Creative Education
2013. Vol.4, No.1, 49-61
Published Online January 2013 in SciRes (http://www.scirp.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2013.41008
The Psychometric Properties of a Jordanian Version of
Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two, OEQII
Sabah Hasan Al-Onizat
Faculty of Education, The World Islamic Sciences & Education University (WISE), Amman, Jordan
Received September 29th, 2012; revised October 30th, 2012; accepted November 16th, 2012
This study deals with the psychometric properties and derivation of norms for an Arabic version of the
Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two, OEQII. The standardization sample consisted of 289 students (159
males, 130 females) ranging from 15 - 17 years in age. Factor analysis and one-way ANOVA reveals a
good construct, factorial, and discriminatory validity. The Cronbach-a formula was used to estimate in-
ternal consistency coefficients. All the results indicate acceptable reliability for the OEQII. The Overex-
citabilities scores were distributed normally in terms of the age range. And the Deviation for the Overex-
citabilities degrees and percentiles were calculated for each group of the sample. Finally, results indicated
no statistical difference at (α = 0.05) among males and females students in the total scale, the female
tended to do better in the overall average of the OEQII and in Sensual and in Emotional Overexcitability:
Overall, the OEQII appears to have acceptable psychometric characteristics allowing for use instrument to
promote the use of strength-based learning activities to enhance instructional practice and personal im-
provement.
Keywords: Psychometric Properties; Overexcitability; Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two (OEQII)
Background
The process of identification and classification of individuals
as gifted or talented is the main step of any project aimed this
group in the education system and to determine whether these
students receive the appropriate services needed to foster there
development, especially when we know that about 70% of
gifted student are not receiving the appropriate services because
there was a dearth of research and data collection establishing
indices for creative population that would make such identifica-
tion possible (Renzulli, 1978; Tannenbaum, 1983).
In a review of educational literature of the methods and tools
for detection gifted, we find that most of these tools focus on
the mental/cognitive aspect, as reflected in tests of intelligence,
academic achievement or tests of school readiness, and in some
cases using rating lists of the behavioral and emotional aspects
that estimated by teachers, parents or peers, which may does
not have the significance of reliability and validity.
And due to the a shortness and limitations in the tools and
criteria of detection gifted, researchers and educator turned
their attention to other ways may be more feasible; through the
personality characteristics based on Dabrawski’s Theory of
Positive Disintegration (TPD) (1964) which stated that people
born with a higher level of “development potential” than others.
Many definitive research and the naturalistic observation
have led to the belief that intensity, sensitivity and Overexcita-
bility are primary characteristics of the highly gifted. These
observations are supported by parents and teachers who notice
distinct behavioral and constitutional differences between
highly gifted children and their peers. The work of Kazimierz
Dabrowski provides an excellent framework with which to
understand these characteristics. Dabrowski, a psychiatrist and
psychologist, developed the Theory of Positive Disintegration
as a response to the prevalent psychological theories of his time.
He believed that conflict and inner suffering were necessary for
advanced development—for movement towards a hierarchy of
values based on altruism—for movement from “what is” to
“what ought to be”. Dabrowski also observed that not all people
move towards an advanced level of development but that innate
ability/intelligence combined with overexcitability (OE) were
predictive of potential for higher-level development
In the theory, three factors play a role in higher-level psy-
chological functioning—developmental potential: 1) Constitu-
tion or heredity; 2) Environmental or society; 3) Autonomous
or self determined. And these characteristics are termed
“Over-excitability” (OE’s) or “super-sensitivities”: “responses
to a variety of stimuli may markedly exceed the value of an
average response, they may last significantly longer (although
this is not a necessary attribute of over-excitability), and they
may occur with greater frequency” (Dabrowski, 1996: p. 71).
Overexcitability indicates increased frequency, intensity, and
duration of response in one or more of the following areas:
emotional, intellectual, imaginational, sensual, and psychomo-
tor (Dabrowski & Piechowski, 1977; Piechowski, 2006):
- Psychomotor Overexcitability: is a manifestation of a
heightened energy level, appears as restlessness, rapid and
pressured speech, predilection for violent games and sports,
pressure for action.
- Sensual Overexcitability: is a manifestation of a heightened
sensitivity to sensory stimuli, particularly to sensory pleas-
ure, the unusual intensity of reactions to one sensual sphere
(visual, auditory, tactile, or olfactory), encompasses the
whole character structure and all senses equally.
- Imaginational Overexcitability: is an imbalance in informa-
tion processing that is skewed toward internal, image-based
mode, with a relative exclusion of sensual, affective and
psychomotor spheres. For individuals with a dominant im-

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
aginational OE, external stimuli matter usually as fodder for
their imagination, rather than on their own merit.
- Intellectual Overexcitability: is the rarest type of OE and
one with the least clinical implications. In this type of OE, a
person’s receiving and processing information as well as
decision-making are localized in the cognitive sphere.
