characteristics: dabrowski's overexcitabilitiespositivedisintegration.com/ackerman1997.pdf ·...

Jessup, L. M., & Valacich, J. S. (1993). (Eds.) Group support systems. New York:MacMillan.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T. (1991). Learning together and alone: Cooperative, com-petitive, and individualistic learning. Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice Hall.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1992). What to say to advocates for the gifted. Educa-tional Leadership, 50, 44-47'.

Kanekar, S., & Rosenbaum, M. E. (1972). Group performance on a multiple-solution taskas a function of available time. Psychonomic Science, 27, 331-332.

Karau, S. J., & Williams, K. D. (1993). Social loafing: A meta-analytic review and theo-retical integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 681-706.

Kulik, J. A., & Kulik, C. C. (1992). Meta-analytic findings on grouping programs. GiftedChild Quarterly, 36, 73-77.

Larey, T. S.(1994). Convergent and divergent thinking, group composition, and creativityin brainstorming groups. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. University of Texas atArlington.

Leggett, K. L., Putman, V. L., Roland, E. J., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of train-ing on performance in group brainstorming. Presented at the Southwestern Psycho-logical Association, Houston.

Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-mak-ing groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-552.

Matthews, M. ( 1992). Gifted students talk about cooperative learning. Educational Lead-ership, 50, 48-50.

Maznevski, M. L. (1994). Understanding our differences: Performance in decision-mak-ing groups with diverse members. Human Relations, 47, 531-552.

Mills, C. J., & Durden, W. G. (1992). Cooperative learning and ability grouping: An issueof choice. Gifted Child Quarterly, 36, 11-15.

Mullen, B., Johnson, C , & Salas, E. (1991). Productivity loss in brainstorming groups: Ameta-analytic integration. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 12, 3-23.

Nastasi, B. K., & Clements, D. H. (1991). Research on cooperative learning. Implicationsfor practice. School Psychological Review, 20, 110-131.

Naval-Severino, T. (1993). Developing creative thinking among intellectually able Fil-ipino children from disadvantaged urban communities. Gifted Education Internation-al. 9, 119-123.

Nelson, S. M., Gallagher, J. J., & Coleman, M. R. (1993). Cooperative learning from twodifferent perspectives. Roeper Review, December, 117-121.

Nijstad, B. (1995). Het geheel groter dan de som der delen? Productiviteitwinst in brain-storm-groepen. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, University of Utrecht.

Offner, A. K., Kramer, T. J., & Winter, J. P. (1996). The effects of facilitation, recording,and pauses on group brainstorming. Small Group Research, 27, 283-298.

Osbom, A. F. (1957). Applied imagination (1st ed.). New York: Scribner.Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination (2nd ed.). New York: Scribner.Oxley, N. L., Dzindolet, M. T., & Paulus, P. B. (1996). The effects of facilitators on the

performance of brainstorming groups. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 11.Paulus, P. B., Brown, V., & Ortega, A. H. (in press). Group creativity. In R. E. Purser &

A. Montuori (Eds.), Social creativity in organizations. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.

Paulus, P.B., & Dzindolet, M. T. (1993). Social influence processes in group brainstorm-ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 575-586.

Paulus, P. B., Dzindolet, M. T., Poletes, G., & Camacho, L. M. (1993). Perception of per-formance in group brainstorming: The illusion of group productivity. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 19, 78-89.

Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Dzindolet, M. T. (in press). Creativity in groups and teams.In M. Turner (Ed.) Groups at work: Advances in theory and research. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., & Ortega, A. H. (1995). Performance and perceptions of brain-stormers in an organizational setting. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 249-265.

Paulus, P. B., Larey, T. S., Putman, V. L., Leggett, K. L., & Roland, E. J. (1996). Socialinfluence process in computer brainstorming. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,18, 3-14.

Qin, Z. (1993). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of achieving higher order learningtasks in cooperative learning compared with competitive learning. DissertationAbstracts International, 53, 2229-A.

Rawlinson, J. G. (1981). Creative thinking and brainstorming. New York: John Wiley &Sons.

Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning and the gifted: Who benefits? Journal for theEducation of the Gifted, 14, 28-30.

Schunk, D. (1987). Peer models and children's behavioral change. Review of EducationalResearch, 52, 149-174.

Stroebe, W., & Diehl, M. (1994). Why groups are less effective than their members: Onproductivity losses in idea-generating groups. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.),European Review of Social Psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 271-303). London: Wiley.

Stroebe, W., Diehl, M., & Abakoumkin, G. (1992). The illusion of group effectivity. Per-sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, IS, 643-650.

Torrance, E. P. (1970a). Dyadic interaction as a facilitator of gifted performance. GiftedChild Quarterly, 14, 139-146.

Torrance, E. P. (1970b). Influence of dyadic interaction on creative functioning. Psycho-logical Reports, 26, 391-394.

Torrance, E. P. (1971). Stimulation, enjoyment, and originality in dyadic creativity. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 62, 45-48.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Interscholastic brainstorming and creative problem solving com-petition for the creatively gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 18, 3-7.

Torrance, E. P., & Arsan, K. (1963). Experimental studies of homogeneous and heteroge-neous groups for creative scientific tasks. In W. W. Charters, Jr. & N. L. Gage (Eds.),Readings in the social psychology of education, (pp. 133-140). Boston: Allyn &Bacon.

Valacich, J. S., Dennis, A. R., & Connolly, T. (1994). Idea generation in computer-basedgroups: A new ending to an old story. Organizational Behavior and Human DecisionProcesses, 57, 448-467.

Identifying Gifted Adolescents using PersonalityCharacteristics: Dabrowski's Overexcitabilities

Cheryl M. Ackerman

An exploratory study was conducted to deter-mine the potential of overexcitability assess-ment as a method for identifying giftednessbeyond traditional means. Overexcitability(i.e. an intensified way of experiencing theworld) can occur in five areas: psychomotor,sensual, imaginational, intellectual, and emo-tional, and are assessed using the Overex-citability Questionnaire. In a group of highschool students, discriminant analyses indi-cated that overexcitability (OE) profiles in theareas of psychomotor, intellectual, and emo-tional overexcitabilities differentiated betweengifted and nongifted students. Approximately35% of the nonidentified students had thesame profile as the gifted subjects suggestingthe potential of OE profiles for use in the iden-tification of gifted students. Linguistic and cul-tural issues are discussed, as well as, theimplications for research and instructionalpractice.

