There has been an increase in publications of quantitative research studies investigating overexcitabilities (OEs) and giftedness. On one hand, increased interest in OEs bodes well for the dissemination of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (TPD), from which OEs are derived. On the other hand, recent research raises concerns regarding the assumptions underlying the research methods in common use. This article argues that the assumptions regarding OEs and their relationship to giftedness evident in recent research run counter to Dabrowskian theorizing. Due to the uniqueness and coherence of TPD, the article concludes by noting the need for a paradigm shift when researchers investigate TPD concepts such as OE.
AssoulineS. G.Lupkowski-ShoplikA. (2012). The talent search model of gifted identification. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 45-59.
2.
BouchardL. L. (2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to identify gifted elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 339-350.
3.
BouchetN.FalkR. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260-267.
4.
CarifioJ.PerlaR. (2008). Resolving the 50 year debate around using and misusing Likert scales. Medical Education, 42, 1150-1152.
5.
DabrowskiK. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
6.
DabrowskiK. (1967). Personality-shaping through positive disintegration. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
7.
DabrowskiK. (1970). Mental growth through positive disintegration. London, England: Gryf.
8.
DabrowskiK. (1972). Psychoneurosis is not an illness. London, England: Gryf.
9.
DabrowskiK. (1973). The dynamics of concepts. London, England: Gryf.
10.
DabrowskiK. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive functions. Part 1: Theory and description of levels of behavior. Lublin, Poland: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwersytetu Lubelskiego.
11.
FalkR. R.LindS.MillerN. B.PiechowskiM. M.SilvermanL. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two (OEQ II): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
12.
HarwellM. R.GattiG. G. (2001). Rescaling ordinal data to interval data in educational research. Review of Educational Research, 71, 105-132.
13.
HyeyoungB.MontgomeryD. (2010). Exploring Korean and American teachers’ preferred emotional types. Roeper Review, 32, 176-188.
14.
LysyK. Z.PiechowskiM. M. (1983). Personal growth: An empirical study using Jungian and Dabrowskian measures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 108, 267-320.
15.
MendaglioS. (2008). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration: A personality theory for the 21st century. In MendaglioS. (Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 13-40). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
16.
MendaglioS. (2010). Overexcitabilities and Dabrowski’s theory. In PreckelF.SchneiderW.HollingH. (Eds.), Diagnosis of giftedness. Series: Yearbook of the pedagogical-psychological diagnosis. Tests and Trends (Vol. 8, pp. 169-196).
17.
MendaglioS.PyrytM. (2004). The role of intelligence in the theory of positive disintegration. In TillierW. (Ed.), Developmental potential—From theory to practice: Educational and therapeutic perspectives (pp. 64–181). Proceedings from the Sixth International Congress of the Institute for Positive Disintegration in Human Development Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
18.
MendaglioS.TillierW. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitabilities research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68-87.
19.
MillerN. B.FalkR.YinmeiH. (2009). Gender identity and the overexcitability profiles of gifted college students. Roeper Review, 31, 161-169.
20.
MillerN. B.SilvermanL. K. (1987). Levels of personality development. Roeper Review, 9, 221-225.
21.
NixonL. (2005). Potential for positive disintegration and IQ. Dabrowskian Newsletter, 10(2), 1-5.
22.
NormanG. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Education, 15, 625-632.
23.
PastaD. J. (2009). Learning when to be discrete: Continuous vs. categorical predictors. Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum, USA. (Paper No. 248-2009).
24.
PeersI. S. (1996). Statistical analysis for education and psychology researchers. London, England: Routledge.
25.
PiechowskiM. M.SilvermanL.FalkF. (1985). Comparison of intellectually and artistically gifted on five dimensions of mental functions. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 60, 539-549.
26.
PiirtoJ.MontgomeryD.MayJ. (2008). A comparison of Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities for American and Korean high school gifted students. High Abilities Studies, 19, 141-153.
27.
RinnA. N.ReynoldsM. J. (2012). Overexcitabilities and ADHD in the gifted: An examination. Roeper Review, 34, 38-45.
28.
SiuA. F. Y. (2010). Comparing overexcitabilities of gifted and nongifted school children in Hong Kong: Does culture make a difference?Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 30, 71-83.
29.
TiesoC. L. (2007). Overexcitabilities: A new way to think about talent?Roeper Review, 29, 232-239.
30.
WechslerD. (1949). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children: Manual. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
31.
WechslerD. (1955). Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale: Manual. New York, NY: Psychological Corporation.
32.
WirthweinL.BeckerC. V.LoehrE.-V.RostD. H. (2011).Overexcitabilities in gifted and non-gifted adults: Does sex matter?High Abilities Studies, 22, 145-153.
33.
Yakmaci-GuzelB.AkarsuF. (2006). Comparing overexcitabilities of gifted and non-gifted 10th grade students in Turkey. High Ability Studies, 17, 43-56.
