Factors related to the underachievement of university students in Turkey.

Underachievement among the gifted has been a focus within the field of gifted education for over 35 years (Emerick, 1992). Although the underachievement of gifted students is of great concern to parents and teachers, quantitative research on gifted underachievers and the reversal of underachievement remains sparse (Reis & McCoach, 2000). Very little research has focused on the post-secondary outcomes of gifted underachievers, and there are few comparisons of achievers and underachievers in the literature, especially at the college level (Peterson, 2000, 2001).

Defining Underachievement

There is no universal definition of a gifted underachiever. Most definitions appear to characterize underachievement as a discrepancy between potential and performance (Reis & McCoach, 2000; Richert, 1997). Clark (1997) defined the underachieving gifted student as someone who has shown exceptional performance on a standardized test who, nevertheless, does not perform as well as expected for students of the same age on school-related tasks. Similarly, Whitmore (1985) defined underachievement as academic performance that is significantly lower than predicted, based on some reliable evidence of learning potential. Standardized achievement test scores and academic performance measures (such as course grades) are commonly utilized to diagnose underachievement (Clark; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a; Reis & McCoach).

Identifying Underachievers

The identification of gifted underachievers is inextricably linked with the identification of giftedness itself. According to Whitmore (1985), three factors have led to an increased emphasis on identifying underachievers: The first is an increase in standardized testing, the second is an increase in teacher referrals for special education services because of learning or behavioral problems, and the third is an increase in efforts to recognize and develop the potential abilities of culturally different and minority children.

According to Clark (1997), underachievers fall into one of two categories: "situational underachievers" who underachieve only on occasion (e.g., when a particularly difficult home problem erupts or a clash occurs with a particular teacher), and "chronic underachievers" whose pattern of underachievement is consistent or recurrent. Chronic underachievement may be particularly resistant to remediation. The present study focuses on chronic underachievers who exhibit classroom performance that is significantly below their standardized test performance for at least a year (Mandel & Marcus, 1995; Peterson & Colangelo, 1996; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Rimm, 1995). In addition, ruling out the possibility of undiagnosed learning or other disabilities in underachievers is essential for the assessment of underachievement (Reis & McCoach, 2002; Siegle & McCoach, 2001).

Characteristics of Underachievers and Reasons for Underachievement

The characteristic behaviors of underachieving gifted students have been studied extensively since the 1950s (Clark, 1997). Generally speaking, researchers (e.g., Butler-Por, 1993; Clark) concentrated on three types of variables associated with underachievement among the gifted: home and parental variables, personality characteristics, and school related factors. Rimm (1997) asserted that procrastination, incomplete assignments, disorganization, and carelessness are typical of underachievers. According to Davis and Rimm (1998), poor study habits, peer-acceptance problems, poor school concentration, and home and school discipline problems support the pattern of underachievement. Further, if a child does not see a relationship between efforts and outcomes, he or she is not likely to make an effort to achieve (Davis & Rimm).

Other researchers believe that underachievement is intimately tied to self-concept development. For example, Delisle and Berger (1990) declared that children who see themselves as failures eventually begin to place self-imposed limits of what is possible. Some underachievers may not believe they are capable of accomplishing what their family or teachers expect of them or what they should expect of themselves (Davis & Rimm, 1998). In addition, locus of control, fear of failure, need for affiliation, and fear of success have been cited as additional reasons for underachievement (Butler-Por, 1993; Reis & McCoach, 2000). There is limited evidence that external locus of control is related to underachievement. Laffoon, Jenkins-Friedman, and Tollefson (1989) reported that gifted underachievers tend to attribute their academic failures to external forces. Butler-Por also suggested that underachieving patterns of behavior in gifted students can stem from unfulfilled social needs. In contrast, other research has failed to find a relationship between locus of control and underachievement (Castor, 1997; McClelland, Yewchuk, & Mulcahy, 1991).

Clark (1997) proposed that underachievement in gifted learners may stem from their varied and numerous interests. They may, without proper guidance, extend their interests in too many areas, engage in too many activities, and be unable to set appropriate priorities. This intense interest and/or leadership in extra-curricular activities may act as a defensive avoidance behavior (Davis & Rimm, 1998). Underachievers may choose to engage in activities that are less threatening or more positively reinforcing. Further, success in extracurricular activities may compensate for academic failures (Davis & Rimm).

