WORKING WITH INTENSITY
The relationship between giftedness and sensitivity
in working adults in Flanders and the Netherlands

Thesis by Rianne van de Ven for
ECHA Specialist in Gifted Education
Radboud Centrum Sociale Wetenschappen
July 2016.

When referred to, please use:
Van de Ven, R., van Weerdenburg, M., & van Hoof, E. (2016). Working with intensity; Therelationship between giftedness and sensitivity in working adults in Flanders and theNetherlands. Unpublished manuscript. Retrieved fromhttps://riannevdven.nl/publicaties/working-with-intensity/Abstract

The last decades, psychologists and educationalists have investigated the concept ofgiftedness extensively, resulting in different models and definitions of giftedness. In a clinicalenvironment mental health professionals see a strong relation between giftedness andsensitivity. Academics researching excellent performing children however do not report any
relation to sensitivity. The Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) and Overexcitabilities (OE’s) are
two models in the domain of sensitivity. In this study the relationship between giftedness,
HSP and OE’s was investigated in adults active on the labour market in the Netherlands and
Flanders, Belgium.
The results show a relation between giftedness and HSP. Gifted Adults (GA) outscore nonGifted Adults (nGA) significantly on three of the five OE’s: the sensual, the imaginational
and the intellectual OE. HSP’s show significant differences compared to non-HSP on all five
OE’s, on four OE’s significantly higher, on one OE – the psychomotorical OE - significantly
lower. GA’s that are also HSP outscore non-HSP GA’s on four of the OE’s: all but thepsychomotorical OE.
Developing positive coping mechanisms for dealing with giftedness and sensitivity may be an
important catalyst for developing gifts into talents.

Key words: gifted, gifted adults, highly sensitive person, overexcitabilities.

2/25

Samenvatting

De afgelopen decennia is het onderwerp hoogbegaafdheid door psychologen en
onderwijskundigen uitgebreid onderzocht. Dit leidde tot meerdere modellen en definities van
hoogbegaafdheid. In de klinische wereld zien geestelijke gezondheidsprofessionals een sterke
relatie tussen hoogbegaafdheid en (hoog-)sensitiviteit. Academici die excellent presterende
kinderen onderzoeken, rapporteren echter geen relatie met (hoog-)sensitiviteit.
De ‘Highly Sensitive Person’ (HSP) en de zogenaamde ‘Overexcitabilities’ zijn twee
modellen in het domein van sensitiviteit. In dit onderzoek werd de relatie tussen
hoogbegaafdheid, HSP en overexcitabilities onderzocht bij werkende volwassen in Nederland
en Vlaanderen.
De resultaten laten een relatie zien tussen hoogbegaafdheid en HSP. De hoogbegaafde
volwassenen scoren significant hoger dan niet-hoogbegaafde volwassenen op drie van de vijf
overexcitabilities, te weten de zintuiglijke, de verbeeldende en de intellectuele
overexcitability. HSP’s scoren op alle vijf overexcitabilities significant anders dan niet-HSP.
Vier maal hoger, eenmaal significant lager – op de psychomotorische. De hoogbegaafde
volwassenen die ook HSP zijn scoren op vier van de vijf overexcitabilities hoger dan
hoogbegaafde volwassenen die niet-HSP zijn, namelijk op alle behalve de psychomotorische
overexcitability.
Het ontwikkelen van positieve coping mechanismes in het omgaan met hoogbegaafdheid enhoogsensitiviteit is een belangrijke katalysator in het ontwikkelen van gaven en aanleg tot
competenties en talenten.

