657588

research-article2016
GCQXXX10.1177/0016986216657588Gifted Child QuarterlyWinkler and Voight

Article

Gifted Child Quarterly

Giftedness and Overexcitability:

2016, Vol. 60(4) 243­–257
© 2016 National Association for
Gifted Children
Investigating the Relationship Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Using Meta-Analysis DOI: 10.1177/0016986216657588

gcq.sagepub.com

Daniel Winkler1 and Adam Voight1

Abstract
Current textbooks, websites, research articles, and popular resources have stated that gifted individuals have longer and
more pronounced responses to stimuli than the general population. This overexcitable nature of gifted persons has provided
a commonly used lens to conceptualize, identify, and understand giftedness and gifted persons’ behaviors. Yet there are
reasons to be skeptical about the evidence demonstrating that the gifted population is more overexcitable than the nongifted
population. A meta-analysis was conducted to investigate the existence and strength of the giftedness–overexcitability (OE)
relationship as presented in a number of studies comparing the OE scores of intellectually gifted and nongifted samples.
Gifted samples were found to have higher mean OE scores than nongifted samples. However, the effect size for psychomotor
OE was not statistically significant, while the effect sizes for the emotional and sensual OEs were small. Calculated effect sizes
for intellectual and imaginational OEs were medium. A number of important limitations and implications exist.

Keywords
overexcitability, giftedness, Dabrowski, meta-analysis, research synthesis, systematic review

Introduction Intellectual overexcitability is to be distinguished from

Historical Background
The construct of overexcitability (OE) encapsulates five OEs
that are part of a theory of psychological development called
the theory of positive disintegration (TPD; Dabrowski, 1964).
The Polish psychologist and psychiatrist Kazimierz Dabrowski
developed this theory and the OEs. For Dabrowski (1972), OE
entailed “higher than average responsiveness to stimuli, mani-
fested either by psychomotor, sensual, emotional (affective),
imaginational, or intellectual excitability, or the combination
thereof” (p. 303). These responses were physiological in
nature, resulting from especially sensitive neurology that was
heritable. Dabrowski observed or read about individuals dem-
onstrating the five OEs, psychomotor (POE), sensual (SOE),
imaginational (MOE), intellectual (TOE), and emotional over-
excitability (EOE). Piechowski and Cunningham (1985) pro-
vided a useful definition of each of the five OEs:
Psychomotor overexcitability is an organic excess of
energy or heightened excitability of the neuromuscular
system. It may manifest itself as a love of movement for
its own sake, rapid speech, violent or impulsive activity,
restlessness . . .
Sensual overexcitability is expressed in the heightened
experience of sensual pleasure, the seeking of sensual
outlets for inner tension . . .
intelligence. It manifests itself as persistence in asking
probing questions, avidity for knowledge and analysis, pre-
occupation with theoretical problems. Other expressions
are: a sharp sense of observation, independence of thought
(often expressed in criticism), symbolic thinking . . .
Imaginational overexcitability is recognized through rich
association of images and impressions, inventiveness . . .
intense living in the world of fantasy, predilection for
fairy and magic tales
Emotional overexcitability is recognized in the way emo-
tional relationships are experienced, and in the great inten-
sity of feeling and awareness of its whole range. Characteristic
expressions are: inhibition . . . excitation (enthusiasm), strong
affective recall of past experiences or concern with death,
fears, anxieties, or depressions. . . . There is a high degree of
differentiation of interpersonal feeling. (pp. 154-156)
Michael Piechowski (1979), and to a lesser extent Ogburn-
Colangelo (1979), introduced the five OEs to the gifted edu-
cation community, as Dabrowski’s work was largely
1
Cleveland State University, Cleveland, OH, USA
Corresponding Author:
Daniel Winkler, Cleveland State University, 2121 Euclid Avenue, Julka Hall
374, Cleveland, OH 44115, USA.
Email: danielwinklercsuohio@gmail.com
244 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)
unknown in American academia (Tillier, 2008). Piechowski
(1979) argued that OEs might be better predictors of gifted-
ness than other methods of identification, such as IQ tests.
Other researchers have since claimed that the gifted popula-
tion is more overexcitable than the nongifted population
(Maxwell, 1995; Meckstroth, 1995; O’Connor, 2002;
Piechowski, 1979, 1991; Piechowski & Colangelo, 2004;
Silverman, 1993, 2000b, 2008). In these instances, scholars
have conceived of giftedness as intellectual or creative.
Intellectual giftedness was considered membership in a
school’s gifted program and/or a high performance on psycho-
metric or academic measures (Ackerman, 1997; Bouchet &
Falk, 2001). Creative giftedness has commonly entailed excep-
tional performance in one of the arts (Piechowski & Colangelo,
1984) or on a psychometric instrument (Schiever, 1985).
Scholars have argued that the these high levels of OEs can
serve as a potential method for identifying gifted students
(Ackerman, 1997; Bouchard, 2004; Breard, 1994;
Piechowski, 1979) and should inform mental health practi-
tioners’ understanding of and approaches with gifted stu-
dents (Silverman, 2000a, 2000b). Teachers and parents have
also been encouraged to understand their children’s behavior
through this OE lens and make appropriate accommodations.
However, the degree to which this OE lens has influenced
parents and practitioners is unclear.
Evidence of Giftedness–OE Relationship
There is some disagreement among scholars about the nature
and strength of the giftedness–OE relationship. Some have
argued that gifted individuals are overexcitable, noting that
gifted samples have often outscored nongifted samples on
measures of OEs (Chang & Kuo, 2013; Harrison &
Haneghan, 2011; Piechowski, 2006). Surveying the litera-
ture, Piirto, Montgomery, and May (2008) succinctly sum-
marized this sentiment, noting that “one of the emerging
ideas about academically talented students has been that they
possess higher OE—that they are more sensitive and intense
than students who do not have high scores on IQ or achieve-
ment tests” (p. 142).
This position has been supported by comparative studies
that have found that gifted samples have outscored nongifted
samples on measures of OE (Ackerman, 1997; Bouchet &
Falk, 2001; Gallagher, 1985; Tieso, 2007). Researchers have
found statistically significant differences using different
instruments, including the Overexcitability Questionnaire I
(OEQ I; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984), the Overexcitability
Questionnaire II (OEQ II; Tieso, 2007), and the ElemenOE
(Bouchard, 2004). There is also cross-cultural validity to
these findings, with gifted samples having outscored non-
gifted samples in the United States (Harrison & Haneghan,
2011), Canada (Ackerman, 1997), Germany (Wirthwein &
Rost, 2011), Turkey (Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, 2006), Hong
Kong (Siu, 2010), Poland (Limont, Dreszer-Drogorób,
Bedyńska, Śliwińska, & Jastrzębska, 2014), Mexico, and
Spain (Falk, Yakmaci-Guzel, Chang, Sanz, & Chavez-Eakle,
2008). There is anecdotal evidence of gifted individuals’
OEs, as parents and gifted persons themselves have found
the constructs as accurate descriptions (Tolan, 2009).
Other scholars have argued that these findings have
important limitations. Pyryt (2008) claimed that only high
scores on TOE subscales were repeatedly found in high IQ
students and the measured effect sizes for the OEs were often
trivial or small. Pyryt (2008) and Piirto (2010a, 2010b) both
observed that many of the comparative studies had small
sample sizes, and Mendaglio and Tillier (2006) claimed that
many studies’ gifted samples included intellectually and cre-
atively gifted persons.
Warne (2011) critiqued the OEQ II, noting that its technical
information was “slight—almost nonexistent” (p. 673). There
is some debate in the empirical literature regarding the appro-
priate factor structure of the OEQ II, with some research calling
into question the factorial validity of its traditionally accepted
subscales. However, there is conflicting evidence as to whether
the structure of those subscales is appropriate for different stu-
dent subgroups (Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans, &
Staels, 2014; Warne, 2011) and about the OEQ II’s technical
merit in general (Botella et al., 2015; Warne, 2011).
Some scholars have critiqued the giftedness–OE relation-
ship on theoretical grounds. Wirthwein, Becker, Loehr, and
Rost (2011) observed that the OEs were similar to the Big
Five, noting that “openness to ideas” was similar to TOE and
“openness to feelings” was similar to EOE. Reviewing the
OEQ II and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory, Gallagher
(2013) found that the descriptions of SOE, MOE, TOE, and
EOE were similar to openness to experience and several of
its subcomponents. And Limont et al. (2014) observed that
the OEs and Big Five are both related to personality develop-
ment and are studied using self-report instruments.
In addition to this Big Five–related commentary, Mendaglio
(2012) has made theoretical critiques based on Dabrowski’s
understanding of the OEs. Mendaglio observed that many
researchers using the OEQ II had ignored how Dabrowski
understood the relationship between intelligence and the OEs
and how the five OEs were part of a larger theory, the TPD.
Dabrowski regarded intelligence as important for develop-
ment, but insufficient and not necessarily correlated with the
OEs. These OEs also interacted with other variables in a very
complex TPD framework, such as social environments and
dynamisms. Measuring the OEs without accounting for or
measuring these other variables, as the OEQ II does, has cre-
ated a theoretically flawed and invalid instrument (Mendaglio,
2012; Tillier, personal communication, March 7, 2016).
Statement of the Problem
To help provide clarity regarding the existence and strength of
the giftedness–OE relationship, a meta-analysis was conducted.
Clarity would help researchers better evaluate these varying
positions, and could help practitioners make more informed
Winkler and Voight 245
decisions about the level of OE within their gifted students/
patients. Additionally, it has been some time since such a meta-
analysis was conducted. Ackerman (1998) conducted a meta-
analysis almost 20 years ago, sampling studies that compared
gifted and nongifted samples’ OEQ I scores (the OEQ II had
yet to be developed). Since then, no researcher(s) has con-
ducted a meta-analysis regarding the giftedness–OE relation-
ship. This is noteworthy because over the past 20 years scholars
have produced many new studies comparing the OE levels of
gifted and nongifted samples (Steenbergen-Hu & Olszewski-
Kubilius, 2016) and have used new instruments, most notably
the OEQ II (Falk & Miller, 2009).
Many of these new studies were collected, and gifted and
nongifted samples’ OE scores were compared. This compari-
son was completed in an effort to investigate the following
research questions.
Research Question 1: Is there any statistically sig-
nificant difference between intellectually gifted indi-
viduals and nongifted individuals on any of the five
OE subdomains?
Research Question 2: What is the heterogeneity of
these differences across studies?
To answer these questions, the weighted mean effect sizes
were calculated and then tested for significance. This weigh-
ing would account for the various comparative studies’ dif-
fering effect sizes, sample sizes, and variance. A statistically
significant positive effect size would indicate that the col-
lected and combined studies’ gifted samples had outscored
the studies’ nongifted samples. Such a test would help aggre-
gate multiple comparative studies’ results.
Methodology
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to
address these research questions.
Search Strategies
The search terms “Dabrowski, “overexcitability,” and “over-
excitability + giftedness” were used to search the databases of
the journals Roeper Review (1990-present), Gifted Child
Quarterly (1957-present), Journal for the Education of the
Gifted (1998-present), and High Ability Studies (1998-pres-
ent). The databases PyschINFO, APA PsycNet, Proquest
Dissertation & Theses A&I, and Academic Search Complete
were also searched with no date restrictions. The first 10 pages
of results from a Google Scholar search,positivedisintegration.
com, and the bibliographies of other literature reviews and
research syntheses including Ackerman (1998), Chang and
Kuo (2013), Falk and Miller (2009), and Pyryt (2008) were
searched. These bibliographies as well as the bibliography
portal on positivedisintegration.com (Tillier, n.d.) were read
and reviewed for potential published articles and unpublished
manuscripts and theses. When searching the databases
Academic Search Complete and ProQuest Dissertation &
Theses A&I, only two key terms were used: “Kazimierz
Dabrowski” and “overexcitability + giftedness.” This was
because many individuals named “Dabrowski” authored stud-
ies, creating a very high volume of irrelevant results.
Over the course of 18 months, one author completed this
search procedure three times, though PscyINFO, APA
PyschNet, and ProQuest Dissertation & Theses A&I were
only searched once, on the most recent occasion. Titles were
read first and screened. If the study appeared to possibly
meet the inclusion criteria (listed below), the abstract and/or
full text was searched for and screened as well. On several
occasions, selected-for studies were identified while reading
the literature reviews mentioned above. And on multiple
occasions, Tillier’s (n.d.) bibliography provided live links to
articles, facilitating the screening and selection processes. To
acquire unpublished studies, two different universities’ inter-
library loan services were used.
Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria
The inclusion–exclusion criteria are listed below. If a study
met these criteria, it was included in the meta-analysis.
1. Researchers had to compare the OE scores of gifted
samples with nongifted samples, with giftedness
defined as exceptional intellectual, academic ability.
This kind of intellectual giftedness could have been
defined differently in various countries, states, and
school districts, with some using standardized tests
scores, grade point average, recommendations, iden-
tification matrices, and/or other criteria.
2. Researchers had to sample members of the general
student or adult population for their nongifted sam-
ples. The general student population could include the
general K-12 student population, the general under-
graduate population at universities (American or
international), and/or a vocational school population.
3. Studies that compared creatively gifted samples or
artistically gifted samples with nongifted and/or gifted
samples were excluded from this meta-analysis.
4. The samples could have been drawn from any country.
5. Any psychometric instrument could have been used
to measure the OEs.
6. The necessary data had to be provided for the selected
meta-analytic procedures.
7. The study had to be available in English, due to the
language restrictions of the authors.
Coding Procedures
Relevant information was collected from the studies that met
these criteria. The statistical information coded from each
study included the size of the gifted and nongifted subsamples
246 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)