Cheryl Ackerman is a doctoral candidate inEducational Psychology with an emphasis inGifted at Texas A & M University.

The identification of gifted indi-viduals is an extremely difficult

task. A primary reason for this is thatfinding appropriate measures that arereliable and valid for this purpose posessome formidable problems. One of themost critical problems in gifted identifi-cation stems from confusion in the fieldabout what giftedness is and how itshould be defined.

A Brief History of GiftedIdentification

Throughout the history of giftededucation, many definitions of gifted-ness have been proposed. Early on, Ter-man defined giftedness according to asingle criterion, intelligence, as mea-sured by test scores (Tannenbaum,

1991). Later, more complex definitionsof giftedness were developed. Thesemultidimensional definitions varied,with some focused on intellectual ability(Sternberg, 1985) or diverse abilities(Gardner, 1983), while others weremore holistic (Betts & Neihart, 1988). Aturning point for the gifted movementwas Marland's (1972) definition of gift-edness because it was the first to broad-en the definition by including severalareas not included previously: specificacademic aptitude, creative or produc-tive thinking, leadership ability, visualand performing arts, and psychomotorability. Many others have developedmultidimensional conceptualizations ofgiftedness including Renzulli (1978),Gardner (1983), Sternberg (1985), andRoeper (1982) that have made meaning-ful contributions to gifted education.

With significantly different defini-

Manuscript submitted October, 1995.Revision accepted June, 1996.

June, 1997, Roeper Review/229

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 21:19 26 March 2011

tions of giftedness, identificationbecomes difficult. Some of these defini-tions have specific identification proce-dures, for example standardized intelli-gence tests, cognitive processesassessment, and creative product assess-ment. Each of these methods identifies acertain portion of the gifted population,but, leaves some unidentified. Oneaspect of gifted individuals that hasreceived little attention in the identifica-tion process is personality characteris-tics. Incorporating these aspects of thegifted individual into the identificationprocess might help identify thoseremaining unidentified. A method thatmight help the identification of giftedindividuals become more completethrough the examination of personalitycharacteristics is based on Dabrowski's(1964) Theory of Positive Disintegration.

Overexcitability: An AlternativeConceptualization

Overexcitabilities, a concept devel-oped from Dabrowski's (1964) Theoryof Positive Disintegration (TPD), is amethod that might help make identifyinggifted individuals more effective. TPD isa developmental personality theory thatoffers a different approach to viewing•giftedness. Dabrowski's theory focuseson the critical role that intensity ofhuman experience plays in developmentand specifically emphasizes the roleemotions play in the potential for indi-vidual development. TPD is not a theoryof giftedness, but does provide an excel-lent framework that can be used as afoundation for characterizing giftednessand developing a method of identifica-tion. At the same time, the instrumentand research based on TPD are presentlyin a form that teachers are unable to usebecause of the lengthy nature of thequestionnaire and the technicality ofcoding responses.

Dabrowski based his theory on clini-cal and biographical studies of patients,artists, writers,- members of religiousorders, and gifted children and adoles-cents (Kawczak, 1970). He noted uniquedevelopmental patterns in many talentedmembers of society (Miller & Silverman,1987) and became interested in "theintensity and richness of thought andfeeling, vividness of imagination, moraland emotional sensitivity....[of certainmembers of society whose] enhancedinteractions with the world...seemed tobe above the common and average inintensity, duration and frequency ofoccurrence"(Piechowski & Cunningham,1985, p. 154). Dabrowski (1972) empha-sized the importance of emotions in

development and believed we needed atheory of human development, "whereemotional factors are not consideredmerely as unruly subordinates of reasonbut can acquire the dominant role ofshaper of development" (p. 6).

Dabrowski introduced the con-cept of psychic overexcitability

that he characterized as consistent over-reaction to external and internal stimulithat appeared limited to certain dimen-sions (Piechowski, 1975). He identifiedfive different forms of overexcitability:psychomotor, sensual, imaginational,intellectual, and emotional (Dabrowski& Piechowski, 1977; Piechowski, 1975).Dabrowski hypothesized that these veryintense response patterns were innate,and that increased intensity, frequency,and duration of these overexcitabilitieswere indicative of a greater develop-mental potential (Miller & Silverman,1987). He used the term overexcitabilityto emphasize the intensification of men-tal activity as well as the differentialtype of responding, experiencing, andacting distinguishable as characteristicforms of expression above and beyondthe norm (Piechowski, 1986; Piechows-ki & Colangelo, 1984).

These OEs are indicators of Devel-opmental Potential (DP) and thereforegiftedness. Dabrowski (1972) stressedthe importance of emotional, imagina-tional, and intellectual OEs above psy-chomotor and sensual. Furthermore, hesaid that emotional OE must be at leastas strong as all other OEs to reach thehighest level of development. The fol-lowing are descriptions of the fiveoverexcitabilities:

Psychomotor overexcitability ischaracterized by an organic excess ofenergy which manifests itself as a loveof movement, rapid speech, increasedcapacity to be active, impulsiveness,pressure for action, and restlessness.

Sensual overexcitability is experi-enced as heightened sensory pleasureand is expressed as desires for comfortand luxury, being admired and in thelimelight, and as the appreciation ofbeautiful objects (e.g. gems, furniture),writing styles, and words. Other mani-festations include simple sensory plea-sures such as touching, tasting, andsmelling.

Imaginational overexcitability inits purest form is expressed throughvividness of imagery, rich association,use of metaphor in verbal expression,strong and sharp visualization (real orimaginary), and inventiveness. Otherforms are vivid and detailed dreams ornightmares, fear of the unknown,

predilection with fantasy and magictales, and poetic creativity.