- Emotional Overexcitability: is a function of experiencing
emotional relationships. The relationships can manifest
themselves as strong attachment to persons, living things, or
places.
A person may possess none, one, or many of these overex-
citabilities.
Dabrowski hypothesized that these characteristics of Over-
excitability were more prevalent in gifted individuals than in
the general population, Silverman (1993) also suggested that
these intensities, often manifested by gifted and talented stu-
dents, may be expressed in displays of intense energy, enthusi-
asm, absorption in their chosen pursuits, vivid imagination, and
strong sensual reactions to stimuli; although the gifted are also
known to be emotionally vulnerable (Hollingworth, 1942;
Silverman, 1994).
Statement of the Problem
A valid and reliable tool such as Overexcitability scale would
provide Jordanian decision makers, teachers and parents a
clearer, more comprehensive, insight into Jordanian student.
There is a need however, to derive the norms for a Jordanian
version of Overexcitability scale, while investigating the valid-
ity and reliability of such an instrument.
And we will answer the following questions:
1) Are there significant differences at the level of statistical
significance (α ≤ 0.05) in the performance of students on the
scale of Overexcitability, and its five dimensions, according to
the variable of the student group (gifted, non-gifted)?
2) Are there significant differences at the level of statistical
significance (α ≤ 0.05) in the performance of students on the
scale of Overexcitability, and its five dimensions, according to
the variable of the student sex (male, female)?
3) Are there significant differences at the level of statistical
significance (α ≤ 0.05) in the performance of students on the
scale of Overexcitability, and its five dimensions, according to
the variable of the student age (seventh, eleventh)?
The Importance of the Study
1) Trying to get to know and reveal the psychological and
behavioral characteristics of gifted students compared with the
non-gifted students by using Overexcitability scale, and ac-
cording the variable of the sex and age.
2) Emphasis on the importance of focusing on the psycho-
logical and behavioral characteristics as a criterion in disclosure
of gifted students.
3) Emphasis on the strong relationship between psychologi-
cal and behavioral characteristics and the appropriate type of
educational and counseling programs.
4) Scarcity of Arab studies that dealt with the Overexcitabil-
ity as a tool for discover the gifted student and compare them
with non-gifted student.
The Limitation of the Study
The possibility of generalize the results of the current study,
limited by the following elements:
1) Limited study on a sample of gifted students in Jubilee
School and a similar sample of its non-gifted students in gen-
eral schools in Amman (one male and one female) of ninth and
eleventh grade and aged (15 - 17 years), and the possibility of
generalize the results by the characteristics of the study sample,
and how much it represent the study population.
2) The nature of student Understanding of the items of Over-
excitability scale.
3) The objectivity of the study participants in their estimates
and their responses on Overexcitability scale.
General Description of the Overexcitability
Questionnaire-Two, OEQII
The OEQ-II is a 50-item, self-rating questionnaire to meas-
ure OE (Bouchet & Falk, 2001; Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski,
& Silverman, 1999). Ten items that assess each of the five OEs
(emotional, intellectual, imaginational, sensual, and psychomo-
tor) are randomly distributed throughout the instrument. Re-
spondents are asked to rate items on a scale of 1 (Not at all like
me) to 5 (Very much like me).
Examples of items include “I worry a lot”, “Theories get my
mind going”, and “I’m a competitive person”. Scores are
summed and averaged for each OE. Internal reliability for OEs
range from Cronbach’s alpha = 0.85 for imaginational OE to
0.98 for sensual and intellectual OE. Content validity was es-
tablished by principal components factor analysis with varimax
rotation showing simple structure and item loadings all above
0.50 (Falk et al., 1999).
Statement of the Problem
The purpose of the this study is to develop a statistically re-
liable and valid instrument that will measure the Overexcita-
bilities in elementary school aged children, with predictive
validity for identifying gifted student, to provide teachers and
parents a clearer and insight into Jordanian student personality
differences. There is a need however, to derive the norms for a
Jordanian version of Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two,
OEQII, while investigating the validity and reliability of such
an instrument.
Methods
This study adapts and validates a Jordanian version of OEQII.
This part of study discusses the research methodology and
techniques used, the rational for the methodology used and
describes the considerations influencing the development of
research techniques and procedures.
Subjects
A sample of secondary-aged students (N = 289), was ran-
domly selected from nights and eleventh grades in Amman
(115 gifted students from jubilee School for gifted students,
174 non-gifted students from public schools) and the range of
their ages between 15 - 17 years, The study employed random
stratified sample technique in order to represent the characteris-
tic of the whole population. And the Table 1 shows the total
number of secondary student according to their regions in Jor-
dan.