Table 1.  Descriptive Statistics From Individual Studies.

POE SOE MOE EOE TOE

Study Mdif Sp ESsm Mdif Sp ESsm Mdif Sp ESsm Mdif Sp ESsm Mdif Sp ESsm
Ackerman 2.85 2.88 0.98 0.62 2.00 0.31 2.15 3.82 0.56 2.79 5.49 0.50 2.62 3.81 0.68
Bouchard −2.69 6.86 −0.39 −0.68 3.80 −0.18 0.60 2.80 0.21 0.49 5.27 0.09 6.90 9.09 0.76
Bouchet 0.18 0.70 0.26 0.35 0.75 0.46
Breard 0.28 3.73 0.07 0.16 1.95 0.08 0.59 3.32 0.18 1.77 4.24 0.41 1.12 4.20 0.26
Carman 0.11 0.74 0.15 0.23 0.76 0.30 0.35 0.73 0.48 0.10 0.67 0.15 0.39 0.70 0.55
Harrison 0.20 0.66 0.30 0.34 0.77 0.44 0.48 0.73 0.65 0.25 0.73 0.34 0.46 0.78 0.59
Limont −0.01 0.79 −0.01 0.21 0.77 0.27 0.31 0.80 0.39 −0.08 0.65 −0.12 0.32 0.64 0.50
Piirto 0.54 2.98 0.18 0.63 1.90 0.33 3.00 4.39 0.68 0.87 5.56 0.16 4.08 4.65 0.87
Siu 0.26 0.72 0.36 0.40 0.75 0.53 0.16 0.70 0.22 0.23 0.59 0.40 0.58 0.78 0.74
Tieso 0.03 0.78 0.03 0.03 0.87 0.03 0.22 0.89 0.24 0.15 0.81 0.19 0.19 0.76 0.25
Wirthwein −0.06 0.66 −0.08 0.05 0.73 0.07 0.07 0.67 0.10 −0.08 0.72 −0.11 0.18 0.60 0.30
Yakmaci-Guzel 1.46 2.44 0.59 0.87 3.21 0.27 2.50 3.50 0.71 1.12 4.55 0.24 5.84 6.06 0.96

