Adding Personality to Gifted Identification: Relationships Among Traditional and Personality-Based Constructs

Abstract

One of the underutilized tools in gifted identification is personality-based measures. Previous research has shown the Overexcitability Questionnaire II (OEQII) is able to differentiate between gifted and non-gifted respondents; however, the OEQII is difficult to administer and has questionable reliability. The Sensory Profile measures a similar construct to the OEQII without those issues. A multiple confirmatory factor analysis was utilized to examine the relationships between traditional identification methods (grade point average, achievement test, intelligence test, high school class rank) and personality-based measures (OEQII and Sensory Profile). The pattern of correlations between the four latent variables indicate this model could be measuring two constructs, one related to traditional intelligence-related aspects of giftedness and the other related to personality-related aspects of giftedness. If that is the case, a personality-based measure could prove to be a good measure of “personality-related” giftedness. Multiple discriminant analyses were then conducted to determine if the identification method would discriminate between gifted and nongifted in a sample of adult students at a large Midwestern university. Traditional identification methods and the OEQII were able to discriminate between gifted and nongifted but the Sensory Profile was not. One potential reason is that both the OEQII and Sensory Profile measure psychomotor and sensual overexcitabilities but only the OEQII measures imaginational, intellectual, and emotional overexcitabilities. Future research finding a personality-based instrument that is easy to administer and reliably measures the imaginational, intellectual, and emotional overexcitabilities is encouraged.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdi

(2010). Holm's sequential Bonferroni procedure. In Salkind

N. J.

(Ed.), Encyclopedia of research design (pp. 573–577). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ackerman

C. M.

(1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski's overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229–236.

Ackerman

C. M.

(2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31, 81–95.

Ash

Huebner

E. S.

(1998). Life satisfaction reports of gifted middle-school children. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 310–321.

Bahrick

H. P.

Hall

L. K.

Da Costa

L. A.

(2008). Fifty years of memory of college grades: Accuracy and distortions. Emotion, 8, 13–22.

Benge

Montgomery

(1996). Understanding the emotional development of twice exceptional rural students. In Montgomery

(Ed.), Rural goals 2000: Building programs that work. Conference proceedings of the American Council on Rural Special Education (pp. 392–397). Baltimore, MD: ACRES.

Bouchard

L. L.

(2004). An instrument for the measure of Dabrowskian overexcitabilities to identify gifted elementary students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 48, 339–350.

Bouchet

Falk

R. F.

(2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260–267.

Breard

N. S.

(1995). Exploring a different way to identify gifted African American students. Dissertation Abstracts International, 56(5-A), 1706.

10.

Brody

L. E.

Mills

C. J.

(2005). Talent search research: What have we learned? High Ability Studies, 16, 97–111.

11.

Brown

Cromwell

R. L.

Filion

Dunn

Tollefson

(2002). Sensory processing in schizophrenia: Missing and avoiding information. Schizophrenia Research, 55, 187–195.

12.

Brown

Dunn

(2002). Adolescent/adult sensory profile. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.

13.

Brown

Tollefson

Dunn

Cromwell

Filion

(2001). The adult sensory profile: Measuring patterns of sensory processing. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 75–82.

14.

Brown

T. A.

(2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

15.

Byrne

B. M.

(1989). A primer of LISREL: Basic applications and programming for confirmatory factor analytic models. New York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

16.

Carman

C. A.

(2004, November). Giftedness in research: Comparing apples & oranges? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association for Gifted Children, Salt Lake City, UT.

17.

Cross

T. L.

Cassady

J. C.

Dixon

F. A.

Adams

C. M.

(2008). The psychology of gifted adolescents as measured by the MMPI-A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 326–339.

18.

Dai

D. Y.

(2001). A comparison of gender differences in academic self-concept and motivation between high-ability and average Chinese adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 13, 22–32.

19.

Davidson Institute for Talent Development. (2010). Gifted education state policies. Retrieved from http://www.davidsongifted.org/db/StatePolicy.aspx

20.

Drake

K. S.

(2006, June). Gifted services identification report. Saint Paul, MN: Saint Paul Public Schools, Department of Research, Evaluation and Assessment, Office of Research and Development.

21.

Dunn

(1997). The impact of sensory processing abilities on the daily lives of young children and their families: A conceptual model. Infants and Young Children, 9, 23–35.

22.

Ermer

Dunn

(1998). The Sensory Profile: A discriminant analysis of children with and without disabilities. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 52, 283–290.

23.

Falk

R. F.

Lind

Miller

N. B.

Piechowski

M. M.

Silverman

L. K.

(1999a). The Overexcitability Questionnaire II. Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.

24.

Falk

R. F.

Lind

Miller

N. B.

Piechowski

M. M.

Silverman

L. K.

(1999b). The Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.

25.

Gallagher

S. A.

(1986). A comparison of the concept of overexcit-abilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth-grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115–119.