Intellectual overexcitability, isexpressed as persistence in asking prob-ing questions, avidity for knowledge,discovery, and theoretical analysis andsynthesis, a sharp sense of observation,independence of thought (oftenexpressed in criticism), symbolic think-ing, and a capacity to search for knowl-edge and truth are all manifestations ofintellectual OE. It should not to beequated with intelligence: for example,intelligence is expressed in the ability tosolve math problems, intellectual OE isexpressed in the love of solving them.

Emotional overexcitability is afunction of the way relationships areexperienced, and can be expressed asattachments to people, things, or places,or, one's relationship with oneself.Characteristic expressions include deeprelationships, strong affective memory,concern with death, feelings of compas-sion and responsibility, depression, needfor security, self-evaluation, shyness,and concern for others (Falk &Piechowski, 1991; Piechowski, 1975,1986; Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984;Piechowski & Cunningham, 1985).

Although research in this area isonly developing, those studies

that have been conducted suggest thatOEs are stronger in the gifted. Also,most of this research assessed OEstrength using the OverexcitabilityQuestionnaire (OEQ), a 21-item open-ended questionnaire, which is scoredusing content analysis. Among adults,OEs are stronger for the gifted than thenongifted ( Miller, Silverman, & Falk,1991; Piechowski & Cunningham, 1985;Silverman & Ellsworth, 1981) and simi-larly for children and adolescents (Gal-lagher, 1986; Piechowski & Colangelo,1984). Some OEs were found to bestrongest in artists when compared withthe gifted (Piechowski & Cunningham,1985; Piechowski, Silverman, & Falk.,1985) and to have greater strength inmore creative gifted adolescents thanless creative ones (Schiever, 1985).

However, it is not clear from theavailable literature whether overex-citability profiles consistently distin-guish between groups of gifted and ofnongifted individuals. Even so, a rela-tionship is indicated between giftednessand intensity of OEs in the literature thatpoints to significantly higher scores onimaginational, intellectual, and emotion-al OEs (Gallagher, 1986; Piechowski &Colangelo, 1984; Piechowski & Cun-ningham, 1985; Piechowski et al., 1985;Silverman & Ellsworth, 1981).

230/Roeper Review, Vol. 19, No. 4


On the other hand, there are severalissues that have surfaced in the lines ofresearch dealing with Dabrowski's The-ory of Positive Disintegration. Forexample, assessing overexcitabilitiesappears to have potential as a methodfor identifying gifted individuals. There-fore, it is crucial to determine an OEprofile capable of distinguishingbetween the gifted and nongifted: It isalso necessary to explore the influencesof language and culture on overex-citability scores to investigate biases inthe instrument. Finally, in the collectionof literature on OEs and gifted subjects,there is only one study that has com-pared gifted and nongifted adolescents(Gallagher, 1986); all other comparativestudies have used adult subjects. Itseems imperative that research be per-formed on school age subjects becausethe best time to identify the gifted isearly in their development.

The purpose of this study was toexamine overexcitabilities as a methodof identifying gifted adolescents. Thisresearch primarily investigated whichoverexcitabilities best distinguishbetween gifted and nongifted adoles-cents in order to determine a gifted-pro-file to be used as an identification proce-dure. Adolescents were chosen assubjects because the OEQ requiresextended written responses beyond theability of younger students. Specificresearch questions were:• Can overexcitability profiles be used

to discriminate between gifted andnon-gifted students?

• Are there any unidentified studentswith a similar OE profile to that of thegifted students?

• Are there possible linguistic and cul-tural biases of this method. Specifical-ly: does speaking more than one lan-guage fluently influence responses? isword count (i.e. the total number ofwords in response to the OEQ) relatedto OE scores, and is cultural influenceresponsible for differences in overex-citability scores?

The answers to these questionsmay provide school districts

with valuable suggestions for identify-ing gifted and talented students, as wellas a deeper understanding of them. Ifsome students not identified as gifted bytraditional means have similar OE pro-files to those identified, this would indi-cate that these two groups of studentshave some common underlying charac-teristics. Those not identified as giftedcould be in need of gifted programming,but, at risk of being refused.

Methodology

SubjectsThe subjects were 79 tenth and

eleventh grade students from two seniorhigh schools in the Roman CatholicSeparate School System in Calgary,Alberta. Forty-two students were identi-fied for the gifted program using amulti-criteria approach based on Ren-zulli's (1977) model which assessedacademic achievement and intellectualability, creativity, and task commitment.Thirty-seven students were not identi-fied. Teacher, parent, and self nomina-tions created the initial pool of studentsto be considered. Academic grades, IQscores, achievement test scores, nomina-tions and recommendations, as well asstatements from the students were usedto determine whether a student shouldbe included in the gifted program. Aminimum IQ score of 120 was requiredfor placement; although, allowances forlower scores were occasionally made ifthe student showed particular interest inthe program or had a strong profile onall other components. Identification pro-cedures also included specific criteriafor each subject area.

The subjects ranged from 14 to 18years of age. There were 10 males and32 females in the gifted group and 20males and 17 females in the generalsample. The ethnic backgrounds of thesubjects were extremely diverse andincluded individuals of Filipino, Polish,Croatian, Italian, and Czechoslovakianheritage, as well as many others.

InstrumentsThe Overexcitability Questionnaire

(OEQ) (Lysy & Piechowski, 1988) con-sists of 21 open-ended questions to beanswered in written form. These ques-tions are intended to be thought provok-ing and elicit varied personal responses.Some examples of the questions are:"What has been your experience of themost intense pleasure?", "What kind ofphysical activity (or inactivity) givesyou the most satisfaction?", and "Howoften do you carry on arguments in yourhead? What sorts of subjects are thesearguments about?" While the questionswere initially intended to elicit a specif-ic OE, they actually elicit whicheverOEs are strongest in an individual.Completion time varies depending onhow much information the subjectshave to write and the amount of effortput forth.