Competition may also contribute to underachievement (Davis & Rimm, 1998; Rimm, 1997). The classroom where competition and comparative evaluation are heavily stressed can be a serious problem for underachievers (Davis & Rimm). When the curriculum becomes more complex or when students enter competitive academic environments, gifted children may begin to feel as though they are not as intelligent as they believed they were earlier (Rimm). Underachievement may even appear at the postsecondary level if students have not learned to function in competition (Davis & Rimm).

Underachievers generally express negative attitudes toward school (Butler-Por, 1993; McCoach & Siegle, 2003a). However, it is not possible to determine whether these negative attitudes toward school are the cause of poor academic performance or the outcome of the underachiever's school experience (Butler-Por; McCoach & Siegle, 2003b). The gifted underachiever's poor attitudes toward school may be affected by parental attitudes, peer attitudes, and the failure of the school to challenge and engage gifted students (Butler-Por; Siegle & McCoach, 2004). In addition, teachers may convey values and expectations that antagonize, alienate, and contribute to gifted students' underachievement (Butler-Por). Teachers may fail to recognize students' high abilities and therefore fail to set appropriate goals and expectations for gifted pupils (Butler-Por). Further, if the teacher's teaching style does not match the student's learning style, the student's achievement may suffer (Boyce, 1998).

A recent study examined the differences between gifted high achievers and underachievers in terms of their general academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, motivation and self-regulation, and goal valuation using the SAAS-R (McCoach & Siegle, 2003a). The sample consisted of 56 gifted underachievers and 122 gifted achievers from 28 high schools nationwide. The results indicated that gifted achievers and gifted underachievers differed in their attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers, motivation/self-regulation, and goal valuation, but not their academic self-perceptions. In addition, over 81% of the sample could be correctly classified as either gifted achievers or gifted underachievers using their scores on two subscales: motivation/self-regulation and goal valuation.

Underachievement in Postsecondary Education

Chronic underachievement can continue into adulthood (Rathvon, 1996). Unfortunately, post-secondary outcomes of gifted underachievers are not often studied. Very few studies include high-ability individuals who do not attend or remain in college (Peterson, 2000). Peterson followed achieving and underachieving gifted high-school students into college. She found that personality factors, motivation, satisfaction, loneliness, anticipation of success, work, finances, and family may have an impact on persistence and success in college. Specifically, she found that "the achievers' sureness and earlier determination of career direction suggest that direction may be a factor in successful achievement" (p. 222). Affective concerns related to the young-adult developmental tasks of detaching from parents, achieving emotional autonomy and intimacy, developing one's identity, and occupational direction may also affect post high-school success (Peterson). In a study of 31 successful adults who were once underachievers (Peterson, 2001), uninvolved parents and teachers were implicated as contributors to scholastic underachievement. In addition, negative parental attitudes toward work, family conflict and transitions, and lack of career direction also appeared to impact students' achievement. Personality factors, positive role models outside of the family, changes in location, and changes in academic coursework appeared to contribute to the reversal of underachievement. Achievement in college appears to be related to academic self-regulation as well as academic ability (Diener, 1960; Ruben, McCoach, McGuire, & Reis, 2003).

Purpose

The purpose of this study was to determine whether gifted underachievers at Bogazici University exhibited lower academic self-perception, attitudes toward school, attitudes toward teachers and classes, motivation and self-regulation, and goal valuation when compared to a convenience sample of gifted comparison students. In addition, this study sought to determine whether the five subscales of the SAAS-R could be used to classify students as underachievers or comparison students. This research study replicates and extends the work of McCoach and Siegle (2003a) by examining differences between underachievers and comparison students within a Turkish university setting.

Methods

Population and Sample

Bogazici University usually accepts students among the top-ranking high-school graduates (upper 5%) who are selected through a nationwide external entrance examination called the Student Selection and Placement Examination (OSYS). The OSYS exam is taken by nearly 1.5 million students each year. Because students at Bogazici University represent the top students in Turkey, for the purposes of this study they will be defined as academically gifted.

The OSYS consists of two tests to measure candidates' verbal and quantitative reasoning abilities. The major components of the verbal test are proficiency in the Turkish language and the ability to reason using social-science concepts and generalizations. The major components of the quantitative test are the ability to make use of basic mathematical concepts and rules, and the ability to reason using natural-science concepts and generalizations. The exam also assesses knowledge levels, computing, and reasoning skills in literature, mathematics, the natural sciences (biology, chemistry, and physics), and the social sciences (geography, history, philosophy, and psychology). Students' high-school grade point averages (GPA) are also taken into consideration in the college-placement process.