Note. POE = psychomotor; SOE = sensual; MOE = imaginational; TOE = intellectual; EOE = emotional overexcitability; Mdif = difference in means between
gifted and nongifted subsamples; Sp = pooled standard deviation of gifted and nongifted subsamples; ESsm = unbiased standardized mean difference.

and the mean score and standard deviation for each subsample
on each of the five OE subdomains. Effect sizes were also col-
lected and/or calculated. These data were necessary for the
selected statistical procedures. These data are presented on
Table 1, though sample size is presented on Table 2.
Other collected study descriptors included geographic
area from which sample was collected, instrument used to
measure the OEs, and gifted and nongifted samples’ charac-
teristics. These data were collected to provide context for
readers. Past findings have shown that country of origin can
influence individuals’ OE profiles (Falk et al., 2008) and
giftedness is operationalized in many different ways in the
comparative literature (Mendaglio & Tillier, 2006). It has
also been found that OE scores can vary across ages/year in
school (Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984; Tieso, 2007).
Additionally, the instruments used to measure the OEs can be
qualitative (OEQ I) or quantitative (OEQ II). This difference
produces differences in scoring. In addition, the OEQ II’s
validity has been contested (Warne, 2011). These data are
presented on Table 2.
Instrument
OEQ I and OEQ II.  Michael Piechowski (2006) developed the
OEQ I after examining 433 examples of OEs in his and Dab-
rowski’s case studies. By observing what questions and stim-
uli allowed Dabrowski’s patients to demonstrate their OEs,
Piechowski was able to develop a standard set of open-ended
questions. Initially, the OEQ I had 46 questions, but it was
reduced to 21 questions. The answers for these questions are
evaluated for all five OEs, as the stimuli can produce unpre-
dictable responses for many overexcitable persons. Answers
with a high degree of one or more OE would receive a score of
3 (highest) or 2. Less OE presence would receive a 1 or 0 (low-
est). The highest possible score for each of the five OEs is 21
(Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984). The instrument is appropri-
ate for children and adults, but it has been suggested that lim-
ited linguistic abilities can affect scores (Ackerman, 1997).
Two trained coders separately spend 1 or 2 hours evaluat-
ing each questionnaire (Piechowski, 2006). Afterward, they
compare scores and settle on one score from both raters. It
has been reported that most studies interrater reliabilities
exceed 60% (Falk et al., 2008). Piechowski and Colangelo
(1984) noted that interrater reliability was most often
between .70 and .80. If raters greatly disagree about scores,
they discuss differences and attempt to reach an agreed score.
If the dispute is not settled, the scores are either averaged
(Falk et al., 2008) or an expert, namely Michael Piechowski
or Frank Falk, settles the stalemate (Silverman, 2008).
The OEQ II was developed by Falk, Lind, Miller,
Piechowski, and Silverman (1999). The OEQ II is a self-
report, 5-point Likert-type with a response of 1 indicating
not at all like me and 5 indicating very much like me. The test
developers used a principal components factor analysis and
found a five-factor structure aligning with the five OEs (Falk
et al., 1999). There are five calculated subscores, one for
each OE. There is no general/total test score. The subscales
were reported to have a high Cronbach’s alpha: .89 for SOE,
.89 for TOE, .86 for POE, .85 for MOE, and .84 for EOE.
ElemenOE.  The ElemenOE was used in only one study col-
lected for this meta-analysis, Bouchard (2004). The instru-
ment was piloted in a study in which teachers rated gifted
and nongifted students. Initially, the instrument had 100
Likert-type scale items, but five Dabrowskian scholars rated
the items, and 61 were chosen to comprise the ElemenOE
pilot. After piloting in over 300 classrooms, Bouchard
reduced the instrument to its 30 strongest items. The instru-
ment was intended for adults to use to rate children’s
behaviors.
 Table 2.  Mined Descriptive Information From Individual Studies.
Geographic area of
Study Instrument research site Operationalization of “gifted” Characteristics of “nongifted” subsample Gifted n Nongifted n

Ackerman OEQ I Canada Identified using achievement test scores, recommendation(s), Unidentified/nongifted; high school students 42 37
grades, and an IQ of at least 120 (an unknown number of
exceptions was made to IQ threshold); high school students
Bouchard ElemenOE United States Identified using evidence of high achievement capability in areas Unidentified/nongifted; elementary school children 96 75
(Houston, Texas) such as intellectual, creative, artistic, or leadership capacity,
or in specific academic fields; elementary school children
Bouchet OEQ II United States Identified using self-report as having been enrolled in a gifted Identified using self-report as either being enrolled in 142a 419
(Midwest) program while in high school; college undergraduate students Advanced Placement courses or in typical courses; college
undergraduate students
Breard OEQ I United States (South Identified using a 100-point scale system, 90 points of which is Near-gifted students identified with score between between 48 69
Carolina) based on achievement and aptitude tests and 10 points on 80 and 89.5 and nongifted scored below 80; fourth- and
individual school district discretion. The gifted group scored fifth-grade students
at or above 90; fourth- and fifth-grade students
Carman OEQ II United States Identified as gifted at some point in their life; undergraduate Students who had never been identified; undergraduate and 72 193
and graduate school students graduate
Harrison OEQ II United States Identified as creatively and/or intellectually gifted using Unidentified/nongifted students; middle and high school 73 143
achievement, IQ, and/or creativity test scores; middle and students
high school students
Limont OEQ II Poland Scored above 80 centile on the Raven’s Advanced Progressive Scored below the 80 centile on the Raven’s Advanced 132 103
Matrices; secondary school students Progressive Matrices; secondary school students
Piirto OEQ I United States Enrolled in a school’s gifted program; high school students Enrolled in vocational education classes; high school students 61b 53b
Siu OEQ II China (Hong Kong) Identified using a number of assessments including standardized Unidentified/nongifted students; students of various ages 217 229
tests on intellectual abilities and psychological profiles;
students of various ages
Tieso OEQ II United States (East Identified using a matrix that included a minimum score on Unidentified/nongifted; elementary and middle school 296 190
Coast) standardized tests of achievement, ability, or creativity; students
elementary and middle school students
Wirthwein OEQ II Germany The gifted sample was identified using IQ scores on three Unidentified/nongifted sample had a mean score of 102 at 95 309
different tests—mean 136 score in the third grade and 136 third grade and 103 at ninth grade; adults
in the ninth grade; adults who participated in a longitudinal High achievers had an IQ mean score of 117; adults
study Average achievers had a mean IQ score of 102; adults
Yakmaci- OEQ I Turkey (Istanbul) Identified using Ravens Advanced Progressive Matrix with a A low intellectual ability group was identified with a score 35 70
Guzel score of at least 27; high school students below 9; high school students
A middle or average intellectual ability group was identified
with a score between 9 and 27; high school students

Note. OEQ = Overexcitability Questionnaire; POE = psychomotor; SOE = sensual; MOE = imaginational; TOE = intellectual; EOE = emotional overexcitability.
a
Bouchet and Falk (2001) did not report results for the POE, SOE, or MOE.
b
Piirto and Fraas (2012) reported smaller sample sizes (n = 48 for each subsample) on the MOE, EOE, and TOE.