50

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Procedures
The Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two, OEQII was admin-
istered to participants in their classroom environments. The
researcher explained the purpose and importance of their par-
ticipation in this study. In addition, the participants were as-
sured of the confidentiality of their responses which would only
be used for research purposes. Question booklets were distrib-
uted and participants were asked to fill in the information
needed and then participants were instructed how to answer
them. Approximately 30 minutes were taken to complete the
test. Responses were entered into the computer for statistical
analysis using SPSS (Version 19 package). After data analysis
results were discussed. Based on findings, suggestions were
made for further research and for instructional processes.
Results
Validity Content Validity
The first step taken to establish the validity of Jordanian ver-
sion of OEQII was a translation and back-translation of the
English language version into Arabic. This was followed by
content validity using expert judgment and a pilot study using
items into Arabic. Stringent instrument development was in-
volved in item construction, scale composition, sub-scales crea-
tion and expert judgment to improve content validity. The
Table 1.
Total number of secondary student according to their regions in Jordan.
Non-gifted students Gifted students
Total
TotalFemale Male Total Female Male
Grade
125 75 29 46
50 18 32
9th grad
164 99 50 49 65 33 32 11th grad
289 174 79 95 115 51 64 Total
translated Jordanian version of OEQII was reviewed by ten
experts at Jordan University and Arabian Amman University.
Their comments and suggestions were used to modify and re-
fine the items in the Jordanian version; the purpose of study
was to determine the overall reliability for the Arabic version of
MIDAS and the reliabilities of its subscales. The reliability
coefficient computed as obtained using test-retest method.
Factorial Validity
Correlation coefficients were determined for each item with
the total degree of each intelligence. Table 2 shows results
greater than 0.39. The results appear supportive of the scale
construction, where the Correlation coefficients ranged between
(0.30 - 0.69) for the Imagination Overexcitability, and between
(0.48 - 0.69) for the Intellectual Overexcitability, and between
(0.34 - 0.67) for the Sensual Overexcitability, and between
(0.46 - 0.78) for the Psychomotor Overexcitability, and be-
tween (0.37 - 0.60) for the Emotional Overexcitability.
Discrimination Validity
First: Discrimination according to the type of students
(gifted and non-gifted students):
To examine differences in the degree of Overexcitabilities
among gifted students and non- gifted students the t-test was
applied to examine the capacity of the scale to distinguish be-
tween these two categories, and the results are shown in the
Table 3.
And the results show the following:
- There is a statistically significant difference at the 0.05 level,
at the overall average of the Overexcitability, The value of
T is (−4.55), and the arithmetic averages of this difference
was in favor of gifted students with average is (179.30)
while the averages of the non- gifted students is (167.43).
- There is a statistically significant difference at the 0.05
level at the averages of Psychomotor Overexcitability the
Table 2.
Correlation coefficients of OEQII items with the total degree of the overall Overexcitabilities.
Imagination over Intellectual over Sensual over Psychomotor over Emotional over
Item num Corr coeff Item num Corr coeff Item numCorr coeff Item num Corr coef Item num Corr coef
1 0.57 2 0.56 3 0.34 7 0.63 6 0.58
4 0.56 5 0.50 8 0.57 10 0.49 11 0.53
9 0.57 12 0.66 13 0.55 15 0.67 17 0.37
14 0.62 16 0.48 32 0.67 18 0.53 26 0.52
20 0.48 19 0.67 37 0.49 29 0.53 31 0.49
21 0.30 23 0.69 38 0.36 39 0.46 35 0.57
22 0.45 25 0.51 45 0.67 42 0.36 44 0.60
24 0.69 27 0.48 46 0.50 50 0.78 49 0.43
28 0.44 30 0.52
33 0.34 36 0.49
34 0.53 40 0.52
41 0.40 43 0.53
47 0.48
Note: Correlation coefficient: corr coeff. Over: Overexcitability.

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
value of (T) was (−2.11), and the arithmetic averages of this
difference was in favor of gifted students with average
(35.89) while the average of non- gifted students is (34.27).
- There is a statistically significant difference at the 0.05
level at the averages of Sensual Overexcitability the value
of (T) was (−3.81), and the arithmetic averages of this dif-
ference was in favor of gifted students with average (37.35)
while the average of non-gifted students is (34.56).
- There is a statistically significant difference at the 0.05
level at the averages of Intellectual Overexcitability the
value of (T) was (−6.04), and the arithmetic averages of this
difference was in favor of gifted students with average
(38.47) while the average of non-gifted students is (33.68).
Table 4 shows the results.
The result of analysis shows the follows:
- There is a statistically significant difference at the 0.05
level in the overall average of the Overexcitabilities be-
tween male and female the value of (T) was (−2.35), in fa-
vor of female with arithmetic average (176.88) while the
average for males (169.99).
And there are differing in degrees of some Overexcitabilities,
the female have a higher performance in Sensual Overexcitabil-
ity with averages (37.08), while the males averages (35.06), and
in Emotional Overexcitability with averages (38.08), while the
males averages (34.87).
