The Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two (OEQII) is a quantitative instrument for assessing overexcitabilities as they are described in Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration. This article uses multigroup confirmatory factor analysis to examine the measurement invariance of OEQII scores across genders. Results indicate that raw OEQII scores cannot be compared across genders. Caution should be used in interpreting OEQII scores.
AckermanC. M. (1997). Identifying gifted adolescents using personality characteristics: Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities. Roeper Review, 19, 229-236.
2.
AckermanC. M. (2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31, 81-95.
3.
AckermanC. M.MillerN. B. (1997, November). Exploring a shortened version of the Overexcitability Questionnaire. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Association of Gifted Children, Little Rock, AR.
4.
BeauducelA.HerzbergP. Y. (2006). On the performance of maximum likelihood versus means and variance adjusted weighted least squares estimation in CFA. Structural Equation Modeling, 13, 186-203.
5.
BouchetN.FalkR. F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness, gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260-267.
6.
CarmanC. A. (2005). Relationships among traditional and modern constructs used in identifying giftedness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Kansas, Lawrence.
7.
CheungG. W.RensvoldR. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
8.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
DanielsS.MeckstrothE. (2009). Nurturing the sensitivity, intensity, and developmental potential of young gifted children. In DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 33-56). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
11.
DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (2009a). Dabrowski’s levels and the process of development. In DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 19-29). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
12.
DanielsS.PiechwoskiM. M. (2009b). Embracing intensity: Overexcitability, sensitivity, and the developmental potential of the gifted. In DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 3-17). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
13.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
14.
FalkR. F.LindS.MillerN. B.PiechowskiM. M.SilvermanL. K. (1999). The Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII): Manual, scoring system, and questionnaire. Denver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
15.
FalkR. F.MillerN. B. (2009). Building firm foundations: Research and assessments. In DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 239-259). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
16.
FanX.SivoS. A. (2005). Sensitivity of fit indexes to misspecified structural or measurement model components: Rationale of two-index strategy revisited. Structural Equation Modeling, 12, 343-367.
17.
FanX.WangL.ThompsonB. (1999). Effects of sample size, estimation methods, and model specification on structural equation modeling fit indexes. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 56-83.
18.
GallagherS. A. (1986). A comparison of the concept of overexcitabilities with measures of creativity and school achievement in sixth-grade students. Roeper Review, 8, 115-119.
19.
GrossC. M.RinnA. N.JamiesonK. M. (2007). Gifted adolescents’ overexcitabilities and self-concepts: An analysis of gender and grade level. Roeper Review, 29, 240-248.
20.
HauK.-T.MarshH. W. (2004). The use of item parcels in structural equation modeling: Non-normal data and small sample sizes. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 57, 327-351.
21.
HuL.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1-55.
22.
KlineR. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York, NY: Guilford.
23.
MarshH. W.HauK.-T.WenZ. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s (1999) findings. Structural Equation Modeling, 11, 320-341.
24.
MendaglioS.TillierW. (2006). Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and giftedness: Overexcitability research findings. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 30, 68-87.
MillerN. B.FalkR. F.HuangY. (2009). Gender identity and the overexcitability profiles of gifted college students. Roeper Review, 31, 161-169.
27.
MillsapR. E.KwokO. (2004). Evaluating the impact of partial factorial invariance on selection in two populations. Psychological Methods, 9, 93-115.
28.
MoonJ. H.MontgomeryD. (2005). Profiles of overexcitabilities for Korean high school gifted students according to gender and domain of study. Journal of Gifted/Talented Education, 15, 1-10.
29.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2008). Mplus(5.2) [Computer software]. Los Angeles, CA: Author.
30.
PiechowskiM. M.ColangeloN. (1984). Developmental potential of the gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 80-88.
31.
PiirtoJ.MontgomeryD.MayJ. (2008). A comparison of Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities by gender for American and Korean gifted students. High Ability Studies, 19, 141-153.
32.
ReiseS. P.WidamanK. F.PughR. H. (1993). Confirmatory factor analysis and item response theory: Two approaches for exploring measurement invariance. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 552-566.
33.
RinnA. N.MendaglioS.RudasillK. M.McQueenK. S. (2010). Examining the relationship between the overexcitabilities and self-concepts of gifted adolescents via multivariate cluster analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 3-17.
34.
RufD. L. (2005). Losing our minds: Gifted children left behind. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
35.
SchmittN.KuljaninG. (2008). Measurement invariance: Review of practice and implications. Human Resource Management Review, 18, 210-222.
36.
SteigerJ. H. (1998). A note on multiple sample extensions of the RMSEA fit index. Structural Equation Modeling, 5, 411-419.
37.
SunJ. (2005). Assessing goodness of fit in confirmatory factor analysis. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 37, 240-256.
38.
ThompsonB. (2004). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis: Understanding concepts and applications. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
39.
TiesoC. L. (2007a). Overexcitabilities: A new way to think about talent?Roeper Review, 29, 232-239.
40.
TiesoC. L. (2007b). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11-22.
41.
TillierW. (2009). Dabrowski without the theory of positive disintegration just isn’t Dabrowski. Roeper Review, 31, 123-126.
42.
TreatA. R. (2006). Overexcitability in gifted sexually diverse populations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 244-257.
43.
TreatA. R. (2008). Beyond analysis by gender: Overexcitability dimensions of sexually diverse populations and implications for gifted education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
44.
WebbJ. T.AmendE. R.WebbN. E.GoerssJ.BeljanP.OlenchakF. R. (2005). Misdiagnosis and dual diagnoses of gifted children and adults. Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