There are more than 7,000 undergraduate students currently studying at Bogazici University. Of those, nearly 3,537 students (49.9%) have GPAs lower than 2.0 (data received from the University's Registrar Office). Among the 3,537 students whose GPAs fall below 2.0 out of 4.0, only 614 students (17.4%) who completed at least four semesters at the university had GPA's below 2.0 in consecutive semesters and at least one failing grade (F) on their transcripts. Because these students displayed extreme underachievement when compared to all other students who hold a GPA below 2.0, they were selected to form the underachieving population of this study. These students appeared to embody the chronic underachievement phenomenon at the postsecondary level. Therefore, the sample for this study was selected according to following criteria: all underachievers entered the university at the 95th percentile or above on the OSYS in their year of entry, completed at least four complete semesters at the university, had GPAs below 2.0 out of 4.0 for both of the preceding two semesters, and had at least one F on their transcripts. The comparison group consisted of a sample of convenience selected from the rest of the university population. All 614 underachieving students were contacted and asked to participate in the study. A total of 91 underachieving students (14.8% of the population) agreed to participate. The comparison group, on the other hand, consisted of a convenience sample of 74 students. The comparison students (a) were recruited by visiting classes on the university campus, (b) represented a heterogeneous sample of students from the university, and (c) were heterogeneous in terms of their GPAs. In other words, this group could contain both achieving and underachieving students. However, researchers ensured that no one from the underachieving group (from the population just described) was included in this group to assure the independence of the two samples.

Instrumentation 

The School Attitude Assessment Survey--Revised ([SAAS-R]; McCoach, 2001) was administered to the sample of this study. The SAAS-R measures five factors that are considered to be among the possible reasons for underachievement of gifted and talented students: academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation. McCoach and Siegle (2003b) reported the SAAS-R was developed to explore the relationship between these five factors and scholastic underachievement in academically able students.

The SAAS-R employed a 7-point Likert type agreement scale ranging from 1 to 7, where 1 represented "strongly disagree" and 7 represented "strongly agree." It contains 43 items. A confirmatory factor analysis of the SAAS-R indicated that the data provided a reasonable fit to a model with five correlated factors (McCoach & Siegle, 2003b). The reliability estimates for each of the five factors in their sample ranged from .89 to .95 (McCoach & Siegle, 2003a).

Two experts translated the SAAS-R instrument into Turkish, and five other experts whose profession is teaching English and are also native speakers of Turkish language checked the translation. Both the English form and the Turkish form were administered to a convenience sample of 81 students who were fluent in both languages. First, the English version was administered. After a 10-day interval, the Turkish form was given to the same group of students. The correlation between the Turkish version of the SAAS-R and the English version was very high, r = .907, (p < .001). For the present study, Cronbach's alpha reliabity estimates were .81 for the academic self-perceptions subscale, .87 for the attitudes toward teachers subscale, .90 for the attitudes toward teachers subscale, .91 for the goal-valuation subscale, and .95 for the motivation/self-regulation subscale.

Statistical Analyses

To determine whether there was a difference between the underachieving and comparison groups, we conducted a multivariate t-test, followed by a discriminant function analysis. To more closely examine the patterns of mean subscale scores of the underachieving and comparison groups, we conducted chi-square tests of independence and examined subscale frequencies.

Results

Table 1 shows the mean scores and standard deviations of the two groups with respect to the five subscales of the SAAS-R instrument, as well as the effect sizes of the differences reported in terms of Cohen's d, a measure of the mean difference between the two groups in standard deviation units. The comparison students had higher mean scores than did the underachievers on all five of the subscales. The motivation/self-regulation subscale showed the greatest mean difference between the two groups. The mean for the comparison students was over 1.4 standard deviations units higher than the mean for the underachieving group. There was also a large difference between comparison students and underachievers on the goal-valuation subscale; the comparison students scored approximately .72 standard deviations higher than underachievers on the goal-valuation subscale. In addition, the variability for the underachievers on the goal valuation scale was statistically significantly greater than that of the comparison students. However, this was the only subscale on which the variances differed for the two groups. The mean for the sample of comparison students on the attitudes-toward-school subscale was .66 standard deviation units higher than the mean of the underachievers. Comparison students also scored .61 standard deviation units higher than underachievers on the academic self-perceptions factor. Finally, the mean of the comparison students on the attitudes-toward-school factor was approximately .46 standard deviation units higher than that of the underachievers.