Third: Discrimination according to the age (male and
Second: Discrimination according to the gender (male
and female students): female students):
The arithmetic mean and standard deviations for scores of
individuals on Overexcitabilities according to the Gender, Ta-
ble 5 shows the results.
The arithmetic mean and standard deviations for scores of
individuals on multiple Intelligences according to the Gender,
Table 3.
The results of t-test to examine differences in the degree of Overexcitabilities among gifted and non- gifted students.
Gifted Non-gifted
Type of Overexcitability
Arith mean Stand dev Arith mean Stand dev
T value Sig level
Psychomotor 35.89 5.78 34.27 5.78 −2.11 0.036
Sensual 37.35 5.68 34.56 5.44 −3.81 0.000
Imagination 30.97 6.62 29.71 6.51 −1.45 0.147
Intellectual 38.47 5.30 33.68 6.38 −6.04 0.000
Emotional 36.62 5.82 35.21 5.80 −1.83 0.068
Total 179.30 17.54 167.43 20.86 −4.55 0.000
Note: Arith mean: arithmetic mean, stand dev: standard deviation.
Table 4.
The mean and standard deviations of the Overexcitabilities items according to the gender.
Male Female
Type of Overexcitability
Stand dev Arith mean Stand dev Arith mean
T value Sig level
Psychomotor 35.18 6.01 34.06 5.22 1.34 0.183
Sensual 35.06 5.51 37.08 5.93 −2.49 0.013
Imagination 29.70 6.67 31.47 6.13 −1.88 0.061
Intellectual 35.20 6.49 36.20 6.22 −1.08 0.281
Emotional 34.87 5.67 38.08 5.65 −3.93 0.000
Total 169.99 21.06 176.88 18.01 −2.35 0.019
Table 5.
The mean and standard deviations of the Overexcitability items according to the age.
17 - 18 15 - 16
Sig level T value
Stand dev Arith mean Stand dev Arith mean
Type of Overexcitability
0.577 0.56 5.83 34.69 35.11 5.82 Psychomotor
Sensual 35.19 5.53 5.80 35.93 −1.00 0.319
Imagination 30.44 6.33 6.76 29.97 0.55 0.584
Intellectual 35.19 6.39 6.46 35.69 −0.61 0.542
Emotional 34.92 5.57 5.97 36.38 −1.96 0.051
170.84 20.66 20.36 172.66 −0.69 0.492 Total
52

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
The result of analysis shows the follows:
- There is no statistically significant difference at the 0.05
level in the overall average of the Overexcitabilities and
each of Overexcitabilities according to the both age catego-
ries (15 - 16) and (17 - 18).
Reliability
The reliability of the OEQII has been examined in terms of
internal consistency (Cronbach-a), and test-retest reliability.
The results are shown below (Table 5).
Test-retest reliability coefficients ranged from 0.73 for Psy-
chomotor Overexcitability to 0.85 for Imagination Overexcita-
bility. The whole scale was 0.85. The Internal consistency coef-
ficients ranged from 0.74 for Psychomotor Overexcitability to
0.84 for Intellectual Overexcitability. The scale as a whole was
0.91. All results suggest that levels of variance are acceptable.
As shown in the Table 6.
The effectiveness of the items of Jordanian adaptive ver-
sion of Overexcitabilities scale:
The arithmetic mean, standard deviations, the mean percent-
age (difficulty coefficient) and the correlation coefficient of
each item with their subscale degree (discrimination coeffi-
cient), the results show in the Tables 7-11.
The previous results show that all of the Overexcitability
scale items have acceptable difficulty coefficient and discrimi-
nation coefficient degrees.
Is there a statistically significant correlation between the
performance on each item of sub-scale and the total score of
the Jordanian adaptive version of Overexcitabilities scale?
Table 12 show the results of the correlation coefficient of
each item with the total score.
The difficulty coefficient for each item with the total score of
the Overexcitabilities scale ranged between 0.27 and 0.60, and
all of them have a statistically significant at the 0.05 level.
What are the derived statistical criteria for the Jordanian
adaptive version of Overexcitabilities scale?
To examine the normal distribution for the subscale of the
Overexcitabilities scale, the KS test was used. The Table 13
shows the results.
The results of the KS test show that all of the degrees of the
Overexcitabilities subscales distributed normally, and all the
values of the significance level higher than 0.05 which it did
not deviate in terms of statistics at the level of 0.05 for the nor-
mal distribution, it is shown also in the following Figure 1.
Raw Grades of Overexcitabilities and Percentiles
The following Tables 14 and 15 show the expected Overex-
citabilities raw grades, the total of degrees and the correspond-
Table 6.
The reliability by internal consistency (Cronbach-a) and test-retest reliability.
Test-retest reliability Internal consistency Type of Overexcitability
0.73 0.74 Psychomotor Overexcitability
0.80 0.78 Sensual Overexcitability
Imagination Overexcitability 0.85 0.80
Intellectual Overexcitability 0.77 0.84
Emotional Overexcitability 0.78 0.75
0.85 0.91 Total Overexcitabilities
Table 7.
