ school, our son doesn’t. I don’t think one can always generalize and describe a school as a “good school” or a “bad school,” or a teacher as a “good teacher” or a “bad teacher.” Good for who? Bad for who?

Our children – the gifted, twice-exceptional, learning disabled, differently wired – are unique. They are organisms that need specific kinds of nutrients and environments in which to thrive. If your child isn’t developing optimally, it might be time to consider a change of environment. Optimal development happens when the organism/environment interaction promotes growth.

I realize that changing schools may not be convenient and can involve risks. But it might be among the best things you ever do for your child. I know parents who have made the sacrifice of moving to another state so their child could attend a better-fit school. And heroes who take on homeschooling. These parents have made bold decisions to try to find or create the best environment for their child to thrive.

When my son was 11 he begged me to not send him back to the school he had been attending. This was after spending the summer at two Johns Hopkins CTY camps (let this be a warning: it can be dangerous to let your child experience the joy of an optimal learning environment). We took him seriously, lost our deposit at his old school, and had to scramble to find a new school for him to attend. We ended up finding a small, funky, ‘”unschool” for gifted kids where I’m not sure he learned much, but he was happy. We call this his “first gap year.” He went on to do well at a wonderful middle school, high school, and the college of his choice. To this day he credits the finding of his academic and social “sea legs” to the “gap year” he had in the 6th grade. And he thanks us for listening to him.

I feel badly he had to ask.

Plato employed the maxim “know thyself” (“gnôthi sauton,“ translated as “come to know thyself” or “learn to know thyself”) in his dialogues at The Academy. He taught that knowing one’s self is a necessary first step in the pursuit of happiness. He believed that only when we truly know who and what we are can we pursue our true nature to happiness and fulfillment.

I’ve coined the term “Plato Parenting” based on this maxim. The idea is that parents can help their children discover, explore, and develop their true interests and nature to discover who they are.

But would this be helicopter parenting? Parents considering an active role in helping their children develop their interests may wonder whether this would constitute “pushing” (like a tiger mother) or “hovering” (like a helicopter parent). They may not know where they should fall on the spectrum from being more involved in the management of their children’s lives to less involved. It’s clear from an examination of the research literature that the most effective parents are those who are involved and responsive to their child and are authoritative and have high expectations. Parents who are disengaged and uninvolved are less effective. Parents who have low expectations and are permissive and indulgent are less effective. We’ve all seen this in action at the grocery store when a toddler throws a tantrum over candy, and a parent immediately gives in. And having low expectations tends to create a self-fulfilling prophecy. The most effective parents, when the goal is producing a happy, productive adult, are nurturing and responsive, yet they are also authoritative and have high expectations.

What do I mean by “authoritative” and “high expectations?” Some people confuse the terms authoritative and authoritarian. Authoritarian parents demand a sort of blind obedience from their children. That’s not good. Authoritative parents take a more moderate approach that emphasizes setting high standards and expectations, being nurturing and responsive, and showing respect for their children as independent, rational beings. High standards and expectations include instilling a strong work ethic, encouraging the productive use of time, and encouraging dedication to doing one’s best. Not all children are born with strong motivation, work ethic, and the knowledge of how to use their time productively to accomplish goals. Many if not most need to be taught these habits. Not only are children who are taught these skills more likely to be successful, but they’re also happier. Children, like adults, are happiest when they’re engaged in something they find interesting that provides opportunities for growth. In other words, when they’re pursuing their interests. They’re not happiest when they’re “hanging out” or wiling away the hours playing a video game because they can’t think of anything better to do. A growing body of scientific evidence indicates that pursuing one’s genuine interests toward a goal is highly correlated with happiness, as well as other positive traits such as increased concentration, self-esteem, and performance.