Findings from the following studiesprovide evidence of construct validity

for intellectual and imaginationaloverexcitabilities. In a research study ofartists and intellectually gifted adults,imaginational OE was higher for theartists and intellectual OE was higher forthe gifted adults (Piechowski et al.,1985). Among Venezuelan artists, imag-inational OE was the highest of the fiveOEs (Manzanero, 1985). ImaginationalOE has also distinguished between low-creative and high-creative seventh andeighth graders (Schiever, 1985). Gal-lagher (1986) showed that among agroup of sixth graders, intellectual OEdistinguished between high and lowscorers on the Torrance Test for Cre-ative Thinking. Thus far, construct valid-ity for emotional, sensual, and psy-chomotor OEs has not been confirmed;however, Silverman (1993) suggests thatclinical data collected on gifted individu-als offer some preliminary support.

Based on their findings, some ofthese authors make remarks

regarding the use of the OEQ in schoolsbased on their findings. Gallagher(1986) asserts that "as there is currentlyno other protocol which measures intel-ligence, creativity, and emotional sensi-tivity simultaneously, this instrument[the Overexcitability Questionnaire]could prove to be a valuable addition tothe field" (p. 119). Schiever (1985)believes that the measurement of levelsof OE could provide a new indicator ofcreative ability. A case can also be madefor the use of the OEQ in educationbecause it provides such rich informa-tion about each student. Additionally,many educators feel Dabrowski's con-cepts of OEs are useful in understandingthe differences among gifted individu-als, as well as, differences between thegifted and the nongifted. This under-standing of individual differences is use-ful for purposes of programming andcurriculum.

Content analysis is used to score theOEQ (Falk & Piechowski, 1991); a sep-arate index is calculated for each of thefive overexcitabilities. Each responsecan reflect any or all forms of overex-citability and the intensity is rated from0, no overexcitability, to 3, a rich andintense expression. The highest possiblescore for each OE is 63: a score of 3 in acategory for each of the 21 questions.

The questionnaires were rated by 10raters who attended a special trainingseminar and tested 90% or above inagreement with the experts. All ques-tionnaires were scored independently bytwo raters. The pairs of raters were shuf-fled several times to decrease the risk of



scorer bias. To ensure that the quality ofrating remained consistent, the expertraters supervised the scoring. The ratersremained consistent; their qualityremained at the level of their training.

In past studies using the OEQ,reaching consensus between two raterswas the method used to determine scoreswhen raters differed. However, in astudy using a similar open-ended instru-ment, it was found that averaging thescores of the raters was comparable toreaching consensus (Miller, 1985). Sincethe raters were spread throughout theUnited States and Canada, averagingscores was deemed a more time-efficientmethod.

All protocols were rated by twotrained individuals. Interrater

reliability for the overexcitabilities were:.91 for psychomotor, .92 for sensual, .97for imaginational, .92 for intellectual,and .91 for emotional. For each scale thereliability scores were calculated byusing Pearson Product Moment Correla-tions (Allen & Yen, 1979) to determinethe correlation between rater 1 and rater2 for each item across all 79 cases.These correlations were averaged andthen stepped-up using the Spearman-Brown Formula (Allen & Yen, 1979) todetermine the interrater reliability of ascale. This procedure was followed foreach of the five overexcitability scales.The internal consistency for each scaleas measured by Cronbach's Alpha was:.57 for psychomotor, .42 for sensual, .63for imaginational, .72 for intellectual,and .77 for emotional.

A brief demographic questionnairewas used to gather information about thesubjects' age, gender, spokenlanguage(s) and language preference,their cultural background(s), and thenumber of generations their families hadbeen in Canada. Questions regardingcurrent or previous participation oropportunity to participate in the giftedprogram were included.

Data AnalysisTo determine which of the OEs had

the greatest discriminating powerbetween the gifted and non-gifted stu-dents, a stepwise discriminant functionanalysis was performed. The dependentvariable was classification as gifted ornongifted and the independent variableswere the five OE scores. A subsequentclassificatory analysis was performed toascertain the number of students in thenongifted group that had similar OE pro-files to those in the gifted group. Addi-tionally, Pearson's Product Moment cor-

relations were performed between OEsand cultural influence (number of gener-ations the family has been in Canada),and word count (total number of wordsin the response protocol). A Point-Biser-ial correlation was performed betweenthe OEs and linguistic ability (the num-ber of languages fluently spoken)because of the dichotomous nature ofone variable.

ProcedureAt the beginning of class, the

researcher presented a brief explanationof the study that included informationabout its purpose, time commitment,confidentiality issues, and basic instruc-tions. The questionnaire's non-threaten-ing, non-judgmental nature was empha-sized. This address was followed by abrief question and answer period.

The researcher gave each student apackage complete with a consent form,demographic questionnaire, Overex-citability Questionnaire, instructionsheet, and a coded envelope for the con-fidential return of their information.Once distribution was completed, thestudents were given the remaining classtime to work on the questionnaire pack-age, approximately 55 minutes. Theywere instructed to complete the packagefor homework if the remaining classtime was not sufficient. The packageswere to be returned within the followingweek with the signed consent forms.

The majority of students finished duringthe 55 minute class period.

Results

The mean OE scores for the giftedand nongifted groups are presented inFigure 1. The means and standard devia-tions for both groups are: Gifted - psy-chomotor 7.93, 3.3; sensual 2.71, 2.0;imaginational 6.79, 3.8; intellectual8.39,4.2; emotional 11.94, 6.3 andNongifted - psychomotor 5.08, 2.3; sen-sual 2.09, 2.0; imaginational 4.64, 2.6;intellectual 5.77, 3.3; emotional 9.15,4.4. The gifted group show higher scoresthan the nongifted group for all fiveforms of OE.