The mean and standard deviations for the Psychomotor Overexcitability items and their correlation coefficient.
Arithmetic mean Standard deviations The percentage Discrimination coefficient
Psychomotor 34.80 6.47 0.70
2 3.59 1.11 0.72 0.35
7 3.38 1.16 0.68 0.60
10 3.65 1.15 0.73 0.61
15 3.70 1.14 0.74 0.68
18 3.22 1.15 0.64 0.63
21 3.51 1.32 0.70 0.43
29 3.21 1.16 0.64 0.62
39 2.80 1.32 0.56 0.45
42 4.24 0.95 0.85 0.50
50 3.51 1.25 0.70 0.66
Note: The table shows that the difficulty coefficient for the Psychomotor Overexcitability items ranged between 0.56 and 0.85, and the discrimination coefficient ranged
between 0.35 and 0.68.

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Table 8.
The mean and standard deviations for the Sensual Overexcitability items and their correlation coefficient.
Arithmetic mean Standard deviations The percentage Discrimination coefficient
Sensual 35.52 7.28 0.71
3 3.80 1.08 0.76 0.41
8 3.28 1.23 0.66 0.60
13 3.47 1.12 0.69 0.59
27 3.66 1.03 0.73 0.48
32 3.18 1.24 0.64 0.60
37 4.02 1.08 0.80 0.57
38 3.63 1.12 0.73 0.21
45 3.22 1.17 0.64 0.68
46 3.30 1.13 0.66 0.56
48 3.80 1.24 0.76 0.59
Note: The table shows that the difficulty coefficient for the Sensual Overexcitability items ranged between 0.64 and 0.80, and the discrimination coefficient ranged be-
tween 0.21 and 0.68.
Table 9.
The mean and standard deviations for the Imagination Overexcitability items and their correlation coefficient.
Arithmetic mean Standard deviations The percentage Discrimination coefficient
Imagination 30.66 8.23 0.61
1 3.01 1.17 0.61 0.59
4 2.69 1.23 0.54 0.59
14 3.37 1.38 0.67 0.63
20 2.39 1.32 0.48 0.39
22 3.61 1.08 0.72 0.50
24 2.89 1.27 0.58 0.59
28 3.02 1.26 0.60 0.51
33 2.54 1.38 0.51 0.47
34 3.09 1.22 0.62 0.57
47 3.83 1.18 0.77 0.59
Note: The table shows that the difficulty coefficient for the Imagination Overexcitability items ranged between 0.48 and 0.77, and the discrimination coefficient ranged
between 0.39 and 0.63.
Table 10.
The mean and standard deviations for the Intellectual Overexcitability items and their correlation coefficient.
Arithmetic mean Standard deviations The percentage Discrimination coefficient
Intellectual 35.61 6.93 0.71
5 3.67 1.15 0.73 0.49
12 3.63 1.02 0.73 0.63
16 3.76 1.19 0.75 0.64
19 3.35 1.04 0.67 0.64
23 3.52 1.11 0.70 0.72
25 3.33 1.12 0.67 0.65
30 3.62 1.11 0.72 0.65
36 3.63 1.05 0.73 0.63
40 3.57 1.08 0.71 0.66
43 3.53 1.03 0.71 0.65
Note: The table shows that the difficulty coefficient for the Intellectual Overexcitability items ranged between 0.67 and 0.75, and the discrimination coefficient ranged
between 0.49 and 0.72.
54

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Table 11.
The mean and standard deviations for the Emotional Overexcitability items and their correlation coefficient.
Arithmetic mean Standard deviations The percentage Discrimination coefficient
Emotional 35.61 6.66 0.71
6 4.10 1.01 0.82 0.52
9 3.19 1.19 0.64 0.43
11 3.73 1.13 0.75 0.59
17 3.44 1.36 0.69 0.58
26 3.80 1.15 0.76 0.63
31 3.51 1.12 0.70 0.48
35 3.20 1.41 0.64 0.72
41 3.45 1.17 0.69 0.57
44 4.01 1.20 0.80 0.41
49 3.17 1.25 0.63 0.61
Note: The table shows that the difficulty coefficient for the Emotional Overexcitability items ranged between 0.63 and 0.82, and the discrimination coefficient ranged
between 0.41 and 0.72.
Table 12.
The correlation coefficient for each item of sub-scale with the total score of the Overexcitabilities scale.