26.

Gentry

Gable

R. K.

Springer

(2000). Gifted and nongifted middle school students: Are their attitudes toward school different as measured by the new affective instrument, my class activities? Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 74–96.

27.

Greene

M. J.

(2006). Helping build lives: Career and life development of gifted and talented students. Professional School Counseling, 10, 34–42.

28.

Hawkins

(1997). Giftedness and psychological type. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 9, 57–67.

29.

Hertzog

N. B.

(2003). Impact of gifted programs from the students' perspectives. Gifted Child Quarterly, 47, 131–143.

30.

Jöreskog

K. G.

Sörbom

(1985). LISREL VI: Analysis of linear structural relationships by the method of maximum likelihood. Mooresville, IN: Scientific Software.

31.

Kane

(2009). Contemporary voices on Dabrowski's theory of positive disintegration. Roeper Review, 31, 72–76.

32.

Kientz

M. A.

Dunn

(1997). A comparison of the performance of children with and without autism on the sensory profile. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 51, 530–537.

33.

Klein

A. G.

Zehms

(1996). Self-concept and gifted girls: A cross sectional study of intellectually gifted females in grades 3, 5, 8. Roeper Review, 19, 30–34.

34.

Lewis

R. B.

Kitano

M. K.

Lynch

E. W.

(1992). Psychological intensities in gifted adults. Roeper Review, 15, 25–31.

35.

Lysy

K. Z.

Piechowski

M. M.

(1983). Personal growth: An empirical study using Jungian and Dabrowskian measures. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 108, 267–320.

36.

MacCallum

R. C.

Browne

M. W.

Sugawara

H. M.

(1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

37.

Mendaglio

Tillier

(2006). Dabrowski's Theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68–87.

38.

Mendez

L. M. R.

(2000). Gender roles and achievement-related choices: A comparison of early adolescent girls in gifted and general education programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 24, 149–169.

39.

Metha

McWhirter

E. H.

(1997). Suicide ideation, depression, and stressful life events among gifted students. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 20, 284–304.

40.

Miller

N. B.

Silverman

L. K.

Falk

R. F.

(1994). Emotional development, intellectual ability, and gender. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 18, 20–38.

41.

Piechowski

M. M.

(1979). Developmental potential. In Colangelo

Zaffran

R. T.

(Eds.), New voices in counseling the gifted (pp. 25–57). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

42.

Piechowski

M. M.

(1986). The concept of developmental potential. Roeper Review, 8, 190–197.

43.

Piechowski

M. M.

Colangelo

(1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80–88.

44.

Piechowski

M. M.

Cunningham

(1985). Patterns of overexcitability in a group of artists. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 153–174.

45.

Piechowski

M. M.

Miller

N. B.

(1995). Assessing developmental potential in gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Review, 17, 176–180.

46.

Piirto

Montgomery

May

(2008). A comparison of Dabrowski's overexcitabilities by gender for American and Korean high school gifted students. High Ability Studies, 19, 141–153.

47.

Reis

S. M.

McGuire

J. M.

Neu

T. W.

(2000). Compensation strategies used by high-ability students with learning disabilities who succeed in college. Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 123–134.

48.

Sak

(2004). A synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 70–79.

49.

Silverman

L. K.

Ellsworth

(1981). The theory of positive disintegration and its implications for giftedness. In Duda

(Ed.), Theory of positive disintegration: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on the Theory of Positive Disintegration (pp. 179–194). Miami, FL: University of Miami School of Medicine.

50.

St. Jean

(1996). Valuing, identifying, cultivating, and rewarding talents of students from special populations. Storrs: University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.

51.

Stormont

Stebbins

M. S.

Holliday

(2001). Characteristics and educational needs of underrepresented gifted adolescents. Psychology in the Schools, 38, 413–423.

52.

Tieso

C. L.

(2007). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11–22.

53.

Tieso

C. L.

McCoach

D. B.

(2006, April). Comparing the affective characteristics of gifted students and students with learning disabilities. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association annual conference, San Francisco, CA.

54.

Tucker

Hafenstein

N. L.

(1997). Psychological intensities in young gifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 41, 66–75.

55.

Ullman

J. B.

(2001). Structural equation modeling. In Tabachnick

B. G.

Fidell

L. S.

(Eds.), Using multivariate statistics (4th ed., pp. 653–771). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

56.

U.S. Department of Education. (2006). 2006 National and state projections. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://ocrdata.ed.gov/Projections_2006.aspx

57.

Vialle

Heaven

P. C. L.

Ciarrochi

(2007). On being gifted, but sad and misunderstood: Social, emotional, and academic outcomes of gifted students in the Wollongong Youth Study. Educational Research and Evaluation, 13, 569–586.

58.

Watling

R. L.

Deitz

White

(2001). Comparison of sensory profile scores of young children with and without autism spectrum disorders. The American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 55, 416–423.