Don’t push your own interests on your child. When embarking on a program of helping your child identify and pursue his or her true interests, be careful not to fall into a trap of trying to influence your child to pursue what you are interested in. Carl Jung said: “Nothing has a stronger influence … on their children than the unlived life of the parent.” Often, when parents try to “craft” the perfect life for their child it bears an uncanny resemblance to the one they wish they’d had. We need to accept our child for who he or she is. If we don’t, and instead try to mold them into what we think they should be, one of two things will happen. Either they will accept our dreams and fail to develop their own, or they will rebel. Neither allows them to develop into their own true self, since one path involves blind acceptance and the other a rejection of the parent’s point of view. A psychiatrist I know in Palo Alto has a practice dominated by high-achieving Stanford grads who did everything they thought their parents wanted them to, realizing their parent’s dreams. But now – in their late 20’s and 30’s –  they’re unhappy and confused about what they want out of life.

So, how do you go about helping your child pursue his or her genuine interests? First, you need to identify them. Some children are “born” with strong interests, while others don’t seem to have any especially strong ones. I advise parents of young children to expose them to a wide variety of things – art, music, sports, theater, games, and academic disciplines. This should be done deliberately and methodically. Rather than taking your child on the same kinds of outings over and over, plan “field trips” to varied destinations. These can include museums, concerts, farms, zoos, animal rescue centers, hikes, bike rides, birding, the beach, Chinatown, Little Italy, historical sites, factory tours, a stock exchange, art galleries, a courtroom, science fairs, a geography bee, and fruit-picking. Read  books about a variety of topics. Talk about current events. Travel. Watch documentaries. Expand their horizons.

Observe your child’s reactions and reflect on them. Make note when your child seems intrigued by something. Think about why they are drawn to it, and consider what that might mean. If your child loves Legos, perhaps architecture or engineering would interest them. If your child loves playing outdoors, consider environmental studies. Try to keep an open mind and not be judgmental. Even activities that may seem unproductive can provide clues to worthwhile passions and future careers. The child who seems bossy and unyielding when playing with friends may crave leadership opportunities. The child who is on the phone chatting with friends about their problems all day may be drawn to psychology or counseling. When my daughter was young she loved to tell stories. As a teen she loved social media. Of course that worried me a bit. But now she’s an online news journalist. After exposing your child to a wide variety of things, as they near middle and high school, try to guide them toward selecting 2-4 interests to pursue more intensively to avoid the “jack of all trades, master of none” phenomenon.

Get involved and be proactive. Once you’ve identified your child’s interests the next step is to facilitate their pursuit. This is where being an involved parent comes into play. And having high expectations. Dedicate yourself to taking your child’s goals seriously and facilitating his or her achievements by bringing their goals within reach. Don’t just buy your child a trumpet. Find the best music instructors you can afford, structure time in the day for practice, sit with your child when they practice, and take them to concerts. It’s ok to actively help your child find opportunities. I know a parent who helped her marine biology obsessed child find a volunteer research internship at age 12 which led to her being co-author on a scientific paper at age 16.

What if my child doesn’t find a career out of this? It doesn’t matter. The young marine biologist who published at 16 went into an entirely different field. But she learned some very important things along the way. She learned how fulfilling it is to delve deeply into an interest, that one needs to work hard to accomplish something significant, that she could do practically anything she put her mind to, and that she didn’t actually want to be a research scientist!

By adopting “Plato Parenting” as a philosophy you can help your children develop into the happy, productive young adults they are meant to be. What better gift can you give your child than that?

I thought it would be helpful to post a list of the books and other resources I most frequently refer my clients to.

Books:

8 Keys to Parenting Children with ADHD by Cindy Goldrich (2015). Excellent “instruction manual” for how to parent children with ADHD including behavior management strategies. Author available for consultations.

Bright Kids Who Can’t Keep Up by Ellen Braaten and Brian Willoughby (2014). How slow processing speed impacts students and what can (and can’t) be done to help.

Executive Skills in Children and Adolescents by Peg Dawson and Richard Guare (2004). This is a manual – a “how-to” guide with specific interventions to be implemented at home and/or school for executive function weaknesses. I used this guide to help my son get through high school.