Psychomotor
Overexcitability
items
The
correlation
coeffici ent
Sensual
Overexcitability
The
correlation
coeffici ent
Imagination
Overexcitability
items
The correlation
coeffici ent
Intellectual
Overexcitability
The correlation
coeffici ent
Emotional
Overexcitability
items
The correlation
coeffici ent
2 0.29 3 0.37 1 0.41 5 0.35 6 0.42
7 0.36 8 0.55 4 0.43 12 0.46 9 0.36
10 0.46 13 0.49 14 0.49 16 0.52 11 0.47
15 0.49 27 0.50 20 0.24 19 0.45 17 0.41
18 0.43 32 0.52 22 0.50 23 0.53 26 0.51
21 0.35 37 0.49 24 0.47 25 0.55 31 0.34
29 0.48 38 0.35 28 0.43 30 0.51 35 0.51
39 0.28 45 0.60 33 0.44 36 0.55 41 0.49
42 0.46 46 0.44 34 0.55 40 0.54 44 0.27
50 0.31 48 0.50 47 0.57 43 0.58 49 0.37
Table 13.
The results of the KS test for the normal distribution.
Subscales KS value Sig level
Psychomotor 0.94 0.34
Sensual 0.85 0.46
Imagination 1.13 0.16
Intellectual 1.17 0.13
Emotional 1.08 0.20
Total Overexcitabilities 0.64 0.81
ing percentiles.
Discussion
The purpose of this study was to develop a statistically reli-
able and valid instrument to measure Overexcitabilities in ele-
mentary school aged children in Jordan, with predictive validity
to identifying gifted children. Moreover, the validation of the
original English version of Overexcitability Questionnaire-Two,
OEQII has been examined via a series of investigations, which
evaluate its construct, concurrent, and predictive validity.
Whereas there is a subset of OEQII instrument that inquire the
active participation and expressed enthusiasm for many of the
Overexcitability activities.

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Sensual
Mean = 35.35
Std. Dev. = 6.64
N = 289
Mean = 35.35
Std. Dev. = 6.64
N = 289
Psychomotor
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Sensual
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Psychomotor
50
40
30
20
10
0
50
40
30
20
10
0
Frequency Frequency
56

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Imagination
Mean = 30.45
Std. Dev. = 7.505
N = 289
Mean = 35.61
Std. Dev. = 6.927
N = 289
Intellectual
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Imagination
10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00
Intellectual
40
30
20
10
0
40
30
20
10
0
Frequency Frequency

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Emotional
Mean = 35.61
St d. Dev . = 6.66
N = 289
Mean = 171.82
St d. Dev . = 25.576
N = 289
Total Overexcitabilities
20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00
Emotional
50.00 100.00 150.00 200.00 250.00
Total Overexcitabilities
25
20
15
10
5
0
30
20
10
0
Frequency Frequency
Figure 1. Shown that all of the degrees of the Overexcitabilities subscales distributed normally, and all the values of the significance level
higher than 0.05 which it did n o t deviate in terms of statistics at the level of 0.05 for the normal distributi on.
58

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
Table 14.
The percentiles corresponding to the row degrees for each of Overexcitabilities.
Emot Intell Imagin Sens Psychomo
Gift Non-gift Gift Non-gift Gift Non-gif Gift Non-gift Gift Non-gift
Degree
0.00 0.00 11
0.01 0.01 12
0.01 0.01 13
0.01 0.02 14
0.03 0.02 0.00 15
0.00 0.03 0.02 0.01 0.00 16
0.01 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.01 17
0.01 0.01 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01 18
0.01 0.01 0.00 0.08 0.05 0.02 0.01 0.00 19
0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.10 0.07 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.01 20
0.03 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.13 0.09 0.03 0.01 0.03 0.01 21
0.04 0.01 0.03 0.02 0.16 0.11 0.04 0.01 0.04 0.02 22
0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 0.20 0.14 0.05 0.02 0.05 0.02 23
0.07 0.03 0.06 0.03 0.24 0.17 0.07 0.03 0.07 0.03 24
0.09 0.04 0.08 0.04 0.28 0.20 0.09 0.04 0.09 0.05 25
0.11 0.05 0.10 0.06 0.33 0.24 0.12 0.06 0.12 0.07 26
0.14 0.07 0.13 0.08 0.38 0.29 0.14 0.08 0.15 0.09 27
0.18 0.09 0.16 0.10 0.43 0.33 0.18 0.10 0.19 0.12 28
0.21 0.12 0.20 0.13 0.49 0.38 0.21 0.14 0.23 0.16 29
0.26 0.16 0.24 0.17 0.54 0.43 0.25 0.18 0.27 0.20 30
0.31 0.20 0.29 0.20 0.60 0.49 0.30 0.22 0.33 0.25 31
0.36 0.25 0.34 0.25 0.65 0.54 0.35 0.27 0.38 0.30 32
0.41 0.30 0.39 0.30 0.70 0.59 0.40 0.33 0.44 0.36 33
0.47 0.36 0.45 0.35 0.74 0.64 0.45 0.39 0.50 0.42 34
0.52 0.42 0.51 0.40 0.79 0.69 0.51 0.46 0.55 0.48 35
