It is now well known that intellectually precocious young adolescents are at promise for creative achievements and eminence. But how early in their development can their potential for different types of eminence be identified? Previous work on intellectually talented youth has shown that discriminant functions composed of abilities and preferences, defining math/science versus humanistic constellations, predict different types of college degrees over at 10-year interval (age 13 to age 23). In this investigation, we examine whether the weights defining these two functions can be applied to intellectually precocious youth to distinguish different forms of eminence at age 50. Following Thorndike (1949), ultimate criteria will be utilized in this study (e.g., full professorships in the humanities, social sciences, and STEM at research intensive universities; leadership roles in medicine; partners at major law firms and distinguished judges; and executives in Fortune 500 companies). Do discriminant function weights based on age 13 ability/preference assessments, and calibrated against educational outcomes at age 23, maintain their longitudinal potency over 35 years by distinguishing these ultimate criteria?
In Study 1, these earlier derived discriminant function weights were applied to a sample of 677 intellectually precocious youth (433 males, 244 females) and, then, their two discriminant function scores were used to predict different types of creativity and eminence at age 50. The two trait-constellations indexed by these functions, math/science and humanistic, successfully differentiated different types of extraordinary accomplishments. In Study 2, the same two discriminant functions were applied to a unique sample of 605 top STEM graduate students (313 males, 292 females) who were assessed using conceptually-equivalent measures of the ability/preference constructs during their first two years of graduate school. Their criterion outcomes were then assessed in the same way 25 years later (at age 50). The same weights used in Study 1 successfully differentiated those graduate students who went on to achieve eminence from those pursuing other life endeavors. Following Lykken (1968, 1991), Study 2 constitutes a constructive replication of Study 1. It uses a unique sample of high-potential participants, at different time points, and with different measures, while holding constant the focal predictor/criterion constructs under analysis.