3/25

The last decades psychologists and educationalists have investigated the concept of giftedness
extensively resulting in different models and definitions of giftedness. Most of these define
giftedness as more than just a high IQ. But which aspects are included differs per definition(Sternberg & Davidson, 2005). The three-ring-model (Renzulli, 1986) mentions task
commitment and creativity as two aspects besides above average ability. Recent models aredevelopmental models and focus on the educational needs for talent development (Heller,
Perleth & Lim, 2005; Gagné, 2002). An exception to that trend is the model Kieboom (2007)
presented. She makes a distinction between the cognitive part, the ‘thinking view’ and theexistential part, the ‘feeling view’. In this model sensitivity is stated as a part of being gifted.
Kieboom’s work derives from twenty five years of working with gifted children in a clinicalenvironment.
Most definitions of giftedness are the result of research with children. However when you
look at giftedness as something a person is and not as something a person can become, thengiftedness is a trait that does not go away when turning 18. Then, gifted children become
gifted adults (Fiedler, 2015; Schoon, 2000). Some definitions of giftedness are specificallydescribing giftedness in adults. Jacobsen (1999) defines gifted traits in adults as intensity,
complexity and drive. A Delphi-study in the Netherlands lead to the description: “a gifted
person is a quick and clever thinker, who is able to deal with complex matters. Autonomous,curious and passionate. A sensitive and emotionally rich individual, living intensely. He or
she enjoys being creative.” (Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008, p.69). Gifted adults have stated they
can really identify themselves in this Delphi-description. (Kooijman-Van Thiel, 2008). Like
Kieboom’s definition, these models are created by professionals with years of experience inworking with gifted adults in a mental health environment.
Sensitivity and intensity are mentioned to be a part of the concept of giftedness byprofessionals working with the gifted - both adults and children - in a clinical environment.
The studies into excellent performing children like the longitudinal Terman studies (Terman,
1925-1967) and the studies into the Mathematically Precocious Youth (Stanley, 1972-1997)
do not mention any relation between giftedness and sensitivity and/or intensity.

4/25

The Differentiated Model of Giftedness and Talent (Gagné, 2012) is a developmental model(Figure 1) in which giftedness is seen in the context of natural abilities - and not in
performance or results - and therefore it is also a model gifted adults can relate to.

Figure 1 The updated version of the DMGT (2.0) by Françoys Gagné

Gagné makes a distinction between gifts and talents. Giftedness designates the possession ofoutstanding natural abilities, called aptitudes, in at least one ability domain, to a degree thatplaces an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers.
In his model, talent designates the outstanding mastery of systematically developed abilities,
called competencies (knowledge and skills), in at least one field of human activity to a degree
that places an individual at least among the top 10% of age peers who are or have been activein that field (Gagné, 2012).
The DMGT 2.0 describes the influences on the developmental process of the gifts into talents.
Besides chance being of great influence, intrapersonal and environmental catalysts aredescribed. Like the meaning in the field of chemistry, catalysts facilitate and accelerate aprocess (Gagné, 2012).

5/25

People differ in the ability to register, process, and respond to external factors. This is defined
as sensitivity (Pluess, 2015). In the model of Gagné (2012) this ability to register and process
can be placed under the perceptual natural ability. The way people respond to internal andexternal factors is part of what Gagné calls the intrapersonal mental traits. So sensitivity canbe viewed as one of the catalysts influencing the development process of gifts into talents.

A concept in the area of sensitivity that explains the difference between people is the conceptof HSP, short for Highly Sensitive Person. This term is introduced as sensory processing
sensitivity in popular psychology by Aron and Aron (1997). Sensory processing sensitivity
according to Aron and Aron is an innate personality trait that occurs in 15 to 20 percent of the
population and consists of the elements: depth of processing, overstimulation because of thedepth of processing, emotional reactivity and empathy, and sensitivity to stimuli. Elain Aron
(1996) wrote a book in which she gives a more accessible insight into their substantial
research and she uses the term Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) for someone that has this trait.
The abbreviation is also often used for the trait itself.

A second model that can be used to describe differences in people in intensity and sensitivity
is related to ‘overexcitabilities’. Overexcitability (OE) is a higher than average responsivenessto stimuli due to heightened sensitivity of nervous system receptors (Dabrowski, 1972). OE’s
are an element in the Theory of Positive Disintegration (Dabrowski, 1964). He described fiveOE’s: sensual, psychomotor, emotional, imaginational and intellectual. Mendaglio (2008, p.
24-25) explains them as follows:“Psychomotorically overexcitable individuals tend to be high-energy, curious, havedifficulty sitting still, need constant change of scenery, and are generally restless.
Sensually overexcitable individuals are generally highly sensitive to sensory
perceptions such as sights, smells, tastes, and tactile stimulation.
Imaginationally overexcitable individuals are inclined to be daydreamers, have a richfantasy life and are often creative.