0.58 0.48 0.56 0.46 0.82 0.73 0.56 0.52 0.61 0.55 36
0.63 0.55 0.62 0.52 0.86 0.78 0.61 0.59 0.67 0.61 37
0.68 0.61 0.67 0.58 0.89 0.81 0.66 0.65 0.72 0.67 38
0.73 0.67 0.72 0.63 0.91 0.85 0.71 0.71 0.77 0.73 39
0.78 0.72 0.77 0.69 0.93 0.88 0.75 0.76 0.81 0.78 40
0.82 0.77 0.81 0.74 0.95 0.90 0.79 0.81 0.85 0.82 41
0.85 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.96 0.92 0.83 0.85 0.88 0.86 42
0.88 0.86 0.88 0.82 0.97 0.94 0.86 0.89 0.91 0.89 43
0.91 0.89 0.91 0.86 0.98 0.95 0.89 0.92 0.93 0.92 44
0.93 0.92 0.93 0.89 0.99 0.97 0.91 0.94 0.95 0.94 45
0.95 0.94 0.95 0.91 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.96 0.96 0.96 46
0.96 0.96 0.96 0.93 0.99 0.98 0.95 0.97
0.97 0.97 47
0.97 0.97 0.97 0.95 1.00 0.99 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.98 48
0.99 0.99 0.99 0.98 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 0.99 49
1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 50
Note: Non-gift: Non-gifted, gift: gifted; Psychomo: Psychomotor; Sens: Sensual; Imagin: Imagination; Intell: Intellectual; Emot: Emotional.

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
60
Table 15.
The percentiles corresponding to the total row degrees for overall Overexcitabilities scale.
Degrees Gift Non-gift Degrees Gift Non-gift Degrees Gift Non-gift
105 0.01 147 0.15 0.19 189 0.73 0.78
106 0.01 148 0.16 0.20 190 0.74 0.79
107 0.00 0.01 149 0.17 0.21 191 0.76 0.80
108 0.01 0.01 150 0.18 0.22 192 0.77 0.81
109 0.01 0.01 151 0.19 0.24 193 0.78 0.82
110 0.01 0.01 152 0.20 0.25 194 0.79 0.83
111 0.01 0.01 153 0.21 0.26 195 0.80 0.84
112 0.01 0.01 154 0.22 0.27 196 0.81 0.85
113 0.01 0.01 155 0.23 0.29 197 0.82 0.86
114 0.01 0.02 156 0.25 0.30 198 0.83 0.87
115 0.01 0.02 157 0.26 0.31 199 0.84 0.87
116 0.01 0.02 158 0.27 0.33 200 0.85 0.88
117 0.01 0.02 159 0.29 0.34 201 0.86 0.89
118 0.01 0.02 160 0.30 0.36 202 0.87 0.90
119 0.02 0.03 161 0.31 0.37 203 0.88 0.90
120 0.02 0.03 162 0.33 0.39 204 0.89 0.91
121 0.02 0.03 163 0.34 0.40 205 0.89 0.92
122 0.02 0.03 164 0.36 0.42 206 0.90 0.92
123 0.02 0.04 165 0.37 0.43 207 0.91 0.93
124 0.03 0.04 166 0.39 0.45 208 0.91 0.93
125 0.03 0.04 167 0.40 0.46 209 0.92 0.94
126 0.03 0.05 168 0.42 0.48 210 0.93 0.94
127 0.03 0.05 169 0.43 0.49 211 0.93 0.95
128 0.04 0.05 170 0.45 0.51 212 0.94 0.95
129 0.04 0.06 171 0.46 0.52 213 0.94 0.95
130 0.04 0.06 172 0.48 0.54 214 0.95 0.96
131 0.05 0.07 173 0.49 0.55 215 0.95 0.96
132 0.05 0.07 174 0.51 0.57 216 0.95 0.96
133 0.06 0.08 175 0.53 0.58 217 0.96 0.97
134 0.06 0.08 176 0.54 0.60 218 0.96 0.97
135 0.07 0.09 177 0.56 0.61 219 0.96 0.97
136 0.07 0.10 178 0.57 0.63 220 0.97 0.98
137 0.08 0.10 179 0.59 0.64 221 0.97 0.98
138 0.08 0.11 180 0.60 0.66 222 0.97 0.98
139 0.09 0.12 181 0.62 0.67 223 0.97 0.98
140 0.09 0.13 182 0.63 0.69 224 0.98 0.98
141 0.10 0.13 183 0.65 0.70 225 0.98 0.98
142 0.11 0.14 184 0.66 0.71 226 0.98 0.99
143 0.12 0.15 185 0.68 0.73 227 0.98 1.00
144 0.12 0.16 186 0.69 0.74 228 0.98
145 0.13 0.17 187 0.70 0.75 229 0.99
146 0.14 0.18 188 0.72 0.76 230 1.00

S. H. AL-ONIZAT
The result of these study illustrate psychometric properties of
OEQII when self completed by adolescent from age 15 - 17,
The instrument evidenced to high internal consistency by
(Cronbach-a) formula ranged from 0.74 for Psychomotor Over-
excitability to 0.84 for Intellectual Overexcitability, 0.91 for the
whole scale. And moderate test-retest reliability over a 2-week
period ranged from 0.73 for Psychomotor Overexcitability to
0.85 for Imagination Overexcitability. The whole scale was
0.85. Also, and after translation of the test constructive validity
of the scale was examined by expert judgment and pilot study,
the finding indicated that the content of the Jordanian version of
OEQII need to modified to match the Arabic content. Factorial
validity shows that all the subscale results are greater than 0.39
which improve the scale construction, Discriminatory validity
was done by examine the differences of Overexcitability degree
among gifted and non-gifted students, the result show that the
gifted students have high degree than non-gifted students on all
of Overexcitabilities which improve the theoretical background,
Also Discriminatory validity examined by the differences of
Overexcitabilities degree according to the gender, the female
tended to do better in the overall average of the OEQII.