247
248 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)
Statistical Methods
Effect Size Calculations. For each study, an effect size was
calculated to interpret the difference in subdomain scores
between gifted and nongifted subsamples. The effect size
statistic used was the unbiased standardized mean differ-
ence, calculated from the information coded from each of the
reviewed studies according to
 3   X gifted − X non− gifted
ES sm = 1 − 
 4 N − 9   sp
where X gifted is the mean OE outcome for gifted students,
X non− gifted the mean for nongifted students, s p the pooled
standard deviation among the two subsamples, and N the
total sample size (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000). The bracketed
portion of the equation adjusts effect sizes downward for
small sample sizes. Note that a positive effect size indicates
that gifted students have higher scores than nongifted, and a
negative effect size indicates the opposite. Pooled standard
deviation was calculated using the formula:
sp =
(n gifted ) (
− 1 sgifted 2 + nnon− gifted − 1 snon− gifted 2
(n gifted + nnon− gifted + 2)
where ngifted and sgifted are the subsample size and standard
deviation of the subdomain score, respectively, for gifted stu-
dents and nnon− gifted and snon− gifted are the subsample size and
standard deviation for nongifted students. All analyses were
conducted using Stata 13.
Identification of Outliers.  To protect against the disproportion-
ate influence on the means and variances in the meta-analy-
sis, a process for detecting outliers was employed by
examining the distribution of study effect sizes for each OE
subdomain. Effect sizes were determined to be outliers if
they were more than 2 standard deviations from the mean of
all effect sizes. Only one subdomain effect size (i.e., POE)
from one study (i.e., Ackerman, 1997) met this threshold by
a small margin at 2.15 standard deviations. This study was
further inspected to detect any abnormalities in method. No
such abnormalities were detected, and because it was only
marginally above the 2 standard deviation criterion for out-
lier detection, the study effect size was retained for subse-
quent analysis. Nonetheless, a sensitivity analysis was
performed to examine the effect on the overall POE effect
size estimate of omitting this study.
Heterogeneity in Effect Sizes.  Due to differences among stud-
ies in samples and in measures, it was assumed that the iden-
tified effects were heterogeneous and random effects models
were estimated to identify cross-study mean effect sizes. To
corroborate whether there were differences in individual
study effect sizes for reasons other than sampling error (e.g.,
due to variation in study characteristics), a Q statistic was
calculated using the effect size and inverse variance weight
for each study and the formula
( ∑w ES )
2
∑w ES 2 i i
Q= −
∑w
i i
i
suggested by Hedges and Olkin (1985). The Q statistic was
treated as a chi-square statistic in a test of statistical signifi-
cance with degrees of freedom one less the study sample

size.



Effect Size Weighting Method.  Each of the 12 study’s subdo-
main effect sizes were then used to calculate a weighted
mean effect size for each subdomain according to
ES =
∑ ( w ES )
i i
∑w i
where ES is the effect size value and w the inverse variance
weight for each reviewed study i (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000).
The inverse variance weight gives added weight to effect
sizes with smaller confidence intervals (i.e., more precise
)
estimates and typically large sample sizes) when calculating
the cross-study mean.
Effect Size Confidence Intervals. The sum of study inverse
variance weights was also used to create a 95% confidence
interval around the weighted mean effect size for each sub-
domain (Lipsey & Wilson, 2000). This approach to calculat-
ing the combined study effect size is recommended when the
reviewed studies are functionally similar (Borenstein,
Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009).
Random Effects Adjustments.  Operating on the assumption that
differences in sample study characteristics may affect the vari-
ability in observed study effect sizes (in addition to variability
due to sampling error associated with the subject samples on
which the individual effects sizes are based), adjustments were
made to initially calculated weighted effect sizes to account
for these presumed random sources of variation. The random
effects variance component was calculated for each subdo-
main to estimate the portion of the variance among effect sizes
not due to sampling error using Lipsey and Wilson’s (2000)
method of moments procedure and the formula
Q − ( k − 1)
vθ =
∑ (∑ ∑ )
wi − wi2 / wi
where vθ is the estimate of the random variance component
and k is the number of studies in the meta-analytic sample.
The estimate of vθ was then added to initially calculated
sampling error variance, and the inverse of the sum was sub-
stituted in the formula above for calculated weighted effects
size and confidence intervals. These revised effect sizes and
confidence intervals that, in effect, control for random differ-
ences in study characteristics are reported in the results
Winkler and Voight 249
section below. Due to the small number of retained studies,
no moderation or mediation analyses were conducted.
Assessment of Publication Bias.  Funnel plots and Egger’s test
for small-study effects estimated in Stata 13 were used to
assess publication bias (Egger, Smith, Scheider, & Minder,
1997). Two-way funnel plots graph the effect sizes from each
study in a meta-analysis on the x-axis and the study sample
size on the y-axis. It is expected that there will be more vari-
ability in the effect size distribution of studies with small
sample sizes versus large sample sizes, but effect sizes from
both types of study should center on the same grand mean,
resulting in a funnel-shape distribution. Egger’s test for
small-study effects provides an associated statistical test by
regressing study effect sizes on their standard errors to deter-
mine if sample size has a statistically significant association
with (i.e., biases) observed effect size. There were too few
unpublished studies included in the meta-analysis to assess
publication bias by comparing the mean effect size for the
published versus unpublished studies, as recommended by
Lipsey and Wilson (2000).
Results
Search Procedure Results
Records Identified Through Database Searching. Including
duplicates, 637 titles were identified and read during the
database searches. Based on the reading of the studies’ titles,
14 of these studies were selected for a full-text review.
Additional Records Identified Through Literature Reviews and Bib-
liographies.  Nineteen studies (n = 19) were identified through
reading literature reviews and bibliographic sources, includ-
ing Tillier’s (n.d.) online bibliography, Ackerman’s meta-
analysis and bibliography (1998), Falk and Miller’s (2009)
literature review and bibliography, and Pyryt’s (2008) litera-
ture review and bibliography. These 19 studies were selected
for a full-text review.
Full-Text Articles Assessed for Eligibility and Full-Text Articles
Excluded. Thirty-three studies were identified through these
initial searches (n = 33). Fourteen sources were identified by
reading titles from database searches. Nineteen sources were
identified while reading the referenced literature reviews. Eight
of the identified studies were not acquired. This was either
because they were not available in English (Chang, 2001; Sanz,
2006; Yakmaci-Guzel, 2002) or because the full text was
unable to be acquired (Buerschen as cited by Ackerman, 1998;
Domroese as cited by Ackerman, 1998; Kristiansen-Hagne,
1998; Piechowski & Cunningham, 1985; Sandal-Miller, 1988).
Abstracts were acquired for three of these studies. A reading of
these abstracts indicated that none of them met all of the inclu-
sion criteria (Kristiansen-Hagne, 1998; Piechowski & Cun-
ningham, 1985; Sandal-Miller, 1988).
Twenty-five full-text studies were acquired. After reading
these full-text studies, 14 were found to violate one of the
inclusion criteria. Each particular rationale for exclusion is
listed in Table 3. Studies were excluded for a variety of viola-
tions, including not comparing a gifted sample with a non-
gifted sample (Gallagher, 1985), reporting insufficient data
(Bouchet & Falk, 2001), and not being published in English
(see above). It was found that 12 studies met every inclusion
criteria, and these were included in the meta-analysis (see
Table 4). It should be noted that the study authored by Bouchet
and Falk (2001) is reported in both the included and excluded
tables. This is because sufficient data were reported for EOE
and TOE, but was not reported for POE, SOE, and MOE.
Meta-Analysis Results
Ultimately, 12 studies were retained for the meta-analysis
(indicated with asterisks in the references section). The sample
sizes (combined gifted and nongifted subsamples) of the 12
studies ranged from 79 to 486. One of the reviewed studies
(Bouchet & Falk, 2001) did not include the POE, SOE, and
MOE subdomains in their analysis, and another study (Piirto &
Fraas, 2012) administered the MOE, EOE, and TOE to a
smaller group of gifted and nongifted students than the POE
and SOE. All included studies reported only one effect size for
each subdomain. The Q statistic was found to be statistically
significant for each of the five subdomains, which indicates
heterogeneity in effects due to factors aside from sampling
error (e.g., differences in instrumentation; see Table 5).
Overall Effect Size Estimates.  The results suggest that for each of
the five subdomains of OE, gifted students have higher scores
than nongifted students (Table 5). Only the POE subdomain
weighted mean effect size had a 95% confidence interval that
included zero (the lower bound was approximately zero).
Based on the weighted mean effects sizes, the differences in
SOE (ES = 0.22), and EOE (ES = 0.19) between gifted and
nongifted students may be considered small. The differences in
MOE (ES = 0.36) and TOE (ES = 0.55) may be considered
medium. The difference in POE between gifted and nongifted
students was not statistically significant (ES = 0.17). A sensitiv-
ity analysis that omitted the single outlier study from the calcu-
lation of the mean POE effect size (i.e., Ackerman, 1997)
resulted in a smaller mean effect size (ES = 0.11) that was also
not statistically significant. Funnel plots and Egger’s test for
small-study effects did not detect publication bias for four of
the five OE subdomains, but suggested that small-study bias
may be present for the MOE subdomain.
Discussion
In some ways, these findings offer valuable contributions to
the understanding of the relationship between giftedness and
OE. There appears to be a positive relationship between the
two constructs. The calculated differences for SOE, MOE,
250 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)

Table 3.  Excluded Studies.