The discriminant analysis identifiedthree OEs as discriminating between thetwo groups: psychomotor, intellectual,and emotional. Wilk's Lambda, a mea-sure of group discrimination, was mini-mized from .80 in Step 1 to .71 in Step3. The optimal prediction equation instandardized form was: D = .80z + .44z+ .35z for psychomotor, intellectual, andemotional OEs respectively. The meandiscriminant function scores were .59for the gifted group, and -.67 for thenongifted group. The result of aBartlett's Chi Square Test indicated thatthe two groups were significantly sepa-rated by the discriminant function, t¿ =25.73, p < .001. Examination of the

Mean Overexcitability Scoresfor Gifted and Non-Gifted Groups

1 1 -1 0 -

«o 9 "£ 8-O 7

W 6-ca 5 -^ 4 -

3 -2 -1 -0 -

Gifted N = 42

• 508 H4.64 •

1 HI 1Psychomotor Sensual Imaginational Intellectua

Overexcitabilities

• Gifted Nonidentified

fftet•H 9.15

Emotional

; Nonidentified N = 37 total possible score for each OE = 63

Figure 1



structure coefficients (correlationsbetween the discriminant function andthe predictor variables) indicated thatsubjects who scored high on the dis-criminant function were characterizedby higher ratings of psychomotor, intel-lectual, and emotional OE. The structurecoefficients also indicated that psy-chomotor OE best discriminatedbetween the two groups followed byintellectual and emotional OEs. There-fore, this sample of gifted students couldbe described as being more energetic,having more drive, exhibiting moremovement and chattering, being moreemotionally sensitive, having strongerrelationships and attachments, moreintellectual curiosity, and a greater needfor intellectual challenge than those notidentified as gifted.

Classificatory analysis performed atthe end of the discriminant analysisindicated that a total of 70.9% of allsubjects were correctly classified usingpsychomotor, intellectual, and emotion-al OE scores; that is, into the groups theschools had placed them. However, 23subjects were classified incorrectly: 13of the 37 (35.1%) nongifted subjectswere classified as gifted and 10 of the42 (23.8%) gifted subjects were classi-fied as nongifted.

For the analyses of possible cul-tural and linguistic influences

on the OEQ, linguistic ability wasdefined as the number of languages asubject reported speaking fluently. Inthe total sample, some spoke only Eng-lish, while others spoke two to five lan-guages, including Arabic, Chinese,Croatian, Czechoslovakian, Dutch, Fil-ipino, Inuit, Italian, Portuguese, Russ-ian, Spanish, and Vietnamese. The dis-tribution for the number of spokenlanguages for the gifted and nongiftedgroups was as follows: one language, 22and 23; two languages, 9 and 10; three,9 and 3; four, 2 and 0, respectively.Information for one nongifted subjectwas missing. Two groups were created -those who spoke only one language andthose speaking more than one language:52.4% of the gifted group spoke onelanguage and 47.6% spoke more thanone. In the nongifted group, 63.9%spoke one language while 36.1 % spokemore than one language.

The correlations between the fiveOEs and linguistic ability, for the total,gifted, and nongifted samples, resultedin only two that were significant, p < .05(see Table - 1): emotional OE showed aweak negative correlation with linguis-tic ability for the total sample, r =.24,

and the gifted sample, r = .37. No othercorrelations were significant.

The cultural background of thesample was diverse. A total of 31 differ-ent cultural backgrounds from four con-tinents, Europe, Asia, North America,and South America, were represented.The measure used for cultural influencewas generation Canadian, which rangedfrom immigrant status to fifth genera-tion; those subjects whose families arenewer to the country were consideredmore culturally influenced than thosewhose families had been in Canada for alonger period of time. The distributionof generational information for the gift-ed and nongifted groups was as follows:Immigrant, 4 and 1 ; first generation, 20and 13; second, 9 and 7; third, 4 and 9;fourth, 4 and 3; and fifth, 2 and 0,respectively. Data from four nongiftedsubjects were missing.

The correlations between the fiveOEs and cultural influence, for the total,gifted, and nongifted samples, alsoresulted in only two that were signifi-cant, p < .05: emotional OE showed aweak correlation with cultural influencefor the total sample, r = -.25, and thegifted sample, r = -.33. No other correla-tions were significant.

The total number of words, or wordcount, from all 21 responses was used asthe unit of measurement for length ofresponse. The correlations between thefive OEs and word count for the total,gifted, and nongifted samples, resulted inseveral that were significant (all but oneat the p < .001) with several in the mod-erate and strong range (see Table - 1).

Discussion

The Discriminant Function Analy-sis performed on the total sample indi-cated that three forms of overexcitability

created a profile able to discriminatebetween gifted subjects and nongiftedsubjects; elevated scores on psychomo-tor, intellectual, and emotional OEs.Psychomotor OE contributed moststrongly to differentiation between thetwo groups. The second highest contrib-utor was intellectual OE, and emotionalOE was the smallest contributor includ-ed in the discriminant function.

These findings are not entirelyconsistent with the literature

which suggests (Dabrowski, 1972;Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977) thathigher scores on emotional, intellectual,and imaginational OEs in gifted samples,as compared to nongifted ones, are thedifferentiating factors for the two groups.The current findings are consistent withtwo of the three OEs. Earlier studies,(Gallagher, 1986; Lysy & Piechowski,1983; Piechowski & Miller, 1994;Piechowski & Colangelo, 1984; Silver-man & Ellsworth, 1981), found emotion-al, intellectual, and imaginational OEs, invarying order, to be the highest three OEsfor their gifted subjects. Therefore, eventhough emotional and intellectual OEswere the highest scores and were alsoidentified as discriminating between thetwo groups in the current study, psy-chomotor OE was identified as the OEthat most differentiated between the gift-ed and nongifted samples.

