Example items include, "I like to daydream" (Item 1, Imaginational OE subscale); "The longer that I have to sit still, the more restless I get" (Item 21, Psychomotor OE subscale); and "I observe and analyze everything" (Item 23, Intellectual OE subscale).
Scores on the Imaginational OE (d = .12, p = .087) and Psychomotor OE (d = .10, p = .165) favored males but were not statistically different across genders.
Descriptive Statistics, Subscale Reliabilities, and Standardized Group Differences for Males and Females Male (n = 299) Subscale M SD [alpha] Intellectual OE 3.98 .595 .852 Imaginational OE 2.73 .684 .830 Emotional OE 3.13 .659 .798 Sensual OE 3.12 .757 .887 Psychomotor OE 3.26 .679 .847 Female (n = 496) Subscale M SD [alpha] d Intellectual OE 3.68 .630 .861 .49 * Imaginational OE 2.64 .758 .865 .12 Emotional OE 3.68 .649 .813 -.84 * Sensual OE 3.45 .727 .875 -.44 * Psychomotor OE 3.19 .693 .855 .10 Note: OE = Overexcitability.
Imaginational overexcitability seems to have a clear connection to creativity.
345) This ability to use their imaginational overexcitability in this manner may show itself to be a strength rather than a weakness.
The gifted adolescents scored lower than gifted adults in the areas of sensual and intellectual overexcitabilities; however, the gifted adolescents had equivalent scores in imaginational and emotional overexcitabilities.
The test developers reported Cronbach's alpha for scale reliability as high: .89 for sensual, .89 for intellectual, .86 for psychomotor, .85 for imaginational, and .84 for emotional.
The second analysis used the overexcitability subscale scores as measured by the OEQII (psychomotor, sensual, imaginational, intellectual, emotional).
For the OEQII, Falk (1999a, 1999b) found alpha coefficients of .89 for sensual, .89 for intellectual, .86 for psychomotor, .85 for imaginational, and .84 for emotional; in the study sample, the coefficients were .89 for sensual, .89 for intellectual, .86 for psychomotor, .86 for imaginational, and .86 for emotional, slightly higher than the ones reported by Falk et al.
Silverman and Ellsworth (1981) designed a study to assess two hypotheses; namely, gifted individuals have higher developmental potential, as manifested by greater OEs than nongifted individuals, and gifted individuals have higher intellectual, emotional, and imaginational than sensual and psychomotor OEs.
Counselors scored higher than noncounselors on sensual and imaginational OEs.
The study showed that the gifted group had higher scores on intellectual, imaginational
, and emotional OEs than the nongifted group.