Study Rationale for exclusion Stage of review

Piechowski and Colangelo (1984) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Piechowski and Cunningham (1985) Comparison between artists and gifted adults—no Abstract
nongifted sample present
Schiever (1985) Comparison between two gifted groups of varying Full-text
creative ability—no nongifted sample present
Gallagher (1985) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Sandal-Miller (1988) Only gifted group was sampled, no comparison data Abstract
Lewis, Kitano, and Lynch (1992) No psychometric data, no comparison group Full-text
Miller, Silverman, and Falk (1994) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Ely (1995) Comparison between creatively gifted sample and an Full-text
intellectually gifted sample—no nongifted sample present
Piirto, Assone, Ackerman, and Fraas (1996) Findings were also reported in Ackerman (1997) Full-text
Ackerman (1998) Study itself is a meta-analysis Full-text
Buerschen as cited by Ackerman (1998) Unpublished manuscript was unable to be acquired Citation and some data from
study in Ackerman (1998)
Domroese as cited by Ackerman (1998) Unpublished manuscript was unable to be acquired Citation and summary of
study in Ackerman (1998)
Kristiansen-Hagne (1998) No psychometric data were collected; no comparison Abstract and table of
group contents
Bouchet and Falk (2001) Data on POE, SOE, and MOE were absent, but data for Full-text
comparisons on EOE and TOE measures were present
and included in the analysis
Chang (2001) Not available in English Citation and summary of
study in Falk et al. (2008)
Yakmaci-Guzel (2002) Not available in English Citation and summary of
study in Falk et al. (2008)
Sanz (2006) Not available in English Citation and summary of
study in Falk et al. (2008)
Falk et al. (2008) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Wirthwein et al. (2011) Findings were also reported in an included study, Full-text
Wirthwein and Rost (2011)
He and Wong (2014) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Van den Broeck et al. (2014) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures
Limont (n.d.) Insufficient data reported for the selected meta-analytic Full-text
procedures

Note. POE = psychomotor; SOE = sensual; MOE = imaginational; TOE = intellectual; EOE = emotional overexcitability.

EOE, and TOE were statistically significant. The difference
for POE was not statistically significant. Calculated effect
sizes for EOE and SOE were small, and effect sizes were
medium for TOE and MOE. This score pattern; less differ-
ence on measures of POE, SOE, and EOE; and more differ-
ence on measures of TOE and MOE was evident in some of
the sampled studies. Statistically significant differences
(Ackerman, 1997; Bouchard, 2004; Bouchet & Falk, 2001;
Breard, 1994; Carman, 2011; Harrison & Haneghan, 2011;
Piirto & Fraas, 2012; Siu, 2010; Tieso, 2007; Wirthwein &
Rost, 2011; Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu, 2006) and medium
effect sizes for TOE scores have been found in almost every
sampled comparative study (see Figure 1). Smaller, but simi-
lar differences have also been reported regarding differences
on MOE scores (Ackerman, 1997; Carman, 2011; Harrison
& Haneghan, 2011; Siu, 2010; Yakmaci-Guzel & Akarsu,
2006). Conversely, it was found in fewer of the sampled
studies that gifted and nongifted samples had a significant
statistical difference on EOE (Wirthwein & Rost, 2011),
POE (Ackerman, 1997), and SOE scores (Siu, 2010). In
addition, the calculated effect sizes for these individual stud-
ies were more often trivial or small (see Figure 1).
Winkler and Voight 251

Table 4.  Included Studies. underrepresentation. In-depth, qualitative studies might be

preferable for detecting the nature of the OEs (Peterson,
Studies
2012), or possibly even the use of neuroimaging (Chang &
Breard (1994) Kuo, 2013).
Ackerman (1997) The exact implications of the calculated effect sizes are
Bouchet and Falk (2001) unclear. While statistically significant results were found for
Bouchard (2004) SOE, MOE, EOE, and TOE, and medium effect sizes were
Yakmaci-Guzel and Akarsu (2006) found for MOE and TOE, it is not clear what this entails for
Tieso (2007) the gifted population. Effect sizes’ sizes are established
Siu (2010) somewhat arbitrarily (Cohen, 1988). These classifications
Carman (2011) are primarily suited for comparing interventions, not popula-
Harrison and Haneghan (2011)
tions. It is unclear how large an effect size would need to be
Wirthwein and Rost (2011)
to consider the gifted population as a whole as overexcitable.
Piirto and Fraas (2012)
One might conclude that the small and medium effect sizes
Limont et al. (2014)
are not that substantial and reflect little difference in pres-
ence of the OEs.
Table 5.  Random Effects Weighted Mean Effect Sizes With 95% The issue of the gifted population being overexcitable
Confidence Intervals and Variance Components (Q). relates to a larger issue in gifted education. Before Terman’s
(1925) longitudinal studies, scholars had debated whether
Subdomain n Mean ES 95% Confidence Interval Q
gifted persons were qualitatively different from nongifted
POE 11 0.17 [0.00, 0.34] 41.43a persons. Early on, many argued that gifted persons were
SOE 11 0.22 [0.09, 0.36] 26.52a qualitatively different because they were physically weaker,
MOE 11 0.36 [0.24, 0.48] 20.05a more likely to get sick, die young, and endure mental illness
EOE 12 0.19 [0.08, 0.31] 22.42a (Lombroso, 1901). Terman’s work dispelled many of these
TOE 12 0.55 [0.42, 0.67] 28.96a early beliefs (Jolly, 2004; Winkler & Jolly, 2013). In more
recent times, some scholars have argued that gifted persons
Note. ES = effect size.
a
Variance component is significantly different from zero (p < .05). were qualitatively different because they were more overex-
citable, sensitive (Piechowski, 1979, 2006), asynchronous
(Silverman, 2000a, 2000b), and even moral (Silverman,
It is important to note that a number of considerations 1994). Others have expressed agnosticism on this point, not-
complicate these results. First, the disputes regarding the ing that one should
OEQ II psychometric (Botella et al., 2015; Warne, 2011) and
theoretical merits were unaddressed (Limont et al., 2014; evaluate carefully whether most or all such characteristics are
Mendaglio, 2012; Tillier, personal communication, March 7, inherently or qualitatively different, or whether they reflect
2016). If the OEQ II were a psychometrically flawed instru- primarily the maturity of viewpoint that is a part of intellectual
ment as some have claimed (Warne, 2011), then this would and emotional giftedness. . . . Some [traits] (e.g., sensitivities
make this meta-analysis at least partially invalid. In addition, and excitabilities), however may indeed be qualitatively special
if there is a great deal of construct overlap between the OEs traits of gifted students. We need considerable research, first to
and the Big Five, there could be important implications determine whether in fact these characteristics are more common
(Limont et al., 2014). And, the two instruments most com- to gifted than nongifted youngsters, and second, to explore to
monly used to measure OEs, the OEQ I and II, were devel- what extent qualitative differences exist. (Robinson, Reis,
Neihart, & Moon, 2002, pp. 270-271)
oped by researchers who appear to have had an a priori belief
that gifted persons were more overexcitable than nongifted
persons and that the OEs could be measured in isolation of Using the presented findings and data, it is possible for
other features of TPD (Falk et al., 1999; Piechowski, 1979). scholars and practitioners to believe or disbelieve in the rela-
One should also note that while the results of this meta- tionship between giftedness and the OEs. One could think of
analysis demonstrated some differences, these could have a hypothetical spectrum in regard to the giftedness–OE rela-
been greater or lesser if more studies and unpublished data tionship. One end or pole would be a skeptical position, a
could have been included. There is some evidence that strong disbelief in the existence of the giftedness–OE rela-
researchers who find statistically significant results are more tionship. The opposite pole would be a strong belief in the
likely to have their work published (Torgerson, 2006). Some existence of the giftedness–OE relationship, the belief in a
could argue that the OEs are such broad, large constructs that kind of qualitative difference between the gifted population
any effort to measure them would be inadequate. and the nongifted population. In between, many positions of
Consequently, the many ways that gifted persons demon- varying confidence are possible, especially in regard to the
strate OEs are actually not being measured due to construct relationship between giftedness and POE, SOE, and EOE.
252 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)