The discriminating influence ofpsychomotor OE might be understood inlight of a theoretical point that receiveslittle attention: Psychomotor and sensualOEs alone cannot promote developmentto the higher levels, and if excessivelystrong, can even inhibit development.However, when combined with otherforms of OE, they can contribute posi-tively to development (Dabrowski &Piechowski, 1977). For example, at lowlevels of development, psychomotor OEis expressed as "violent irritability and

Correlation of Overexcitability Scores withLinguistic Ability,

Word ContentPsychomotor Î

Linguistic Ability -0.07Gifted -0.15Nongifted -0.13

Cultural Influence« 0.06Gifted 0.13Nongifted 0.13

Word Count« 0.33*Gifted 0.12Nongifted 0.21

Cultural Influence, andfor theSensual

0.030.00

-0.130.130.11

-0.100.220.150.21

•: total sample correlations, t : P<05, *: p<.001

Total SampleImaginational

-0.040.07

-0.11-0.010.000.110.46*0.35t0.43*

Intellectual

0.140.23

-0.070.00

-0.010.110.57*0.47*0.58*

Emotional

0.24t0.37t

-0.03-0.25t-0.33t-0.020.71*0.64*0.80*

Table 1



uncontrolled temper with easy return toequilibrium,...impulsive actions,...juve-nile delinquency..."(Dabrowski &Piechowski, 1977, p. 114) while at high-er levels of development it becomes sub-ordinate to the higher OE forms, i.e.emotional, intellectual, and imagination-al, and provides the necessary energy toexecute a developmental program ofaction (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977).Therefore, psychomotor OE, while notas strong, seems to play an essential rolein the life of a more developed individ-ual because it provides the energy neces-sary to act and persevere.

Based on this information regardingpsychomotor OE, the results are moreconsistent with the theory than initialanalysis indicates: Although psychomo-tor OE is the best discriminator betweenthe gifted and nongifted groups, it hasthe third highest mean score after emo-tional and intellectual. Other researchershave commented on the possible rela-tionship psychomotor OE has to gifted-ness and development. According toGallagher (1986), "...high levels ofactivity and energy...may be connectedwith giftedness" (p. 118). In a recentarticle, Tolan (1994) suggests that, "ifthe definition of psychomotor [overex-citability]...were expanded to specifical-ly include physical energy generated byintellectual or creative activity,...[it]might be seen to be more common to thegifted than previously believed" (p.77).

The importance of psychomotorOE in this study may be the

result of the age of the sample used. Intwo studies (Gallagher, 1986; Schiever,1985) with subjects between the ages of12-14, the OE profiles included elevatedintellectual, imaginational, and psy-chomotor. Therefore, psychomotor OEmay be more important in adolescencethan in adulthood. Another explanationcould be that as an individual reacheshigher levels of development, the OEsbecome more integrated, and in the caseof psychomotor OE, it becomes subordi-nate to the others. Therefore, it wouldlikely be harder to detect the presence ofpsychomotor OE based on the rating cri-teria of the OEQ. Typical responses arerated as psychomotor OE include "rapidspeech, marked excitation, intense phys-ical activity (e.g. fast games and sports),pressure for action (e.g. organizing),marked competitiveness... compulsivetalking and chattering, impulsiveactions" (Falk, Piechowski, Lind, 1994,p. 9) all of which reflect easily identifiedbehaviors, not the role psychomotor OEplays when integrating with the other

I?

OEs. However, there were two otherstudies using adolescent subjects wherepsychomotor OE was not one of the topthree in the overexcitability profile(Piechowski & Miller, 1994; Piechowski& Colangelo, 1984).

[n the current study, 13 of the 37(35.1%) nongifted students were

classified as gifted. This suggests thatthere are some students in the samplethat have not been identified as giftedbased on their I.Q. scores, peer, teacher,and parent nominations, and schoolgrades, although, these students havepersonality characteristics similar tothose students who were identified asgifted. Personality characteristics in thissense refer to psychomotor, intellectual,and emotional OEs, which are includedin the discriminant function coefficient.Thus, it is possible that approximately35% of the non-gifted students could begifted based on the classificatory analy-sis results.

The classificatory analysis alsoindicated that a number of gifted sub-jects were misclassified. That is, theirOE profiles were more similar to thenongifted profile than the gifted profile.Of the gifted students, 23.8% (10 of 42)matched the nongifted profile moreclosely. Therefore, while the score onthe OEQ might be able to identify somestudents as gifted that would not havebeen identified based on the methodsused in their school, it should serve asan additional measure, and not areplacement for current methods.

One of the most important findingsin this study was that based on OEQscores and profiles, 35% of the nongift-ed subjects matched the gifted profilebased on statistical analyses. This pro-vides some support to the notion that anadditional method of identification isnecessary and that the OverexcitabilityQuestionnaire could be useful for thispurpose. While there were also 24% ofthe gifted subjects with profiles similarto that of the nongifted, this point is notas important to the current study,because these individuals would alreadyhave been identified.

Investigating possible linguisticbiases showed that for the total sample,word count was significantly correlatedwith all five forms of overexcitability.Generally, those subjects who wrotelengthy responses to the OEQ questionshad higher scores than those subjectswho wrote short responses. However,while long responses are more likely toresult in higher OE scores than shortresponses, brief answers also result in

elevated OE scores and a long responsedoes not guarantee high OE scores.Variance in OE scores resulting fromword count ranged from 5% to 48%with a mean of 26%. Even for emotionalOE, which had the highest correlationwith word count, length of responseaccounts for less than half the variancein OE scores.

Among correlations between OEscores and spoken language ability, theonly significant correlation was betweenemotional OE and language ability, forthe total sample. However, the extreme-ly low correlation for the non-giftedgroup between emotional OE and lan-guage ability (r =.03) made no contribu-tion to the correlation for the total sam-ple. Therefore, the only meaningfulrelationship is for the gifted group (r =.37). The positive correlation wouldindicate that those subjects who werefluent in only one language receivedlower emotional OE scores on averagethan those who were multilingual, espe-cially for the gifted group.

The results of correlations betweencultural influence and OE scores indicat-ed that only one was significant. For thegifted group, the correlation betweencultural influence and emotional OE wasr = -.33. Therefore, the longer a giftedsubject's family spent in Canada, thelower the emotional OE score.