A Hotelling's multivariate t-test was performed on the five dependent variables: academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation. The MANOVA results were statistically significant (Wilks' Lambda = .663, F (5,159) = 16.195,p < .001), suggesting that the underachieving students and the comparison students differed on a linear combination of the five subscales of the SAAS-R.

A discriminant function analysis was conducted to determine whether some or all of the subscales from the SAAS-R could be used to predict group membership as an underachiever or a member of the convenient sample of comparison students. First, a direct discriminant function analysis was performed using the five subscales of the SAAS-R as predictors of membership in either the underachiever or comparison college student group. The first discriminant function was able to correctly classify 80.0% of the original grouped cases and 77.6% of the cross-validated cases (using the jackknife procedure) as either comparison students or underachievers. The standardized canonical discriminant function matrix, as seen in Table 2, suggests that the best predictor for distinguishing the two groups is the motivation/self-regulation subscale. The other four variables exhibited moderate correlations with the discriminant function, as evidenced by the structure coefficients. However, the standardized canonical discriminant function coefficients were quite small for these four variables (ranging from -.047 to .008), suggesting that they had very little unique impact in the prediction of group membership. This can be explained by the moderate multicollinearity among the five subscales of the SAAS-R. Table 3 contains the correlations among the five subscales. Although the correlations among the subscales are moderate, the other four subscales accounted for very little unique variance in the discriminant function over and above that which was accounted for by the motivation/self-regulation factor. Therefore, we ran a second discriminant function analysis, which included only the motivation/self-regulation factor, to compare the classification rates using all five subscales of the SAAS-R to the classification rate using only the motivation/self-regulation subscale. We found that, using only the motivation subscale, we were able to correctly classify 78.2% of the original grouped cases and 78.2% of the cross-validated grouped cases (using the jackknife procedure). Because these classification rates were very similar to the classification rates with all five subscales, we concluded that motivation/self-regulation was the subscale that was best able to classify students as underachievers, and that the other four subscales did not contribute significantly to classification within this particular sample. This differs from the findings of McCoach and Siegle (2003a), who found that both the motivation/self-regulation subscale and the goal-valuation subscale aided in the classification of students as either high achievers or underachievers.

Frequency Analysis and Crosstabs

The SAAS-R employed a 7-point Likert-type agreement scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. To provide greater insight into the responses of underachievers, we grouped the mean subscale scores into three categories. Therefore, we split the scale into three equal intervals. Mean scale scores between 1 and 2.99 were coded as "low," mean scale scores of 3.00 through 4.99 were considered "moderate," and mean scale scores of at least 5.00 were considered "high." This categorization of the means into three categories (low, average, and high) enabled us to examine the frequency of low, average, and high scores on the various subscales of the SAAS-R (see Table 4).

Table 4 shows the frequency analyses for the five subscales of the SAAS-R. As expected, larger proportions of underachievers had low means on the five subscales, and larger proportions of students in the comparison group had high means on the five subscales. Chi-square tests of independence were statistically significant for all five variables, indicating a statistically significant relationship between achievement status and academic self perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, motivation/self-regulation, and goal valuation.

Almost half (44%) of underachievers in this sample had high-goal valuation, although there appears to be a fair amount of variability; 11% of the students exhibited low-goal valuation; and 45% exhibited moderate-goal valuation. In contrast, over 70% of the comparison group exhibited high-goal-valuation scores, and only one of the comparison students exhibited a low-goal-valuation score. Finally, most underachieving students had low scores on the motivation/self-regulation subscale, and very few of the underachieving students reported high motivation/self-regulation. Whereas 58.2% of the underachievers fell into the low motivation/self-regulation category, over 90% of the comparison students were in the moderate or high categories for motivation/self-regulation. Again, the most striking differences between the underachievers and the comparison group occurred on this subscale.

Differential patterns of correlations among the two sub samples were also examined. Interestingly, the pattern of correlations among the subscales appears to be different for the underachievers and the comparison students. For underachievers, the academic self-perceptions subscale was not significantly correlated with the attitudes-toward-school subscale (r = .20) and the goal-valuation subscale (r = .046). However, in the sample of comparison students, the correlation between academic self-perceptions and attitudes toward school was moderate (r = .388), as was the correlation between the academic self-perceptions subscale and the goal-valuation subscale (r = .434).