Figure 1.  Effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals for studies in meta-analysis.
Winkler and Voight 253
Implications for Practice
It is unclear if OE scores could be used to identify gifted stu-
dents. The TOE and MOE effect sizes were medium sized
according to Cohen (1988). However, as noted above, effect
classifications are designed for intervention purposes, not
necessarily for establishing thresholds to identify subpopula-
tions. It is unclear how large an OE effect size would have to
be to be for valid and reliable identification of gifted students.
Additionally, the inconsistent findings among comparative
studies (Winkler, 2014), the aforementioned psychometric
dispute about the OEQ II (Warne, 2011), and the theoretical
dispute about the OEQ II create much uncertainty about the
instrument (Mendaglio, 2012). Cautious practitioners may
want to reserve commitment on the relationship between gift-
edness and OE and on the OEQ II’s viability. One could cer-
tainly consider individual students and patients as
overexcitable, but the OEQ II might not be the most valid
method for confirming or disconfirming such opinions.
Areas for Future Research
There are several issues that researchers could address in the
future. For instance, many educators, parents (Tolan, 2009),
and other professionals (Roeper, 2009; Silverman, 1994)
have reported that the concept of OEs has helped them better
understand gifted persons in their lives. This kind of anec-
dotal evidence may not be in the empirical literature, but it
should not be discarded. Researchers could investigate this
anecdotal evidence through surveys. A random sampling of
parents or teachers could help determine what popular belief
is about gifted individuals’ OE levels.
The anecdotal evidence might also indicate that there is a
subpopulation within the gifted population that scores very
highly on OEs and demonstrates the OEs in a memorable
fashion. Researchers have already used cluster analysis tech-
niques to demonstrate that OE scores can be grouped into
subpopulations (Rinn, Mendaglio, Rudasill, & McQueen,
2010). Alternatively, perhaps this anecdotal evidence dem-
onstrates that the OEQ I, OEQ II, and other instruments are
inhibited in measuring OEs by a ceiling effect or construct
underrepresentation. Or, perhaps it demonstrates something
else or nothing at all.
Additionally, future research should continue to explore
the mean OE differences between gifted and nongifted sam-
ples. Researchers could reconduct this meta-analysis with
more data from unpublished or unidentified sources. Or,
researchers could aggregate all of the available OEQ I or II
scores for one large significance test and effect size calcula-
tion, similar to Ackerman’s (1998) work. However, research-
ers might find that slight mean differences were statistically
significant due to a large sample size, so calculating effect
sizes as done in this article would be prudent. More individ-
ual comparative studies could also be conducted, as the sam-
ple of this meta-analysis (n = 12) was somewhat small.
Another area of future research would be to provide some
theoretical clarity to the relationship between TPD and gifted
individuals. This has been attempted and arguably done in
several venues (Ackerman, 2009; Daniels & Piechowski,
2009; Mendaglio, 2008). Yet different perspectives on the
relationship were given in these different venues, and a litera-
ture review or conceptual synthesis demonstrating how and
why the different theoretical attitudes exist might be helpful.
This is important because on theoretical grounds, it is unclear
if one can measure OEs in isolation without somehow
accounting for other variables within Dabrowski’s theory.
Some scholars have argued that it is impossible to do this
(Mendaglio, 2012), and that Dabrowski would have consid-
ered such a procedure as invalid and incapable of measuring
the OEs (Tillier, personal communication, March 7, 2016).
Essentially, are OEs immutably intertwined with other vari-
ables in the TPD framework, such as dynamisms? If OEs are
intrinsically embedded constructs, efforts to reduce them to
singular, discrete variables would be inherently flawed. Those
who have designed and used the OEQ II instrument must nec-
essarily disagree with, disregard, or be unaware of this com-
plication, as the instruments do not account for any other
feature of TPD. Researchers who choose to use the OEQ II
should develop a theoretical response to this critique.
Finally, the OEQ II should be studied. Several scholars
have offered psychometric analyses of the instrument
(Botella et al., 2015; S. Peters, personal communication,
November 15, 2014; Van den Broeck et al., 2014; Warne,
2011), and their work can serve as a starting point for future
investigation.
Limitations
Selection Bias
One selection bias inherent in this research synthesis is that
only comparative studies were selected. A large number of
noncomparative studies such as case studies (Edmunds &
Edmunds, 2005; Peterson, 2012), clinical/anecdotal evi-
dence from parents/professionals (Gatto-Walden, 2009;
Roeper, 2009; Silverman, 1994; Tolan, 2009) and general
interviews/surveys (Lewis et al., 1992; Piechowski, 2006)
were excluded. While this is a serious limitation to consider,
it is important to note that it is difficult to make useful infer-
ences regarding the difference between nongifted and gifted
populations’ OE levels from noncomparative studies and
data. This is because the OEQ I, OEQ II, and ElemenOE lack
norms. Consequently, it is difficult to interpret gifted stu-
dents’ scores or behaviors and regard them as significantly
overexcitable. While it is true that a number of researchers
have done this (Piechowski, 2006), this kind of study is simi-
lar to expert opinion. Claiming that certain OEQ I or II
responses or behaviors demonstrated significant excitability
levels is difficult when other respected experts have disputed
such interpretations (Pyryt, 2008).
254 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)
Publication Bias
Unpublished studies such as dissertation abstracts and theses
were sought through a number of outlets. Yet some unpub-
lished studies were still unable to be acquired, such as
Domroese (1993) and Buerschen (as cited by Ackerman,
1998). There may have been more unpublished studies that
were not found or were overlooked in the search process as
well, as the reading of only titles may have been misleading.
Additionally, only one researcher screened the titles, making
omission mistakes more probable than if multiple screeners
had been used.
Studies Omitting Necessary Data
Some studies did not provide sufficient data for this meta-
analysis (Gallagher, 1985; Piechowski & Colangelo,
1984). These studies often found statistically significant
differences, with the gifted sample scoring higher than
their nongifted counterparts. Some of these data were
identified, and authors have been contacted. However,
there was not sufficient time to collect all of the unpub-
lished data and include it in this analysis, so these results
were not included in this meta-analysis. Consequently, the
meta-analysis’ results may be more conservative than the
body of literature as a whole.
Studies Not Published in English
Some studies found that gifted samples outscored nongifted
samples, but were not published in English (Chang, 2001;
Sanz, 2006; Yakmaci-Guzel, 2002). These studies were not
included in the meta-analysis. These studies results were also
published in a book chapter, Falk et al. (2008). However, the
sufficient data needed for the meta-analysis were not reported
in that chapter.
Conclusion
In short, there appears to be a great deal about the OEs that is
unknown. The instruments (Botella et al., 2015; Warne,
2011), the OE–giftedness relationship (Piirto, 2010a;
Silverman, 2000b), and the five OEs’ prevalence within the
gifted population are contested matters. It is possible that
more data and research could help ameliorate this situation
by providing indisputable clarity. However, it is also possible
that skeptical scholars and those who believe in the gifted-
ness–OE relationship will continue to adhere to their posi-
tions, regardless of new empirical evidence. Indeed, there
will probably be evidence produced that can reasonably sup-
port each of these positions—as this meta-analysis does,
arguably. Perhaps eventually this process would culminate,
and a level of acceptable certainty would emerge that all, or
at least most, would find acceptable.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the editors and reviewers’ patience
and thoughtful commentary, without which this project would have
never come to fruition. The first author would also like to thank Rita
Culross and Jennifer Jolly for their guidance and commentary on
earlier versions of this work, and Bill Tillier for his commentary on
