Children’s drawings as a diagnostic tool
Children’s drawings, and in particular drawings of people, have been studied for over a century. In educational research, particularly in the context of art education, differences in skills have been observed between children who have and have not attended childcare, and between those who have attended state and private schools. Within psychological research, they have been studied most extensively, primarily to determine whether drawings of people can provide insights into children’s cognitive, social and emotional development. Various scoring systems have been developed for this purpose, enabling the analysis of drawings. Researchers are strongly divided on the usefulness of these scoring systems. Some consider it a very good tool, as drawing can act as an icebreaker and provide a topic for conversation. Other researchers argue that the scores calculated are not valid, meaning that the tests do not measure what they claim to measure. In the field of giftedness, very little research had been conducted.
Sven obtained his PhD in 2023 with a thesis on the usefulness of children’s drawings as a screening tool for giftedness. The studies in his thesis showed that children (aged 4 and 5) who received enriched education were more likely to draw different features than children who received standard education without any adjustments. For 4- and 5-year-olds, the specific features varied, but generally these were specific details that were present (such as irises in the eyes) or unrealistic proportions (such as very small heads). Interestingly, these features did not necessarily have to be drawn well; in fact, the very features that make a drawing attractive or realistic did not occur more or less frequently in either group of children.
The thesis provides evidence that children’s drawings can serve as a screening tool for children who require more support than is typically provided in schools. However, at present this is merely evidence; further research is needed to develop a tool that can actually be used in practice. To this end, Sven will be conducting research over the coming years in collaboration with Dr Astrid Menninga (University of Groningen). Their first steps will be to replicate the studies that have already been carried out with larger groups of children. This will enable them to investigate whether the characteristics identified previously can truly serve as indicators of a need for enriched education. Would you like more information or would your school like to participate in this research? Please contact Astrid Menninga (a.menninga [at] rug.nl (a[dot]menninga[at]rug[dot]nl)).
What do giftedness and a quantum computer have in common?
Many sources, whether academic or not, recognise that the needs and talents of people with characteristics of giftedness must be acknowledged. Consequently, there are countless publications explaining how talents and needs can be identified and what adjustments need to be made to enable people to develop to their full potential. In most cases, however, the literature does not address ‘multipotentiality’: the possession of multiple talents. Yet multipotentiality does seem relevant, as the limited literature on the subject highlights a few potential problems in the form of choice overload. Some ‘multipotentials’ find it difficult to choose between courses of study or careers, because choosing one means they cannot choose the other. There is not always time to pursue all talents. And if one does try, this often leads to physical and/or mental exhaustion. This can diminish well-being and hinder the process of self-actualisation (fully utilising one’s talents in line with who one is as a person). In the literature, there therefore appear to be gaps between the concepts of giftedness and multipotentiality, and the big question is: how can these gaps be bridged?
Leon Houben and Sven Mathijssen, an astronomer and a psychologist respectively, have joined forces to answer this question. By combining computer science and social sciences, they are attempting to describe human thinking based on the different ways in which problems can be solved, just as computers do. This is not new in itself; the computer analogy is frequently used in popular media as a metaphor for (the brains of) people with characteristics of giftedness. What is new, however, is the comparison between a person’s thought processes and those of a computer, and in particular those of a quantum computer. Within that thought process – just as with multipotentiality – so many processes take place simultaneously that it is not always clear what the precise steps leading up to the final solution are, or why precisely these steps were taken.
Leon and Sven are currently working on a conceptual article in which they use a quantum computer as a metaphor for multipotentiality. The aim is for this article to provide an analogy that can offer individuals (and possibly others involved) insight into the origins of their talents and help them decide which talents to develop and which not to, with a view to self-actualisation.
Research into giftedness: comparing apples and oranges
It is almost a cliché that there is still no single, clear definition of giftedness. We might therefore ask ourselves how much we actually know about it. This is a relevant question, as it could mean that significant findings from a study involving a group of ‘gifted people’ may not apply to another group of people who are also described as ‘gifted’. If we are not talking about the same thing, what do we really know about giftedness?
It was precisely to address this issue that Carol Carman (University of Texas Medical Branch) delved into the literature. She examined 104 research articles published between 1995 and 2009 to investigate how researchers selected their gifted and non-gifted participants. The methods were diverse, ranging from selection based on IQ (with different lower limits applied) to teacher or parent nomination and participation in extracurricular activities. But not everything was equally clear; in 11.5% of the publications examined, the selection method was not mentioned at all. In short: researchers employed different selection methods, but all made statements about giftedness in general. According to Carman, this is a problem for the scientific field, as it makes it virtually impossible to compare research findings. If studies cannot be compared, the scientific knowledge base becomes unstable. As formulating a single definition of giftedness that everyone agrees on is presumably unfeasible, she called on researchers to at least be clear about how the participants had been identified
The question now is: has the research community heeded this call? Around 15 years after the original analysis, Sven and Carol are now conducting a replication study together to answer this question. Much has been published in the last 15 years, but if the field still consists of studies that are difficult to compare with one another, this has major implications for issues such as diversity, equality, inclusion, identification, professionalisation and the effectiveness of (out-of-school) activities and programmes.
The study has been pre-registered, which means that the researchers are not permitted to deviate from their design. The collection of all sources published between 2010 and 1 April 2025 has now been completed. Over 8,600 articles have been assessed for suitability based on their title and abstract. Of these, over 2,650 potentially useful articles remained. These are now being read in full to ascertain whether they are genuinely useful for this study. Presumably, a few hundred of these will remain that can actually be used to determine whether we are still comparing apples with oranges. The aim is to be able to share the findings in 2026.
Are you interested in our training courses for professionals on giftedness?
Would you like to stay informed about this and other studies? LinkedIn page of RCSW