Discussion

The goals of the study were to identify characteristics of gifted underachievers at the university level, and to explore potential factors contributing to underachievement. The SAAS-R, which focuses on five factors as the major reasons of underachievement (academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation), was administered to two different groups: underachieving students and a conveniently selected comparison group of students.

The results indicated that underachievers had lower scores on the SAAS-R than did the comparison students. In addition, there were moderate to large differences between the means of comparison students and the means of the underachievers on each of the five subscales of the SAAS-R. However, among the five subscales, the motivation/self-regulation subscale was the best predictor of underachievement. These findings suggest that interventions designed to reverse underachievement in university students should include components that address motivation and self-regulation. These results also underscore the importance of the counseling center within the university's system. Academic causes of underachievement are best handled through tutoring and other academically oriented special services. However, motivation-related issues might best be handled by university counseling centers or other affectively oriented support services.

These results can be compared to McCoach and Siegle's (2003a) study of underachievers, since they used the same instrument. In their study, McCoach and Siegle attempted to differentiate between high-school gifted achievers and gifted underachievers using the SAAS-R. Although the findings from this study are similar to theirs, some important differences are worth noting. First, McCoach and Siegle found that all of the factors except academic self-perceptions were significantly different for gifted achievers and gifted underachievers. According to their findings, both gifted achievers and gifted underachievers exhibit very high academic self-perception scores. In the present study, the differences between underachievers and comparison students exhibited moderate to large effect sizes on all of the five subscales of the SAAS-R instrument (academic self-perceptions, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation). In contrast to their study, neither the comparison students (mean = 4.86) nor the underachieving students (mean = 4.31) exhibited extremely high scores on the academic self-perception subscale. In the same respect, although the underachieving students differed from the comparison group on the academic self-perceptions subscale, the frequency analysis of the results of the present study also indicated that over 93 % of the 91 underachievers' responses reflected moderate to high levels of academic self-perception. Therefore, although the underachievers in this study have lower academic self-perceptions than the comparison students, most of the students in the sample do not appear to suffer from low academic self-perceptions.

Although prior research indicates that academic self-concept and academic achievement are related, the results of the present study indicate this relationship may be somewhat attenuated for university-level underachievers. These results provide further evidence that although many underachievers may suffer from low academic self-perceptions, highly able underachievers may not. Further research is needed to explore the relationship between the academic self-perceptions of college/university level students and their academic achievement/underachievement.

In McCoach and Siegle's (2003a) study, the largest differences between high achievers and underachievers occurred on the motivation/self-regulation subscale and the goal-valuation subscale, and both of these subscales aided in the classification of gifted students as achievers or underachievers. Contrary to McCoach and Siegle's study, scores on the goal-valuation subscale were high for underachievers and did not aid in the classification of students as underachievers. Most of the items in the SAAS-R instrument attempt to measure the importance of school to those who are assessed. It seems likely that school would be more important to university students than to high-school students. First, students who do not value school would assumedly be less likely to attend college. In addition, developmentally, university students are likely to be better able to orient themselves toward the future and may be more aware of the importance of their present academic activities on their future career prospects than are younger students.

However, the results of the present study regarding the motivation/self-regulation subscale were similar to those of the original study carried out by McCoach and Siegle (2003a). That is, 72.5% of the 91 underachieving students stated that they had very low motivation/self-regulation. This result complements related findings on motivational factors in the literature (Diener, 1960; McCoach and Siegle; Peterson, 2000; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Rimm, 1997) that underscore low motivation as one of the reasons for underachievement among gifted students. In addition to increasing the efficiency of counseling services to reverse or to prevent underachievement among underachievers with low motivation, universities should provide teachers and administrators with training to meet both the academic and affective needs of gifted students in general and gifted underachievers in particular. This training should emphasize strategies to improve self-regulation and motivation among academically able students at the university level. At Bogazici University, for instance, there is no such training provided to teachers and counselors. Counseling centers can also provide support to underachieving students by providing opportunities to develop study skills, time-management skills, and organization skills. Analyzing the nature of relationships between teachers and underachieving gifted students with low motivation may also aid in the development of strategies to reverse the academic underachievement of gifted students.