Since this is the first study toaddress cultural and linguistic influ-ences, the correlational analyses shouldbe considered in that light. Somemethodological considerations are: Thesubjects were all from private RomanCatholic high schools restricting reli-gious representation. The diversity ofcultural backgrounds is not a commonphenomenon. Also, the unbalancednumber of males and females in the gift-ed group could have influenced theresults.

Another set of considerations thatshould be mentioned relate to the ques-tionnaire itself. The questions are cur-rently under review to determine if itwill be possible to decrease their numberand still get reliable results (N.B. Miller,personal communication, April 2, 1993).These discussions focus on the validityof individual questions; and whetherthey are tapping all OEs effectively.

Even with the possible methodolog-ical concerns, there is still a great deal ofvaluable information that can be used asthe starting point for further research.One of the main purposes of anexploratory study is to set the ground-work for future investigations.



The results indicated that giftedsubjects were differentiated

from their nongifted peers based ontheir higher psychomotor, intellectual,and emotional OE scores. While thiswas an unexpected finding, it clearlyillustrates that scores on the OEQ candifferentiate between gifted and nongift-ed students. Because of the central partpsychomotor OE played in the analysis,which has not been noted in previousstudies, it is important that furtherresearch be conducted to verify thesefindings.

Investigating some of the possiblelimitations of the OEQ proved to be use-ful. While the overwhelming number ofhigh positive correlations between wordcount and OE scores must be replicated,it does have implications for the admin-istration of the instrument. Emphasizingthe importance of writing as much aspossible and imposing no time con-straints would be helpful. The OEQ canbe administered in oral form. Researchshows that responses with higher psy-chomotor OE scores and lower emotion-al OE scores are given on oral adminis-tration compared with the written form(Piechowski & Miller, 1995). Piechows-ki and Miller also report that the majori-ty of subjects in their study, between theages of 9 and 14, preferred the oral form.They also recommend that the oral formbe used with children below the age of11. One major difficulty with the oraladministration is the amount of timerequired to administer and transcriberesponses.

The investigation of language abili-ty and cultural influence biases in thisstudy were not very informative. It ispossible that different cultures will showdifferent OE profiles. Perhaps in themore typically expressive cultures therewould be an elevated emotional OEscore. Manzanero (1985) found thatsamples of Venezuelan and Americanartists had similar OE profiles. Howev-er, a series of independent studies per-formed on diverse cultures would eluci-date this issue.

Another consideration for this lineof research is its practicality for use byteachers in classrooms. The Overex-citability Questionnaire can provide use-ful qualitative information for teachersabout their students, but, it is not tenableas a quantitative assessment instrumentin its present form. Further researchmust work toward creating a version ofthe OEQ that is not only theoreticallyand statistically sound, but also realisticfor widespread school use.

The most important contribution ofthis study is its indication that theassessment of overexcitabilities can be aviable additional identification methodfor giftedness. Further research is neces-sary to determine the most appropriateuses for this method as well as the spe-cific profiles that can be used for identi-fication purposes. The differentiatingpower of psychomotor OE scores in thisstudy would be one place to begin.

Implications for Practice

There are several implications foreducation that arise from Dabrowski'stheory and the related research, some ofwhich are theoretical and some that aremore practical. Dabrowski's theory ofPositive Disintegration offers a newconceptualization of giftedness that maybe useful in the classroom. Whilebehaviors are easily observed, it is oftendifficult to determine the motivationbehind them. Using overexcitabilities asa lens, a student's behavior can, per-haps, be reframed; for example, ifchildren are not attending to the lesson itis possible that they have an attentionaldisorder, however, it is also possiblethat their intellectual and imaginationaloverexcitabilities are working on a prob-lem more personally relevant or simplymore interesting. The second explana-tion describes children who are differen-tially attending while the first describeschildren who are not attending.

An extremely important contribu-tion this theory offers to parents andeducators is that individuals may haveany combination of overexcitabilitieswhich may contribute to the understand-ing of individual differences. This mighthelp parents and educators understandthat gifted individuals are not homoge-neous, they are different from each otherin many respects, overexcitabilitiesbeing only one. Perhaps this informationmay promote more tolerance and under-standing of these differences.

Data from the OverexcitabilityQuestionnaire can also provide informa-tion valuable for gifted programmingand curriculum design. Since the OEQis an open-ended instrument, a wealth ofqualitative information for each studentis available in their responses. Respons-es include most exciting experiences,things that make them think, activitiesthey find most satisfying, and other sim-ilar information. Teachers could incor-porate these findings into their lessonsto improve the likelihood that studentswill actively participate.

This research study also has impli-cations for the identification of giftedstudents in school. Most generally,overexcitabilities have been shown todifferentiate between gifted and non-identified students in high school wherethe gifted have higher scores on allforms of overexcitabilities. This meansthat if teachers were trained to recognizecharacteristics of overexcitabilities intheir students, some students who wouldnormally go unidentified, might be iden-tified in this manner.

Currently, the OverexcitabilityQuestionnaire is not tenable as

a quantitative assessment instrument, inits present form. Its main drawbacks arethe length of administration time, thelevel of writing skills and expressivelanguage, and the cost of scoring ortraining to become a rater. Furtherresearch must work toward creating aversion of the Overexcitability Ques-tionnaire that is not only theoreticallyand statistically sound, but also realisticfor widespread school use to serve as anidentification instrument that wouldensure a diversity of high ability stu-dents in the gifted classroom.

REFERENCESBetts, G. T. & Neihart, M. (1988). Profiles of the gifted and

talented, Gifted Child Quarterly, 32(2), 248-253.Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA:

Little, Brown.Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness.

London: Gryf.Dabrowski, K. & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of lev-

els of emotional development: Volume I - Multilevelnessand positive disintegration. Oceanside, NY: Dabor Sci-ence

Falk, R. F. & Piechowski, M. M. (1991). Criteria for ratinglevels of intensity of overexcitabilities. Unpublishedmanuscript. University of Akron, Akron, Ohio.

Falk, R. F., Piechowski, M. M., & Lind, S. (1994). Criteriafor rating levels of intensity of overexcitabilities.Unpublished manuscript. University of Akron, Akron,Ohio.

