One line of critique from within the field of research in gifted education is that not enough studies are based on empirical evidence in examining the impact of educational interventions. However, further critique includes that within the empirical studies made there are limitations.

The following article is divided in two parts, firstly, a review of 46 studies on acceleration or enrichment as part of research in gifted education is given, followed by critical reading of the same articles. The questions the article aim to answer are:

• What claims are made about the impact of acceleration and enrichment?
• What methodological limitations are exemplified in these studies?
• What recommendations can be made to researchers in gifted education in order to improve validity and reliability of research within the field?

 The majority of studies in the sample claim positive impact of the interventions in the form of acceleration or enrichment on a variety of factors such as academic abilities, self-concept and socio-emotional states among the students. However, the article claims a need for an increase in transparency of criteria for sample selection, as well as clarifications of definitions of significant concepts studied. Moreover, the article argues for a need for extended identifications procedures to avoid samples based on one instant tests only, or subjective teacher recommendations, as well as assumptions based on treating gifted students as homogenous. One suggestion to move forward is to also to use longitudinal studies basing the conclusions about impact to a greater extend on the development of these students as gifted learners.