A Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship Between Overexcitabilities and Giftedness

IF 4 3区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION, SPECIAL
Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Eric Calvert, Susan Richert Corwith, Sarah Bright
{"title":"A Meta-Analysis of Research on the Relationship Between Overexcitabilities and Giftedness","authors":"Paula Olszewski-Kubilius, Saiying Steenbergen-Hu, Eric Calvert, Susan Richert Corwith, Sarah Bright","doi":"10.1177/00169862251370377","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This meta-analysis explored a total of 230 effects that were extracted from 20 empirical studies on overexcitabilities (OEs) to study the relationship between giftedness and OE. Variables studied included operationalization of giftedness, use of explicit benchmarks for identifying giftedness, type of OE instrument, gender, developmental level of participants, and national setting and timing of study. Overall, there was a positive and significant relationship found between OE and giftedness with the strongest relationship being with Intellectual OE and the weakest with Sensory and Emotional OE. However, the strength of the relationship varied significantly by operationalization of giftedness, being strongest when giftedness was operationalized as previous identification as gifted and non-existent when operationalized as general intelligence or cognitive ability. In addition, when no explicit benchmarks were employed for gifted identification, there was no evidence of such a difference between the gifted and non-gifted. When comparing gifted to non-gifted students, differences were found only for high school-aged students, but not for elementary and/or middle school age or adults. The differences obtained in OE between the gifted and non-gifted are likely to be overestimated due to a presence of publication bias, that is, an overrepresentation of studies with relatively small sample sizes. Recommendations include caution about assumptions regarding the prevalence of OEs among gifted students, using OEs as indicators of giftedness in school-based referral and identification processes, and for designing affective education curricula and services targeting gifted students.","PeriodicalId":47514,"journal":{"name":"Gifted Child Quarterly","volume":"85 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Gifted Child Quarterly","FirstCategoryId":"95","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862251370377","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION, SPECIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

This meta-analysis explored a total of 230 effects that were extracted from 20 empirical studies on overexcitabilities (OEs) to study the relationship between giftedness and OE. Variables studied included operationalization of giftedness, use of explicit benchmarks for identifying giftedness, type of OE instrument, gender, developmental level of participants, and national setting and timing of study. Overall, there was a positive and significant relationship found between OE and giftedness with the strongest relationship being with Intellectual OE and the weakest with Sensory and Emotional OE. However, the strength of the relationship varied significantly by operationalization of giftedness, being strongest when giftedness was operationalized as previous identification as gifted and non-existent when operationalized as general intelligence or cognitive ability. In addition, when no explicit benchmarks were employed for gifted identification, there was no evidence of such a difference between the gifted and non-gifted. When comparing gifted to non-gifted students, differences were found only for high school-aged students, but not for elementary and/or middle school age or adults. The differences obtained in OE between the gifted and non-gifted are likely to be overestimated due to a presence of publication bias, that is, an overrepresentation of studies with relatively small sample sizes. Recommendations include caution about assumptions regarding the prevalence of OEs among gifted students, using OEs as indicators of giftedness in school-based referral and identification processes, and for designing affective education curricula and services targeting gifted students.
过度兴奋性与天赋关系研究的元分析
本荟萃分析从20项关于过度兴奋性的实证研究中提取了230个效应,以研究天赋与过度兴奋性之间的关系。研究的变量包括天赋的操作化,使用明确的基准来识别天赋,OE工具的类型,性别,参与者的发展水平,以及国家环境和研究时间。总体而言,天赋与天赋之间存在显著的正相关关系,其中智力天赋与天赋的关系最强,感官和情感天赋的关系最弱。然而,这种关系的强度因天赋的操作化而显著不同,当天赋被操作化为先前的天赋时,这种关系是最强的,当操作化为一般智力或认知能力时,这种关系是不存在的。此外,当没有使用明确的标准来识别天才时,没有证据表明天才和非天才之间存在这种差异。当比较资优学生和非资优学生时,只在高中学生中发现了差异,而在小学和/或中学年龄或成年人中没有发现差异。由于存在出版偏倚(即样本量相对较小的研究的过度代表性),天才和非天才之间获得的OE差异可能被高估。建议包括:对天才学生中普遍存在的情感表达能力的假设持谨慎态度,在学校推荐和识别过程中使用情感表达能力作为天才的指标,以及设计针对天才学生的情感教育课程和服务。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
6.30
自引率
29.00%
发文量
41
期刊介绍: Gifted Child Quarterly (GCQ) is the official journal of the National Association for Gifted Children. As a leading journal in the field, GCQ publishes original scholarly reviews of the literature and quantitative or qualitative research studies. GCQ welcomes manuscripts offering new or creative insights about giftedness and talent development in the context of the school, the home, and the wider society. Manuscripts that explore policy and policy implications are also welcome. Additionally, GCQ reviews selected books relevant to the field, with an emphasis on scholarly texts or text with policy implications, and publishes reviews, essay reviews, and critiques.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书