Gallagher, S. (1986). A comparison of the concept ofoverexcitabilities with measures of creativity and schoolachievement in sixth-grade students. Roeper Review,8(2), 115-119.

Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multipleintelligences. New York: Basic Books, Inc.

Hollingworth, L. S. (1926). Gifted children: Their natureand their nurture. New York: Macmillan Company.

Kawczak, A. (1970). The methodological structure of theTheory of Positive Disintegration. In K. Dabrowski, A,.Kawczak, & M. Piechowski (Eds.), Mental growththrough positive disintegration, London: Gryf.

Lysy, K. Z., & Piechowski, M. M. (1983). Personal growth:An empirical study using Jungian and Dabrowskianmeasures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 108, 267-320.

Manzanero, J.B. (1985). A cross-cultural comparison of OEprofiles and levels of development between Americanand Venezuelan artists. Unpublished master's thesis,University of Denver, Denver, CO.

Marland, S. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented.Report to Congress of the United States by the U.S.Commissioner of Education, Washington, D.C.: Gov-ernment Printing Office

Miller, N. B. (1985). A content analysis coding system forassessing adult emotional development. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation. University of Denver, CO.

Miller, N. B., & Silverman, L. K. (1987). Levels of person-ality development. Roeper Review, 9(4), 221-225.

Miller, N. B., & Silverman, L. K., & Falk, R. F. (1994). Emo-tional development, intellectual ability, and gender. Jour-nal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 20-38.

Piechowski, M. M. (1975). A theoretical and empiricalapproach to the study of development. Genetic Psychol-ogy Monographs, 92, 231-297.



Piechowski, M. M. (1986). The concept of developmentalpotential. Roeper Review, 8(3), 190-197.

Piechowski, M. M., & Colangelo, N. (1984). Developmentalpotential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 80-88.

Piechowski, M. M., & Cunningham, K. (1985). Patterns ofoverexcitability in a group of artists. Journal of CreativeBehavior, 19(3), 153-174.

Piechowski, M. M., & Miller, N.B. (1994). Assessing devel-opmental potential in gifted children: A comparison ofmethods. Roeper Review, 17(3), 176-180.

Piechowski, M. M., Silverman, L. K., & Falk, R. F. (1985).Comparison of intellectually and artistically gifted onfive dimensions of mental functioning. Perceptual andMotor Skills, 60, 539-549.

Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guideto developing defensible programs for gifted andtalented. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.

Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining adefinition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.

Roeper, A. (1982). How the gifted cope with their emotions.Roeper Review, 5(2), 21-24.

Schiever, S. W. (1985). Creative personality characteristicsand dimensions of mental functioning in gifted adoles-cents. Roeper Review, 7(4), 223-226.

Silverman, L.K. (1993). The gifted individual. In L.K. Silver-man (Ed.), Counseling the gifted and talented (pp. 3-28).Denver: Love.

Silverman, L. K., & Ellsworth, B. (1981). The theory of posi-tive disintegration and its implications for giftedness. InN. Duda (Ed.), Theory of positive disintegration: Pro-ceedings of the third international conference on the the-ory of positive disintegration (pp. 179-194). Miami, FL:University of Miami School of Medicine.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985), Beyond I.Q.: A triarchic theory ofhuman intelligence. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Uni-versity Press.

Tannenbaum, A. J. (1991). The social psychology of gifted-ness. In N. Colangelo & G.A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook ofGifted Education (pp. 27-44). Toronto, Canada: Allynand Bacon.

Tolan, S.S. (1994). Psychomotor OE in the gifted: Anexpanded perspective. Advanced Development, 6, 77-86.

CALL FOR MANUSCRIPTSTALENT IDENTIFICATION AND DEVELOPMENT

INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Guest Editor: Roberta M. MilgramThe editor is seeking articles on the conceptualization, identification, and assessment of giftedness in countries outside

of the United States. Theoretical statements, empirical research studies, and cross-cultural investigations will be welcomed.A major change is taking place in the field of gifted education in the United States. The challenge for educators is no

longer seen as how to distinguish between gifted and nongifted youngsters based upon IQ measures but rather how to iden-tify and nurture in young people potential, domain-specific talents in any one of a large number of socially useful, specificdomains including but not confined to science, music, mathematics, social leadership, sports, drama, creative writing, art,computer and foreign languages. The purpose of this special issue is to explore the ways in which the current trends in gift-edness in other countries around the world are similar to or different from those in the United States.

Manuscript due date: March, 1998.Please send 4 copies of the manuscript prepared according to the

Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association to:Ruthan Brodsky, Editor

Roeper Review PO Box 329 Bloomfield Hills, MI. 48303

Authors are welcome to correspond by e-mail ([email protected]) or by air mail with:Roberta M. Milgram, Tel Aviv University School of Education Ramat Aviv, Israel 69978

CALL FOR PAPERS

Cognition of the GiftedGuest Editor: Eunsook Hong

The editor is looking for articles of original empirical studies, theoretical analyses, literature reviews, andcase studies dealing with basic and applied topics in the study of cognition of the gifted. The editor seeks manu-scripts that examine varying perspectives on cognitive development, strategies, learning and problem-solving inthe gifted with particular emphasis on the cognitive structure and processes in the performance of the gifted. Thedomains of competent performance to be analyzed may vary ranging from the hard sciences to the performingarts.

Suggested topics include how the gifted differ or do not differ from other individuals regarding their problemrepresentation, accuracy and speed of information processing, amount and accessibility of knowledge base, anddevelopment and use of learning, performance strategies, and metacognitive skills.

Manuscript due date: December 31,1997Submit 4 copies with a letter specifying this special issue to:

The Roeper Review, PO Box 329, Bloomfield Hills, MI 48303.

Send questions to: Eunsook HongDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Nevada

Box 453003, Las Vegas, NV 89154-3003



characteristics: dabrowski's overexcitabilitiespositivedisintegration.com/ackerman1997.pdf ·...

Documents