Limitations and Future Directions

There were certain limitations of the study. Generalizations of the findings of this study should be made cautiously because the participants of the study were not randomly selected and data were obtained from university-level students. Moreover, as the literature indicates, the identification of giftedness (Cline, 1999) and underachievement (Reis & McCoach, 2000) is somewhat problematic and controversial (Butler-Por, 1993; Reis & McCoach). Therefore, this sample may not match other researchers' definitions or identification criteria for gifted underachievement. To analyze the results of the SAAS-R instrument, underachievers were compared with a convenience comparison group. Although the researchers found statistically significant group differences, a comparison of the sample with a different sort of comparison group, such as high achievers, might have produced different results. In addition, the SAAS-R instrument focuses on only five factors related to underachievement. Surely there are many other unexamined factors that are correlates of underachievement. Finally, given that this study is non-experimental, we cannot draw causal inferences from the results. However, the data do provide correlates of underachievement for high-ability university students, and areas for future research.

Very little research has focused specifically on the study of underachievement among gifted students at the university level (Peterson, 2000). This study contributes to these few studies by demonstrating that underachievers and comparison students may differ on several personality characteristics: academic self-concept, attitudes toward teachers, attitudes toward school, goal valuation, and motivation/self-regulation. However, more research on the underachievement of gifted students is needed. New instruments, which include more factors, such as family-related factors and personality traits like low self-esteem, self-regulation strategies, procrastination, perfectionism, and critical thinking ability, should be developed. Finally, experimental studies should examine whether interventions on any of the factors related to underachievement could increase students' academic achievement.

In conclusion, the results of the present study may help university instructors, practitioners, university advisors, counselors, researchers, and families understand and evaluate factors associated with underachievement among gifted students at the university level. In this study, low motivation and poor self-regulation appear to be the most common characteristics of underachievers within this sample. Interventions to reverse underachievement at the university level should address issues associated with motivation and self-regulation, as these factors appear to be most directly connected to a student's status as an underachiever.

Manuscript submitted July 27, 2004.

Revision accepted April 27, 2005.

REFERENCES

Boyce, W. M. (1998). Where do I go from here? A brief introduction to gifted education for the beginning teacher. Masters Abstracts International, 37 (01), 27. (UMI No. 1391197)

Butler-Por, N. (1993). Underachieving gifted students. In K. A. Heller, F. J. Moks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International handbook of research & development of giftedness & talent. Oxford, UK: Pergamon Press.

Castor, S. C. (1997). Locus of control and self-concept in achieving and underachieving gifted students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57 (10), 6603B. (UMI No. 9109682)

Clark, B. (1997). Growing up gifted (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Cline, S. (1999). Giftedness has many faces: Multiple talents and abilities in the classroom. New York: The Foundation for Concepts in Education.

Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Davis, R. W. (1998). Characteristics that discriminate achieving from underachieving gifted African-American students in their freshman year in an historically black university. Dissertation Abstracts International, 59 (10), 3750A. (UMI No. 9910751)

Delisle, J., & Berger, S. L. (1990). Underachieving gifted students. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 321483)

Diener, C. L. (1960). Similarities and differences between over-achieving and underachieving students. Personnel and Guidance Journal, 38, 396-400.

Emerick, L. J. (1992). Academic underachievement among the gifted: Students' perceptions of factors that reverse the pattern. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 140-146.

Laffoon, K. S., Jenkins-Friedman, R., & Tollefson, N. (1989). Causal attributions of underachieving gifted, achieving gifted, and non-gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 13, 4-21.

Mandel, H. P., & Marcus, S. I. (1995). Could do better. New York: Wiley & Sons.

McClelland, R., Yewchuk, C., & Mulcahy, R. (1991). Locus of control in underachieving and achieving gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 14, 380-392.

McCoach, D. B. (2001). The School Attitade Assessment Survey-Revised. Unpublished instrument.

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003a). Factors that differentiate gifted achievers from gifted underachievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 144-154.

McCoach, D. B., & Siegle, D. (2003b). The SAAS-R: A new instrument to identify academically able students who underachieve. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 63, 414-429.

Peterson, J. S. (2000). A follow-up study of one group of achievers and underachievers four years after high school graduation. Roeper Review, 22, 217-223.

Peterson, J. S. (2001). Successful adults who were once adolescent underachievers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 236-249.

Peterson, J. S., & Colangelo, N. (1996). Gifted achievers and underachievers: A comparison of patterns found in school files. Journal of Counseling and Development, 74, 399-407.

Rathvon, N. (1996). The unmotivated child: Helping your underachiever become a successful student. New York: Fireside.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-169.