And in Sensual and in Emotional Overexcitability. However,
from the investigation of the OEQII validity in this study, the
validated Jordanian version is effective in measuring students’
Overexcitabilities in their schools. The examination and adap-
tation of the items revealed that, the items are matching with
the Jordanian culture, which enable the Jordanian educators to
use a Jordanian version of OEQII in measuring students’ OE in
any Jordanian region. There are several implementations of the
OEQII instrument for the educators, and students. The Jorda-
nian version of OEQII in this study provides a lot of informa-
tion about the students’ OE in their early education and in their
secondary schools. This instrument can be helpful for students
to understand themselves and their specific strength and weak-
nesses.
In the education field, the Overexcitabilities theory should be
included into the educational system in Jordan in order to in-
volve students with various activities that may be able to im-
prove their Overexcitabilities skills.
The Arabic version of OEQII in this study provides teachers
with additional information in their students’ thinking and be-
haviorism.
Recommendation of the Study
Based on the results of this study, the following recommen-
dations and suggestions were formulated:
1) The use of adapted and validated Jordanian version of
OEQII instrument into the consulting processes in Jordan’s
schools will enable the counselors and the teachers to better
understand their students’ Intelligences. They can use OEQII
instrument to promote the use of strength-based learning activi-
ties to enhance instructional practice and personal improve-
ment.
2) The contents of Jordanian version of OEQII need to be in-
cluded into the schools’ curricula, to giving attention to nature
the students’ various talents.
REFERENCES
Bouchet, N., & Falk, F. (2001). The relationship among giftedness,
gender, and overexcitability. Gifted Child Quarterly, 45, 260-267.
doi:10.1177/001698620104500404
Clark, B. (1992). Growing up gifted, developing the potential of chil-
dren to home and school (4th ed.). London: Macmillan Publishing
Company.
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive disintegration. Boston: Little, Brown.
Dabrowski, K., & Piechowski, M. M. (1977). Theory of levels of emo-
tional development (Vol. 1). New York: Dabor Science Publications.
Dabrowski, K. (1996). Multilevelness of emotional and instinctive
functions. Lublin: Towarzystwo Naukowe Katolickiego Uniwer-
sytetu Lubelskiego.
Falk, R. F., Lind, S., Miller, N. B., Piechowski, M. M., & Silverman, L.
K. (1999). The Overexcitabilities Questionnaire-Two (OEQII). Den-
ver, CO: Institute for the Study of Advanced Development.
Hollingworth, L. S. (1942). Children above 180 IQ Stanford-Binet:
Origin and development. New York: World Book.
doi:10.1037/13574-000
Piechowski, M., Silverman, L., & Falk, R. (1985). Comparison of in-
tellectually and artistically gifted on five dimensions of mental func-
tioning. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 60, 539-549.
doi:10.2466/pms.1985.60.2.539
Piechowski, M., & Miller, N. (1994). Assessing developmental poten-
tial in gifted children: A comparison of methods. Roeper Reivew, 7,
176-180.
Piechowski, M. (2006). “Mellow out”, they say. If I only could: Inten-
sities and sensitivities of the young and bright. Madison, WI: Yunasa
books.
Renzulli, J. (1986). Systems for the gifted and talented. Mansfield, CO:
Creative Learning Press, Inc.
Renzulli, J. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexaming a definition.
Phi Delta Kappan, 60, 180-184, 261.
Silverman, L. (1983). Issues in affective development of the gifted. In J.
Vantassel-Baska (Eds.), A practical guide to counseling the gifted in
school setting. Reston, VA: Council for exceptional children.
Silverman, L. (1993). Counseling of the gifted and talented. Denver:
Love.
Tannenbaum, A. J. (1983). Gifted children. New York: Macmillan
Publishing.