6/25

Intellectually overexcitable individuals manifest abilities of analysis and synthesis, ask
probing questions, and love learning for its own sake.
Emotionally overexcitable individuals are sensitive individuals who experienceemotions intensely, tending to take things to heart. They are empathic towards others
and feel a strong need for exclusive relationships.”

Piechowski, Silverman and Falk (1985) studied the relationship between giftedness and theseoverexcitabilities and developed a questionnaire, called the OEQ. Since then several otherstudies to this relation were held. In analyzing the results, Falk and Miller (2009) found thatthe studies repeatedly showed that the gifted were significantly overexcitable, especially inemotional OE, intellectual OE, and imaginational OE. These studies mostly included giftedchildren, but some also gifted adults.
Winkler (2014) also investigated the evidence of the relation between giftedness andDabrowski’s Overexcitabilities in his dissertation with a meta-analysis over 17 different
studies. The reason for his study was that he found both proponents and skeptics towards therelationship between giftedness and overexcitabilities. He concludes that there is little to noevidence that gifted individuals have significantly higher P(sychomotorical)OE or
S(ensual)OE than non-gifted individuals. There is some evidence to believe that gifted
individuals have significantly higher E(motional)OE and (i)M(aginational)OE than non-gifted
individuals. But gifted individuals consistently and significantly outscore non-gifted
individuals on (in)T(ellectual)OE.
This theoretical introduction shows that there are different views on giftedness, sensitivity or
intensity and the existence of any relationship between them. A lot of the mentioned researchis done in relation to gifted children. These findings lead to the present study.

7/25

The Present StudyIn the present study the relationship between giftedness, HSP and overexcitabilities wasinvestigated in adults active on the labour market in the Netherlands and Flanders, Belgium.
This study was part of the program ‘Veerkrachtig op het werk’ (translation: Resilience atWork) from the Vrije Universiteit Brussel, lead by Prof. Dr. Elke Van Hoof. This research
program contains multiple projects investigating stress determinations and resilience at work:
what factors make people sensitive to experiencing stress? Sensitivity and giftedness areincluded in the framework of the program.
In the context of the theoretical introduction, the following research questions were posed:
1. Is there a relationship between giftedness and HSP? How many working gifted adults
gifted are HSP?
2. The relationship between giftedness and overexcitabilities: Which of Dabrowksi’s
OE’s do working gifted adults show in comparison to non-gifted adults?
3. The relationship between HSP and overexcitabilities: Do HSP adults (independent of
their possible giftedness) score different on Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities than nonHSP adults ?
4. The relationship between giftedness, HSP and overexcitabilities: Do working gifted
adults who are also HSP score differently on the overexcitabilities than gifted adults
that are non-HSP?

8/25

Method
Participants
The participants were recruited by an online website (www.veerkrachtigophetwerk.be), which
was distributed via the network of the researchers. The site was open for all adults between
age 18-65 who had a job at the time of recruitment.
Because of the specific interest in sensitivity and giftedness, a call for respondents was also
sent out in the network of the Flanders association for HSP (HSP Vlaanderen), to members of
Mensa in both the Netherlands and Belgium. Also a call for respondents was placed in the
newsletter of the gifted adults foundation (IHBV) in the Netherlands.
Mensa
Mensa is the international high IQ society with members in more than 100 countries.
Members have scored in the 98th percentile or higher on a standardized IQ test. Thisscore is often used as an objective measurement to define a person to be gifted
although giftedness comprises more than only intelligence, as described in the
introduction.

HSP Vlaanderen
HSP Vlaanderen is an organization in Belgium to inform, support and guide (possibly)
highly sensitive adults, adolescents and children, as well as the parents of (possibly)
highly sensitive children. Proof of being HSP is not required for membership.

IHBV
IHBV is an organization for knowledge, projects and networking meant to improve
life for gifted and talented adults in the Netherlands.