Reis, S. M., & McCoach, D. B. (2002). Underachievement in gifted and talented students with special needs. Exceptionality, 10, 113-125.

Richert, E. S. (1997). Rampant problems and promising practices in identification. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (4th ed., pp. 81-96). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Rimm, S. B. (1995). Why bright kids get poor grades and what you can do about it. New York: Crown Trade Paperbacks.

Rimm, S. B. (1997). Underachievement syndrome: A national epidemic. In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed., pp. 416-434). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Ruban, L., McCoach, D. B., McGuire, J., & Reis, S. M. (2003). Differences in study practices and academic achievement among college students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36, 270-286.

Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2001). Promoting a positive achievement attitude with gifted and talented students. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon (Eds.), Social-Emotional Needs of the Gifted: What do we know? Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Siegle, D., & McCoach, D. B. (2004). Motivating Gifted Students. Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Whitmore, J. R. (1985). Underachieving gifted students. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 262526)

Ugur Baslanti is currently a doctoral candidate in the Educational Technology program at the University of Florida. He holds an M.S. degree in Science and Mathematics Education with a focus in gifted education. This article was developed from his master's thesis completed at Bogazici University, Turkey. Working with the Johns Hopkins University Center for Talented Youth, Ugur also teaches chemistry in a summer program for the gifted. E-mail: [e-mail]

D. Betsy McCoach is an assistant professor in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Connecticut, where she teaches graduate courses in measurement, educational statistics, and gifted education. Betsy's areas of research interest include the underachievement of gifted students, gifted students with dual exceptionalities, motivation, instrument design and analysis, confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, multilevel modeling, and quantitative research methodology. E-mail: [e-mail]

Table 1
Mean Scores of Underachieving and Comparison
Students on the Five Subscales of the SAAS-R

                                                             Effect
Subscale            Group             N     Mean     SD     size (d)

Academic            Underachieving    91    4.31     .92       .61
self-perceptions    Comparison        74    4.86     .90

Attitudes toward    Underachieving    91    3.88    1.14       .66
teachers            Comparison        74    4.58     .95

Attitudes toward    Underachieving    91    4.57    1.33       .46
school              Comparison        74    5.14    1.12

Goal valuation      Underachieving    91    4.55    1.33       .72
                    Comparison        74    5.40     .96

Motivation/         Underachieving    91    3.00    1.01      1.41
self-regulation     Comparison        74    4.53    1.16

Table 2
Results of the
Discriminant Function Analysis

                               Standardized
                                canonical
                               discriminant      Structure
Subscale                       coefficients     coefficients

Academic self-perceptions         -.024             .426
Attitudes toward teachers         -.041             .469
Attitudes toward school            .008             .322
Goal valuation                    -.047             .507
Motivation/self-regulation        1.053             .998

Table 3
Correlations Among the
Five Subscales of the SAAS-R
for the Entire Sample of Students

                                   ASP    ATT    ATS    GOAL   MOT

Academic self-perceptions (ASP)     1
Attitudes toward teachers (ATT)    .428    1
Attitudes toward school (ATS)      .321   .538    1
Goal valuation (GOAL)              .265   .585   .544    1
Motivation/self-regulation (MOT)   .518   .580   .406   .616    1

Note. All correlations are significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Table 4
Frequency Analysis of Subscale Means for
Underachievers and Comparison Students

Academic self-concept          Underachievers     Comparison
  Low (1.00-2.99)              6.6%               1.4%
  Moderate (3.0-4.99)          67.0%              50.0%
  High (5.0-7.0)               26.4%              48.6%

Attitudes toward teachers      Underachievers     Comparison
  Low (1.00-2.99)              20.9%              5.4%
  Moderate (3.0-4.99)          59.3%              56.8%
  High (5.0-7.0)               19.8%              37.8%

Attitudes toward school        Underachievers     Comparison
  Low (1.00-2.99)              15.4%              4.1%
  Moderate (3.0-4.99)          37.4%              32.4%
  High (5.0-7.0)               47.3%              63.5%

Goal valuation                 Underachievers     Comparison
  Low (1.00-2.99)              11.0%              1.4%
  Moderate (3.0-4.99)          45.1%              28.4%
  High (5.0-7.0)               44.0%              70.3%

Motivation/self-regulation     Underachievers     Comparison
  Low (1.00-2.99)              58.2%              9.5%
  Moderate (3.0-4.99)          36.3%              52.7%
  High (5.0-7.0)               5.5%               37.8%