Making a List Requires Checking it Twice: A Call for Empirical Evidence in Characteristics Lists

Countless characteristics lists have been made to describe gifted children. But what evidence exists to support them? If such lists are to be useful, they must be appropriately contextualized and grounded in empirical support. Lacking these, they cannot be useful. And many existing lists are severely lacking in both of these things. In this article, I first provide background on characteristics lists and their uses. Second, I outline six limitations of current lists. Third, I introduce a formal nomenclature for determining what constitutes a characteristic of gifted students. Finally, I propose two possible paths forward. First, stop creating or using characteristics lists. Alternatively, if characteristics lists are to be created and consumed, they need to better align the field’s actions with its aspirations. Without sufficient empirical support, characteristics lists will not help schools and can exacerbate both inequity and distrust in research. Calling something a characteristic is a privilege that must be empirically earned.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Gifted Child Quarterly
Published
2025-12-17
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251392934
Primary Topic
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Making a List Requires Checking it Twice: A Call for Empirical Evidence in Characteristics Lists

Matthew C. Makel
Gifted Child Quarterly
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
article

Making a List Requires Checking it Twice: A Call for Empirical Evidence in Characteristics Lists

Matthew C. Makel
article en

Abstract

Countless characteristics lists have been made to describe gifted children. But what evidence exists to support them? If such lists are to be useful, they must be appropriately contextualized and grounded in empirical support. Lacking these, they cannot be useful. And many existing lists are severely lacking in both of these things. In this article, I first provide background on characteristics lists and their uses. Second, I outline six limitations of current lists. Third, I introduce a formal nomenclature for determining what constitutes a characteristic of gifted students. Finally, I propose two possible paths forward. First, stop creating or using characteristics lists. Alternatively, if characteristics lists are to be created and consumed, they need to better align the field’s actions with its aspirations. Without sufficient empirical support, characteristics lists will not help schools and can exacerbate both inequity and distrust in research. Calling something a characteristic is a privilege that must be empirically earned.

Gifted Child Quarterly
University of Calgary (CA)
Openalex Percentile: Top 56%
Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Making a List Requires Checking it Twice: A Call for Empirical Evidence in Characteristics Lists — Matthew C. Makel · Gifted Child Quarterly (2025) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS