Gifted adolescents’ overexcitabilities and self‐concepts:<i>An analysis of gender and grade level</i>

Gross, Candace M.; Rinn, Anne N.; Jamieson, Kelly M.

doi:10.1080/02783190709554418

Cited by 42 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The results of mean comparisons performed in the preadolescents and adolescents sample supported past findings: Girls scored higher than boys on Sensual and Emotional OEs (Ackerman, 1997;Bouchet & Falk, 2001;Gross et al, 2007;Miller et al, 1994;Tieso, 2007) and lower on Psychomotor OE (Bouchet & Falk, 2001;Tieso, 2007). These differences could reflect differences in traditional socialization as a traditional gender role: "feminine personality characteristics were more emotional and sensual; those with masculine characteristics were more intellectual" (Miller, Falk, & Huang, 2009, p. 166) as typical stereotypes start to differentiate males and females during adolescence (Gross et al, 2007).…”

supporting

confidence: 86%

“…For example, females score higher than males on Sensual and Emotional OEs (Ackerman, 1997;Bouchet & Falk, 2001;Gross, Rinn, & Jamieson, 2007;Miller et al, 1994;Tieso, 2007), whereas they score lower on Psychomotor and Intellectual OEs (Bouchet & Falk, 2001;Lysy & Piechowski, 1983;Miller et al, 1994;Rinn, Mendaglio, Moritz Rudasill, & McQueen, 2010;Tieso, 2007). The relationship between gender and Imaginational OE is less consistent; depending on the study, females have sometimes been found to score higher than males (Ackerman, 1997;Gross et al, 2007) and sometimes lower (Bouchet & Falk, 2001).…”

Section: Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

French Validation of the Overexcitability Questionnaire 2: Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure

Botella

Fürst

Myszkowski

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overexcitability corresponds to an overall response to stimulations in 5 domains: psychomotor, sensual, intellectual, imaginational, and emotional. The aim of this study was to develop a French version of the Overexcitability Questionnaire 2 (OEQ2) and to expand its psychometric properties. Two studies were conducted: one with a sample of 474 adolescents and another with a sample of 436 adults. Internal consistency, factorial structure, and validity (correlations with intelligence, personality, and alexithymia) were examined. The French OEQ2 showed satisfactory psychometric properties, thus advocating for its use in further research on overexcitability and in clinical practice.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 86%

Section: Gender Differencesmentioning

confidence: 98%

French Validation of the Overexcitability Questionnaire 2: Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure

Botella

Fürst

Myszkowski

et al. 2014

Journal of Personality Assessment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, similar symptoms may also result from other phenomena such as trauma, 45 lack of sleep 344 and/or giftedness. 345,346 The behaviours that comprise the syndrome of ADHD are normally distributed in the general population and, thus, are present at times in most children to some degree. The lack of a direct link to biological explanatory factors contributes to the controversy surrounding ADHD.…”

Section: Review 4: Synthesis Of Qualitative Studies -Experiences and mentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) delivered in school settings: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative research

Richardson

Moore

Gwernan‐Jones

et al. 2015

Health Technol Assess

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundAttention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a neurodevelopmental disorder characterised by age-inappropriate levels of inattention, impulsivity and hyperactivity. School can be particularly challenging for children with ADHD. Few reviews have considered non-pharmacological interventions in school settings.ObjectivesTo assess the effectiveness of non-pharmacological interventions delivered in school settings for pupils with, or at risk of, ADHD and to explore the factors that may enhance, or limit, their delivery.Data sourcesTwenty electronic databases (including PsycINFO, MEDLINE, EMBASE, Education Resources Information Centre, The Cochrane Library and Education Research Complete) were searched from 1980 to February–August 2013. Three separate searches were conducted for four systematic reviews; they were supplemented with forward and backwards citation chasing, website searching, author recommendations and hand-searches of key journals.Review methodsThe systematic reviews focused on (1) the effectiveness of school-based interventions for children with or at risk of ADHD; (2) quantitative research that explores attitudes towards school-based non-pharmacological interventions for pupils with ADHD; (3) qualitative research investigating the attitudes and experiences of children, teachers, parents and others using ADHD interventions in school settings; and (4) qualitative research exploring the experience of ADHD in school among pupils, their parents and teachers more generally. Methods of synthesis included a random-effects meta-analysis, meta-regression and narrative synthesis for review 1, narrative synthesis for review 2 and meta-ethnography and thematic analysis for reviews 3 and 4.ResultsFor review 1, 54 controlled trials met the inclusion criteria. For the 36 meta-analysed randomised controlled trials, beneficial effects (p < 0.05) were observed for several symptom and scholastic outcomes. Mean weighted effect sizes ranged from very small (d+ < 0.20) to large (d+ ≥ 0.80), but substantial heterogeneity in effect size estimates across studies was reported. Moderator analyses were not able to clarify which intervention features were linked with effectiveness. For review 2, 28 included studies revealed that educators’ attitudes towards interventions ranged in positivity. Most interventions were rated positively or neutrally across different studies. The only intervention that consistently recorded positive attitudes from educators was daily report cards. For review 3, 33 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included tensions regarding the preferred format of interventions, particularly how structured interventions were and the extent to which they are tailored to the child with ADHD. There were mixed views about the impact of interventions, although it was clear that interventions both influence and are influenced by the relationships held by children with ADHD and participants’ attitudes towards school and ADHD. For review 4, 34 studies met the inclusion criteria. Key findings included the importance of causal attributions that teachers, parents and pupils made about ADHD symptoms, the decisions teachers made about treatment, the self-perceptions pupils developed about themselves, the role of the classroom environment and stigma in aggravating ADHD symptoms, and the significant barrier to treatment posed by the common presence of conflict in relationships between pupils–teachers, parents–teachers and pupils–peers in relation to ADHD. An overarching synthesis of the four reviews highlighted the importance of the context affecting interventions. It suggested that ADHD psychoeducation and relationship-building skills are potential implications for interventions.LimitationsThe breadth of both interventions and outcomes in the reviewed studies presented a challenge for categorisation, analysis and interpretation in reviews 1–3. Across reviews, relatively few studies were conducted in the UK, limiting the applicability of findings to UK education. In reviews 1 and 2, the poor methodological quality of some included studies was identified as a barrier to establishing effectiveness or comparing attitudes. In review 3 the descriptive analysis used by the majority of studies constrained theorising during synthesis. Studies in review 4 lacked detail regarding important issues like gender, pupil maturity and school level.ConclusionFindings suggest some beneficial effects of non-pharmacological interventions for ADHD used in school settings, but substantial heterogeneity in effect sizes was seen across studies. The qualitative reviews demonstrate the importance of the context in which interventions are used. Future work should consider more rigorous evaluation of interventions, as well as focus on what works, for whom and in which contexts. Gaps in current research present opportunities for the development and testing of standardised tools to describe interventions, agreement on gold-standard outcome measures assessing ADHD behaviour and testing a range of potential moderators alongside intervention trials.Study registrationThis study is registered as PROSPERO CRD42011001716.FundingThe National Institute for Health Research Health Technology Assessment programme.

show abstract

“…It has drawn many researchers to venture into identifying the presence of overexcitabilities among gifted and talented students (Gross et al, 2007;Tieso, 2007aTieso, , 2007bBouchard, 2004;Mendaglio, 2003;Ackerman, 1997). The findings supported the claim that overexcitabilities were part of the gifted students' characteristics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 57%

Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities Profile among Gifted Students

Alias¹,

Rahman²,

Majid³

et al. 2013

ASS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study was conducted to identify the overexcitabilities profile of gifted students. The Dabrowski's concept of overexcitabilities is the heightened intensity and sensitivity displayed in the gifted students' behaviours when responding to the stimuli in the environment. These characteristics give a negative impression that these students have behaviour or disciplinary problems. Dabrowski had identified five domains of overexcitabilities which are psychomotor, sensual, imagination, intellectual and emotional. The presence of overexcitabilities in gifted students is measured by using the Self-Assessment Overexcitabilities instrument. The findings showed that 88% of the gifted students have at least one high level of overexcitabilies. The findings also identified four profiles of gifted students' overexcitabilities which displayed very distinct level of intensities across the five domains. The profiles' characteristics are (i) Profile 1 -high imagination; (ii) Profile 2 -all domains are high; (iii) Profile 3 -high psychomotor, (iv) Profile 4 -all domains are low. It also showed that not all gifted students have high overexcitabilies as proven by Profile 4. It is concluded that, even though the gifted students have almost the same level of intelligence, but they have different characteristics of overexcitabilities.

show abstract

Gifted adolescents’ overexcitabilities and self‐concepts:An analysis of gender and grade level

Cited by 42 publications

References 27 publications

French Validation of the Overexcitability Questionnaire 2: Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure

French Validation of the Overexcitability Questionnaire 2: Psychometric Properties and Factorial Structure

Non-pharmacological interventions for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) delivered in school settings: systematic reviews of quantitative and qualitative research

Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities Profile among Gifted Students

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About