For this study, the results of participants that registered in the period October 2014 September 2015 were used. In that period, a total of 2073 users registered. The dataset wasanonymized and records of users who only registered but did not start the test were removed(261 records). Also, users who did start, but did not finish all questionnaires were removed(174 records). This resulted in a dataset of 1638 respondents.

9/25

Of all 1638 participants, 361 were male (22%), 1277 female (78%). Concerning type of
employment, 235 (14%) were self- employed, and 1403 participants were gainfully employed.
Most of the participants worked full-time: 994 (61%) and 644 participants (39%) worked parttime. Table 1 gives an overview of the age-distribution of male and female participants.
Table 1
Overview of age distribution of the participants in this study
Age

Male (%)

Female (%)

Total (%)

18-25

11

3

52

4

63

4

26-35

87

24

408

32

495

30

36-45

123

34

464

36

587

36

46-55

98

27

276

22

374

23

56-65

42

12

77

6

119

7

Total

361 100

1277 100

1638 100

The participants were also asked to provide their highest level of education. These have been
categorized in four classes. See Table 2 for an overview.
Table 2
Overview of highest level of education of the participants in this study
Level of education

Male (%)

Female (%)

Total (%)

Lower secondary

21

6

24

2

45

3

Higher secondary

56

16

141

11

197

12

Higher education

140

39

611

48

751

46

University

144

40

501

39

645

39

Total

361 100

1277 100

1638 100

10/25

Procedure
After registration on the website and providing the demographical information, theparticipants were asked to complete 13 questionnaires without knowing the specific purposeof each questionnaire.
For the overall study, respondents were also asked to complete some questionnaires for asecond and third time. For this present study, only the responses of the first round were used.
Instruments
For this study the demographical questions and two questionnaires were used.
Demographical information
The following demographical variables were asked: age, sex, year of birth, current
family situation, number of children, highest education, profession, part-time or fulltime employed, independent or gainfully employed. Also the participants were asked
whether they identified themselves as being gifted.

HSP ScaleThis questionnaire with 27 questions measures if a person is HSP and has beendeveloped by Aron and Aron (1997). One point is scored for every question aparticipant responds ‘Yes’ to. A person is considered to be HSP if more than 14 points
are scored. The Dutch translation was made with certified translators under thesupervision of Prof. Dr. Bijttebier and Prof. Dr. Elke van Hoof in 2014 (see appendix
A).

Overexcitabilities Questionnaire-II (OEQ-II)
This questionnaire has been developed by Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski andSilverman (1999) and has been translated by Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans
and Staels of the University of Brussels (2014).
On 50 1-5 Likert scale questions, respondents indicate which values describe thembest. This way, the scores on the five overexcitabilities are determined. Each OE isquestioned 10 times. The total score per category is divided by 10 to get the score per
OE (see appendix B).

11/25

Data-analyses
Data-analyses were executed using IBM SPSS Statistics version 22 and MS Excel.
A respondent was categorized as Gifted Adults (GA) when he or she responded ‘yes’ to thequestion “Are you gifted?” in the demographical information section. By this self-nomination,
245 out of 1638 respondents (14%) are considered to be GA.
A respondent was categorized as Highly Sensitive Person (HSP) based on the answers toAron and Aron’s HSP-scale (1997). When the total score was higher than 14, a respondent
was considered to be HSP. By this measurement, 1311 out of 1638 (80%) scored HSP.
Out of the 245 GA, 214 scored HSP (87%). In Table 3 GA, HSP and their co-occurrence isshown.

Table 3GA and HSP in this dataset
HSP

nHSP

Total

GA

214

31

245

nGA

1097

296

1393

Total

1311

327

1638

T-tests (independent samples) were executed on the questionnaires investigating Dabrowski’s
Overexcitabilities for both HSP and GA.
The Bonferroni-correction was used to counteract the problem of multiple comparisons. The
level of significance was lowered to 0,01.

12/25

Results

Considering the first research question regarding the relationship between high giftedness and
HSP “How many GA are HSP?” this study shows that 87% of the GA score HSP on Aron and
Aron’s (1997) HSP Scale (214 out of 245).
The second research question was: “How do GA score compared to nGA on Dabrowski’s
overexcitabilities?” The results show significant scores on three out of five OE’s, namely on
the sensual, the imaginational and the intellectual overexcitability. On these OE’s, GA’s scoresignificantly higher than nGA’s (Table 4). The score on Emotional OE is considered not to besignificant after Bonferroni correction (level of significance set on: 0,01).

