The Self-Perceptions of Twice-Exceptional Children: A Systematic Review

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

 

The purpose of this manuscript is to critically analyze the literature about twice-exceptionality about self-perceptions of 2e learners and to highlight any influencing variables on self-perception of 2e learners. Because several terms relative to self-perception (self-concept/self-esteem/self-efficacy) are used interchangeably, studies using those terms were included in this analysis and this was extremely helpful. The manuscript contributes greatly to the area under investigation as it outlines strengths and areas in need of improvement in research on this topic in the limitations section, lines 440-484. The studies reviewed lacked a precise definition of the examined concepts, varied research methodologies of the studies, different approaches to operationalization of twice-exceptionality of both giftedness and learning difficulties, the use of specific scale used in some studies, and the small number of identified twice exceptional learners. There is  a potential conflict between information in the text and Figure 1. Figure 1 indicates that there was 100 records identified (42 + 28 + 12 + 14 + 4 additional records, n = 100. However, in the screening section of Figure 1, "records after duplicates removed" and "records screened" n = 133. Additionally, in Figure 1 screening section "reports assessed for eligibility n= 31," but in the body of the manuscript on line 170, full text articles screened  was 32. The completeness of the study was exemplary as it thoroughly reviewed the components of self-perception (self-concept, self-efficacy, and self-concept). Both positive and negative variables impacting self-perception were clearly summarized and provided  Section 3.2 findings from papers (lines 247-369). This succinct section provides future researchers and scholars with valuable data. The implications for policy and future research provided much needed information to the literature. The results of this study add credibility to the need for additional teacher training on twice exceptionality and support for using strengths-based approaches with twice-exceptional learners. The manuscript is clearly written, relevant to the field, and was presented in a well-structured format.

Author Response

Comment 1: There is  a potential conflict between information in the text and Figure 1. Figure 1 indicates that there was 100 records identified (42 + 28 + 12 + 14 + 4 additional records, n = 100. However, in the screening section of Figure 1, "records after duplicates removed" and "records screened" n = 133.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. The box in figure 1 with the database list was too small, so one database with the articles found there was not displayed. The box has been adjusted and all databases are now displayed.

Comment 2: Additionally, in Figure 1 screening section "reports assessed for eligibility n= 31," but in the body of the manuscript on line 170, full text articles screened was 32.

Response 2: Thank you for noticing that. There was actually a typing error, as 36 full texts were actually checked. The number has been corrected both in Figure 1 and in the text on page 4, paragraph 2.3, line 170.

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The topic of the article seems interesting to me. The group of people with high abilities or intellectual giftedness is an aspect that deserves to be studied, which by the way are not abundant. The theoretical framework seems to me to be well explained. I would highlight the four tables and the figure that very well collect the results presented, this part being very valuable within the whole article. On the other hand, taking into account the limitations of the study that have been explained, I consider that one aspect to take into account are the future implications for practice, policy and research that are derived from the study. Perhaps I would have expanded the conclusions section a little more; however, it can be considered valid due to its concreteness. In subsequent research it would be good to compare these results with an empirical field study.

Author Response

Comment 1: On the other hand, taking into account the limitations of the study that have been explained, I consider that one aspect to take into account are the future implications for practice, policy and research that are derived from the study.

Response 1: We agree with this comment, therefore we have added the following sentence: “Implications for practice, policy and future research are given below. Due to the qualitative shortcomings of the included studies, the results should first be verified in future research and the implications should be confirmed on this basis” (page 15, paragraph 4.3, line 520-522).

Comment 2: In subsequent research it would be good to compare these results with an empirical field study.

Response 2: Agree. We have, accordingly, modified one sentence: Further research could build upon the findings of the review by testing the qualitative results quantitatively and longitudinally with a large sample size. This will allow the results of the review to be compared with an empirical field study” (page 16, paragraph 4.3.3, line. 559-561)