later drafts.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the
meta-analysis.
*Ackerman, C. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using per-
sonality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper
Review, 19, 229-236. doi:10.1080/02783199709553835
Ackerman, C. M. (1998). A secondary analysis of research using
the Overexcitability Questionnaire (Unpublished doctoral dis-
sertation). College Station: Texas A& M University.
Ackerman, C. M. (2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s
theory of positive disintegration and how they are connected.
Roeper Review, 31, 81-95. doi:10.1080/02783190902737657
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R.
(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, England:
Wiley.
Botella, M., Fürst, G., Myszkowski, N., Storme, M., Da Costa, M.,
& Luminet, O. (2015). French validation of the Overexcitability
Questionnaire 2: Psychometric properties and factorial struc-
ture. Journal of Personality Assessment, 97, 209-220. doi:10.1
080/00223891.2014.938750
*Bouchard, L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of
Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to identify gifted ele-
mentary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 339-350.
doi:10.1177/001698620404800407
*Bouchet, N., & Falk, R. (2001). The relationship among gifted-
ness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45,
260-267. doi:10.1177/001698620104500404
*Breard, N. S. (1994). Exploring a different way to identify gifted
African-American students (Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion). University of Georgia, Athens.
*Carman, C. A. (2011). Adding personality to gifted identification:
Relationships among traditional and personality-based con-
structs. Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 412-446. doi:10
.1177/1932202X1102200303
Chang, H. J. (2001). A research on the overexcitability traits
of gifted and talented students in Taiwan (Unpublished
master’s thesis). Taipei, Taiwan: National Taiwan Normal
University.
Chang, H. J., & Kuo, C. (2013). Overexcitabilities: Empirical stud-
ies and application. Learning and Individual Differences, 23,
53-63. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2012.10.010
Winkler and Voight 255
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-
ences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little,
Brown.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London,
England: Gryf.
Daniels, S., & Piechowski, M. M. (Eds.). (2009). Living with
intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability and emo-
tional development of gifted children, adolescents and adults.
Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Domroese, C. (1993). Investigating an alternate method for identi-
fying gifted students (Unpublished master’s thesis). University
of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Edmunds, A. L., & Edmunds, G. A. (2005). Social emotional devel-
opment: Sensitivity: A double-edged sword for the pre-adoles-
cent and adolescent gifted child. Roeper Review, 27, 69-77.
doi:10.1080/02783190509554293
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias
in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. British
Medical Journal, 315, 629-634.
Ely, E. I. (1995). The overexcitability questionnaire: An alterna-
tive method for identifying creative giftedness in seventh grade
junior high school students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,
Kent State University, OH.
Falk, R. F., Lind, S., Miller, N. B., Piechowski, M. M., & Silverman,
L. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire-two (OEQII):
Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO:
Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
Falk, R. F., & Miller, N. B. (2009). Building firm foundations:
Research and assessments. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski
(Eds.), Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity,
excitability and emotional development of gifted children,
adolescents and adults (pp. 239-260). Scottsdale, AZ: Great
Potential Press.
Falk, R. F., Yakmaci-Guzel, B., Chang, A., Sanz, R. P., & Chavez-
Eakle, R. A. (2008). Measuring overexcitability: Replication
across five countries. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s the-
ory of positive disintegration (pp. 184-200). Scottsdale, AZ:
Great Potential Press.
Gallagher, S. (1985). A comparison of the concept of overexcit-
abilities with measures of creativity and school achieve-
ment in sixth-grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115-119.
doi:10.1080/02783198509552950
Gallagher, S. (2013). Building bridges: Research on gifted chil-
dren’s personalities from three perspectives. In C. S. Neville,
M. M. Piechowski, & S. S. Tolan (Eds.), Off the charts:
Asynchrony and the gifted child (pp. 48-98). Unionville, NY:
Royal Fireworks Press.
Gatto-Walden, P. (2009). Living one’s spirit song: Transcendent
experiences in counseling gifted adults. In S. Daniels & M. M.
Piechowski (Eds.), Living with intensity: Understanding the
sensitivity, excitability and emotional development of gifted
children, adolescents and adults (pp. 203-224). Scottsdale,
AZ: Great Potential Press.
*Harrison, G. E., & Haneghan, J. P. (2011). The gifted and the
shadow of the night: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities and
their correlation to insomnia, death anxiety, and fear of the
unknown. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 34, 669-697.
doi:10.1177/016235321103400407
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-
analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Jolly, J. L. (2004). A conceptual history of gifted education: 1910-
1940. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Baylor University,
Waco, TX.
Kristiansen-Hagne, S. (1998). Using Dabrowski’s overexcitabili-
ties to identify gifted students and augment their gifted poten-
tial. Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I.
(Order No. 1393131)
Lewis, R. B., Kitano, M. K., & Lynch, E. W. (1992). Psychological
intensities in gifted adults. Roeper Review, 15, 25-31.
doi:10.1080/02783199209553452
*Limont, W., Dreszer-Drogorób, J., Bedyńska, S., Śliwińska,
K., & Jastrzębska, D. (2014). “Old wine in new bottles?”
Relationships between overexcitabilities, the Big Five per-
sonality traits and giftedness in adolescents. Personality
and Individual Differences, 69, 199-204. doi:10.1016/j.
paid.2014.06.003
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2000). Practical meta-analysis.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Lombroso, C. (1901). The man of genius. New York, NY: Scribner.
Maxwell, E. (1995). Changing conceptions of intelligence and their
impact upon the concept of giftedness: The triarchic theory of
intelligence. In J. L. Genshaft, M. Bireley, & C. L. Hollinger
(Eds.), Serving gifted and talented students: A resource for
school personnel (pp. 17-30). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Meckstroth, E. A. (1995). Complexities of giftedness: Dabrowski’s
theory. In J. F. Smutny (Ed.), The young gifted child: Potential
and promise, and anthology (pp. 295-307). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton Press.
Mendaglio, S. (2012). Overexcitabilities and giftedness research:
A call for a paradigm shift. Journal for the Education of the
Gifted, 35, 207-219. doi:10.1177/0162353212451704
Mendaglio, S. (Ed.). (2008). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disinte-
gration. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Mendaglio, S., & Tillier, W. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of posi-
tive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research
findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68-87.
Miller, N. B., Silverman, L. K., & Falk, R. F. (1994). Emotional
development, intellectual ability, and gender. Journal for the
Education of the Gifted, 18(1), 20-38.
O’Connor, K. J. (2002). The application of Dabrowski’s theory to the
gifted. In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson, & S. M. Moon
(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children:
What do we know? (pp. 51-60). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.
Ogburn-Colangelo, M. K. (1979). Giftedness as multilevel poten-
tial: A clinical example. In N. Colangelo & R. T. Zaffrann
(Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 165-187).
Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Peterson, J. S. (2012). The asset-burden paradox of giftedness: A
15-year phenomenological, longitudinal case study. Roeper
Review, 34, 244-260. doi:10.1080/02783193.2012.715336
Piechowski, M. M. (1979). Developmental potential. In N.
Colangelo & R. Zaffrann (Eds.), New voices in counseling the
gifted (pp. 25-57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall Hunt.
Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Emotional development and emotional
giftedness. In N. Colangelo & G. Davis (Eds.), Handbook for
gifted education (1st ed., pp. 285-306). Boston, MA: Allyn &
Bacon.
256 Gifted Child Quarterly 60(4)
Piechowski, M. M. (2006). “Mellow out,” they say. If I only could:
Intensities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison,
WI: Yunasa Books.
Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmental
potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88.
doi:10.1177/001698628402800207
Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (2004). Developmental potential
of the gifted. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Definitions and conceptions
of giftedness (pp. 117-132). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Piechowski, M. M., & Cunningham, K. (1985). Patterns of over-
excitability in a group of artists. Journal of Creative Behavior,
19, 153-174. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1985.tb00655.x
Piirto, J. (2010a). 21 Years with the Dabrowski theory: An auto-
ethnography. Advanced Development Journal, 12, 68-90.
Retrieved from http://personal.ashland.edu/jpiirto/21%20
years%20with%20Dabrowski.pdf
Piirto, J. (2010b). Rejoinder. Advanced Development, 12, 95-96.
*Piirto, J., & Fraas, J. (2012). A mixed-methods comparison of
vocational and identified-gifted high school students on the
Overexcitability Questionnaire. Journal for the Education of
the Gifted, 35, 3-34. doi:10.1177/0162353211433792
Piirto, J., Montgomery, D., & May, J. (2008). A comparison of
Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities by gender for American and
Korean high school gifted students. High Ability Studies, 19,
141-153. doi:10.1080/13598130802504080
Pyryt, M. C. (2008). The Dabrowskian lens: Implications for under-
standing gifted individuals. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s
theory of positive disintegration (pp. 175-182). Scottsdale, AZ:
Great Potential Press.
Rinn, A. N., Mendaglio, S., Rudasill, K. M., & McQueen, K. S.
(2010). Examining the relationship between the overexcit-
abilities and self-concepts of gifted adolescents via multi-
variate cluster analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 3-17.
doi:10.1177/0016986209352682
Robinson, N. M., Reis, S. M., Neihart, M., & Moon, S. M. (2002).
Social and emotional issues: What have we learned and what
should we do now? In M. Neihart, S. M. Reis, N. M. Robinson,
& S. M. Moon (Eds.), The social and emotional development of
gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 267-288). Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Roeper, A. (2009). The emperor has no clothes: Exquisite perception,
stress, and the gifted child. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski
(Eds.), Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity,
excitability and emotional development of gifted children, ado-
lescents and adults (pp. 73-82). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential
Press.
Sandal-Miller, K. (1988). A comparison of Dabrowski’s concept of
overexcitabilities with measures of verbal and mathematical
aptitude among academically precocious adolescents. Available
from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I. (Order No. 8905918)
Sanz, R. P. (2006). El alumno superdotado y sus problemas de
aprendizaje: Validación del OEQ-II como prueba de diag-
nóstico [The gifted student and learning disabilities: Validation
of the OEQ-II as a diagnosis test]. Universidad Complutense de
Madrid, Madrid, Spain.
Schiever, S. W. (1985). Creative personality characteristics and
dimensions of mental functioning in gifted adolescents. Roeper
Review, 7, 223-226. doi:10.1080/02783198509552901
Silverman, L. K. (1993). Counseling needs and programs for the gifted.
In K. Heller, F. Monks, & A. H. Passow (Eds.), International
handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent
(pp. 631-647). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press.
Silverman, L. K. (1994). The moral sensitivity of gifted children
and the evolution of society. Roeper Review, 17, 110-116.
doi:10.1080/02783199409553636
Silverman, L. K. (2000a). Counseling the gifted and talented.
Denver, CO: Love.
Silverman, L. K. (2000b). The gifted individual. In L. K. Silverman (Ed.),
Counseling the gifted & talented (pp. 3-28). Denver, CO: Love.
Silverman, L. K. (2008). The theory of positive disintegration in the
field of gifted education. In S. Mendaglio (Ed.), Dabrowski’s
theory of positive disintegration (pp. 157-174). Scottsdale, AZ:
Great Potential Press.
*Siu, F. Y. (2010). Comparing overexcitabilities of gifted and
non-gifted school children in Hong Kong: Does culture make
a difference? Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30, 71-83.
doi:10.1080/02188790903503601
Steenbergen-Hu, S., & Olszewski-Kubilius, P. (2016). How to con-
duct a good meta-analysis in gifted education. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 60, 134-154. doi:10.1177/0016986216629545
Terman, L. M. (1925). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. 1). Paolo
Alto, CA: Stanford University Press.
*Tieso, C. (2007). Overexcitabilities: A new way to think about talent?
Roeper Review, 29, 232-239. doi:10.1080/02783190709554417
Tillier, W. (2008). Kazimierz Dabrowski: The man. In S. Mendaglio
(Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 3-11).
Scottsdale AZ: Great Potential Press.
Tillier, W. (n.d.). A bibliography of Dabrowski materials. Retrieved
from http://www.positivedisintegration.com/DRIBiblio.htm#a-c
Tolan, S. S. (2009). What we may be: What Dabrowski’s work can
do for gifted adults. In S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.),
Living with intensity: Understanding the sensitivity, excitability
and emotional development of gifted children, adolescents and
adults (pp. 225-236). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Torgerson, C. J. (2006). Publication bias: The Achielles’ heel of
systematic reviews? British Journal of Educational Studies,
54, 89-102. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8527.2006.00332.x
Van den Broeck, W., Hofmans, J., Cooremans, S., & Staels,
E. (2014). Factorial validity and measurement invariance
across intelligence levels and gender of the Overexcitabilities
Questionnaire-II (OEQ-II). Psychological Assessment, 26, 55-
68. doi:10.1037/a0034475
Warne, R. T. (2011). A reliability generalization of the
Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two. Journal of Advanced
Academics, 22, 671-692. doi:10.1177/1932202X11424881
Winkler, D. L. (2014). Overexcitabilities and giftedness:
Investigating the evidence (Unpublished dissertation).
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge.
Winkler, D. L., & Jolly, J. L. (2013). Lewis Terman: A twisted
legacy. In A. Robinson & J. Jolly (Eds.), A century of contribu-
tions to gifted education: Illuminating lives (pp. 64-78). New
York, NY: Routledge.
Wirthwein, L., Becker, C., Loehr, E., & Rost, D. H. (2011).
Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex
matter? High Ability Studies, 22, 145-153. doi:10.1080/1359
8139.2011.622944
*Wirthwein, L., & Rost, D. H. (2011). Focusing on overexcit-
abilities: Studies with intellectually gifted and academically
talented adults. Personality and Individual Differences, 51,
337-342. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2011.03.041
Winkler and Voight 257
Yakmaci-Guzel, B. (2002). Ustun yeteneklilerin belirlenmesinde
yardimci yeni bir yaklasim: Dabrowskinin asiri dduyarlilik
alanlari [A supplementary method in the identification of gifted
individuals: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities] (Unpublished
doctoral dissertation). University of Istanbul, Istanbul, Turkey.
*Yakmaci-Guzel, B., & Akarsu, F. (2006). Comparing overexcitabil-
ities of gifted and non-gifted 10th grade students in Turkey. High
Ability Studies, 17, 43-56. doi:10.1080/13598130600947002
Author Biographies
Daniel Winkler is a recent graduate of Louisiana State University,
and is the current assistant professor of and program coordinator for
gifted education at Cleveland State University. He researches over-
excitabilities, acceleration, and affective characteristics of gifted
persons.
Adam Voight is assistant professor of curriculum and foundations
in the College of Education and Human Services and serves as the
Director of the Center for Urban Education. He researches the inter-
play between young people’s social contexts—such as schools,
neighborhoods, and families—and their educational and social–
emotional outcomes. In addressing these research topics, he works
in partnership with school communities and nonprofit community-
based, and youth organizations. His work is grounded in commu-
nity and developmental psychological theory.