Misdiagnosis and Dual Diagnoses of Gifted Children and Adults: ADHD, bipolar, OCD, Asperger’s, depression, and other disorders, by James T. Webb, et al. (2005). In my view a bit extreme in suggesting that many behaviors characteristic of disability are actually just signs of giftedness, though I agree that does sometimes occur. I find that more often giftedness and disability coexist and that giftedness alone is not always (or even often) associated with dysfunction.

Overcoming Dyslexia by Sally Shaywitz (2003). Primarily about how to properly remediate reading problems but also specifically addresses challenges faced by bright dyslexics (Shaywitz is at Yale so discusses and works with students there).

The ADHD Explosion by Stephen P. Hinshaw and Richard Scheffle (2014). Chapters on the causes of ADHD (where biology meets culture) and diagnosing and treating ADHD are well worth the cost of the book. Much of the rest delves into social and educational policy issues. Anything by Stephen Hinshaw (one of my mentors at Berkeley) is recommended.

The Dyslexia Empowerment Plan by Ben Foss (2013). Focuses on strengths associated with dyslexia, explains assistive technology, and argues in favor of “reading” by listening rather than scanning text with one’s eyes. My son has taught himself to listen at 3x normal speed and says it is a “game changer” for him.

The Dyslexic Advantage by Brock and Fernette Eide (2011). Focuses on identifying the 4 main strengths associated with dyslexia. Powerful reading for adult dyslexics as well as parents. I give a copy to any parent of a dyslexic child who thinks they, too, might  be dyslexic. The book launched a foundation and website listed below.

The Mislabeled Child: How understanding your child’s unique learning style can open the door to success by Brock and Fernette Eide (2006). Covers misdiagnosis  and has chapters on different issues including communication challenges, ADHD, dysgraphia, dyslexia, and giftedness.

Websites, Facebook, and Other Resources:

2e Twice-Exceptional Newsletter. 2e Newsletter. An online bimonthly publication dedicated to understanding twice exceptional children. Modest fee for  online subscription. I think it’s well worth it.

Davidson Institute. Davidson Young Scholars. Non-profit providing free counseling to families of exceptionally gifted students accepted as Davidson Young Scholars. Many of my clients find the counseling to be very helpful.

Devon MacEachron, PhD. www.drdevon.com. That’s me! 2e assessment and educational advising. Facebook:  https://www.facebook.com/2Egifted/. Twitter: https://www.twitter.com/2egifted.

Dyslexic Advantage. Dyslexic Advantage Foundation. Focused on uncovering and celebrating the strengths associated with dyslexia. Testimonials, famous people, advice, assistive technology, etc. Premium membership gives access to a wonderful magazine and other resources.

Gifted Homeschoolers Forum. GHF. Primarily for families who are homeschooling, but much of the material and resources are of interest to all.  Publish articles, books, active online community, blog, ask the expert “column,” and have a section of their website devoted to twice-exceptionality.

Hoagies Gifted Website. Hoagies . Huge resource on giftedness and 2e with a plethora of articles, chat groups, blogs, etc.  Hoagies Gifted Discussion Group is a related Facebook group with 4,835 members you must apply to participate in.

Johns Hopkins Center for Talented Youth. CTY. Students testing as highly gifted in math or verbal qualify for their summer camps, online courses, family vacations, and day programs. The programs are not inexpensive, but they are phenomenal and can change a child’s life.

National Association for Gifted Children. NAGC. National advocacy group, posts articles, position papers, annual conference, offers Parenting for High Potential magazine, program and camp lists.

Parents of Twice Exceptional Children (2E): Closed Facebook group with 7,762 members you must apply to join. Active discussion with responses from parents in similar situations.

Raising Poppies: Closed Facebook group with 13,279 members you must apply to join focused on issues raising gifted children.

Twice Exceptional Children’s Advocacy (TECA): www.teca2e.org. Modest membership fee to access moderated online parent support groups, message board, and other specifically 2e resources.

TilT Parenting: www.tiltparenting.com. Features a weekly podcast focused on parenting 2e learners, referred to positively as “differently wired” kids, in the TilT manifesto.