Reliability generalization (RG) is a meta-analysis that combines and synthesizes reliability coefficients from different studies to ascertain the average observed reliability across studies. An RG study was conducted on previously reported data from 16 samples of the Overexcitability Questionnaire–Two (OEQII) with a combined N of 5,275. Cronbach’s alpha was found to be consistently higher on all OEQII subscales when scale variance was high and the sample consisted of adults. Sample size, gender composition of the sample, number of items from the subscale used, and location of sample (United States or a different county) had varying effects on observed alpha levels for each subscale. Suggestions are proposed for substantive research using the OEQII and for future psychometric research on the instrument.
AckermanC. M. (2009). The essential elements of Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration and how they are connected. Roeper Review, 31, 81-95.
4.
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.
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 Relationships among traditional and modern constructs used in identifying giftedness (Unpublished doctoral dissertation).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.
CooperH. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
8.
CronbachL. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
9.
CronbachL. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 391-418.
DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (2009). 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.
12.
EmbretsonS. E.ReiseS. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychologists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
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.
14.
FalkR. F.Yakmaci-GuzelB.ChangA. H.PardoR.Chavez-EakleR. A. (2008). Measuring overexcitability: Replication across five countries. In MendaglioS. (Ed.), Dabrowski’s theory of positive disintegration (pp. 183-199). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
15.
FeldtL. S. (1965). The approximate sampling distribution of Kuder-Richardson reliability coefficient twenty. Psychometrika, 30, 357-370.
16.
FiedlerE. D. (2009). Advantages and challenges of lifespan intensity. In DanielsS.PiechowskiM. M. (Eds.), Living with intensity (pp. 167-184). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
17.
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.
18.
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.
19.
HaertelE. H. (2006). Reliability. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 65-110). Westport, CT: Praeger.
20.
HakstianA. R.WhalenT. E. (1976). A k-sample significance test for independent alpha coefficients. Psychometrika, 41, 219-231.
21.
HensonR. K.ThompsonB. (2002). Characterizing measurement error in scores across studies: Some recommendations for conducting “reliability generalization” studies. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 35, 113-126.
22.
HoganT. P.BenjaminA.BrezinskiK. L. (2000). Reliability methods: A note on the frequency of use of various types. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 523-531.
23.
KaplanR. M.SaccuzzoD. P. (2005). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
24.
KiefferK. M.ReeseR. J.Vacha-HaaseT. (2010). Reliability generalization methods in the context of giftedness research. In ThompsonB.SubotnikR. F. (Eds.), Methodologies for conducting research on giftedness (pp. 89-111). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
25.
LipseyM. W.WilsonD. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
26.
MillerN. B.FalkR. F.HuangY. (2009). Gender identity and the overexcitability profiles of gifted college students. Roeper Review, 31, 161-169.
27.
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.
28.
O’RourkeN. (2004). Reliability generalization of responses by care providers to the Center for Epidemiologic Studies-Depression Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 973-990.
29.
PalmerM. E. (2006). The relationship between levels of development and the elaboration of possible selves (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Texas A&M University–Commerce.
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.
RinnA. N.MendaglioS.RudasillK. M.McQueenK. S. (2010). Examining the relationship between overexcitabilities and self-concepts of gifted adolescents via multivariate cluster analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 54, 3-17.
RyngalaD. J.ShieldsA. L.CarusoJ. C. (2005). Reliability generalization of the Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 65, 259-271.
35.
SiuA. 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.
36.
ThompsonB.Vacha-HaaseT. (2000). Psychometrics is datametrics: The test is not reliable. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 174-195.
37.
TiesoC. L. (2007a). Overexcitabilities: A new way to think about talent?Roeper Review, 29, 232-239.
38.
TiesoC. L. (2007b). Patterns of overexcitabilities in identified gifted students and their parents: A hierarchical model. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 11-22.
39.
TillierW. (2009). Dabrowski without the theory of positive disintegration just isn’t Dabrowski. Roeper Review, 31, 123-126.
40.
TreatA. R. (2006). Overexcitability in gifted sexually diverse populations. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 17, 244-257.
41.
TreatA. R. (2008). Beyond analysis by gender: Overexcitability dimensions of sexually diverse populations and implications for gifted education (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Indiana University, Bloomington.
42.
Vacha-HaaseT. (1998). Reliability generalization: Exploring variance in measurement error affecting score reliability across studies. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 6-20.
43.
Vacha-HaaseT.HensonR. K.CarusoJ. C. (2002). Reliability generalization: Moving toward improved understanding and use of score reliability. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62, 562-569.
44.
Vacha-HaaseT.KoganL. R.ThompsonB. (2000). Sample compositions and variabilities in published studies versus those in test manuals: Validity of score reliability inductions. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 509-522.
45.
ViswesvaranC.OnesD. S. (2000). Measurement error in “big five factors” personality assessment: Reliability generalization across studies and measures. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 224-235.
46.
WarneR. T. (2011). An investigation of measurement invariance across genders on the Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII). Journal of Advanced Academics, 22, 578-593. doi:10.1177/1932202X1141482110.1177/1932202X11414821
47.
WarneR. T.McKyerE. L. J.SmithM. L. (2012). An introduction to item response theory for health behavior researchers. American Journal of Health Behavior, 36, 31-43.
48.
WilkinsonL.& The Task Force on Statistical Inference. (1999). Statistical methods in psychology journals: Guidelines and explanations. American Psychologist, 54, 594-604.