Table 4t-test independent samples GA and nGA scores on Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities

Psychomotor OE

Sensual OE

Imaginational OEIntellectual OE

Emotional OE

GA

Number M

t

p

nGA

1393

3,043

-1,020

,308

GA

245

3,099

nGA

1393

3,661

-5,335

,000

GA

245

3,913

nGA

1393

2,723

-5,100

,000

GA

245

2,993

nGA

1393

3,825

-13,026

,000

GA

245

4,294

nGA

1393

3,905

-2,426

,016

GA

245

4,011

On the third research question “Do HSP adults (independent of their possible giftedness)score different on Dabrowski’s overexcitabilities than non-HSP adults?” the following was
found. On all five Overexcitabilities HSP score significantly different than nHSP. On thepsychomotor OE they score significantly lower and on the other 4 OE’s they scoresignificantly higher (see Table 5).

13/25

Table 5
t-test independent samples HSP and nHSP scores on Dabrowski’s Overexcitabilities

Psychomotor OE

Sensual OE

Imaginational OEIntellectual OE

Emotional OE

HSP

Number

M

t

p

nHSP

327

3,159

2,750

,006

HSP

1311

3,025

nHSP

327

3,118

-14,921

,000

HSP

1311

3,843

nHSP

327

2,264

-15,487

,000

HSP

1311

2,888

nHSP

327

3,667

-7,534

,000

HSP

1311

3,952

nHSP

327

3,314

-19,513

,000

HSP

1311

4,072

The fourth research question was: “Do GA who are also HSP, score differently on theoverexcitabilities than GA who are non-HSP?” No significant difference was found on thepsychomotor overexcitability, but on the other four the GA who are also HSP scoresignificantly higher than the GA who are non-HSP (see Table 6).
Table 6t-test independent samples GA-HSP and GA-nHSP scores on Dabrowski’s OE’s

Psychomotor OE

Sensual OE

Imaginational OEIntellectual OE

Emotional OE

GA-HSP

NumberMtp

GA-nHSP

31

3,071

-,198

,843

GA-HSP

214

3,103

GA-nHSP

31

3,432-4,525,000

GA-HSP

214

3,982

GA-nHSP

31

2,577-3,571,000

GA-HSP

214

3,053

GA-nHSP

31

4,019-3,338,001

GA-HSP

214

4,334

GA-nHSP

31

3,284-7,799,000

GA-HSP

214

4,116

14/25

Conclusion and discussion

Aron and Aron (2006) state that 15 to 20% of all people are HSP. The results in this study
show 87% of the GA are HSP. A relationship between giftedness and sensitivity can therefore
be concluded.
Similar to some of Falk and Miller’s (2009) conclusions, in this study GA outscore nGA
adults on all five OE’s, but only three of them significantly: on the Sensual OE, theImaginational OE and the Intellectual OE. No significance in the scores on thePsychomotorical OE – similar to Winkler’s analysis - and after Bonferroni-correction neither
on the Emotional OE. So this study confirms these results also for working adults.

New in this study was the analysis of any relation between Dabrowski’s (1964, 1972) OE andAron and Aron’s HSP Scale. On all five OE’s significant differences between HSP and nHSP
were found. Remarkable is the significant lower score on the psychomotorical OE.
Psychomotorically overexcitable persons are described to be highly-energetic, curious, havedifficulty sitting still, need constant change of scenery, and are generally restless. Elaine Aronalso identified the so called ‘High Sensation Seekers’ (HSS) and describes them as thrill
seeking HSP’s. But this is backed up by less research than the HSP scale (Aron, 2006). Seeingsome similarities in the words describing these HSS and the psychomotor OE, one could raise
the question if there is a relation. This would require further research.
Zooming in on the GA and their sensitivity, GA-HSP outscored GA-nHSP on all five OE’s
but on the Psychomotorical OE the difference was not significant. So within the group ofgifted adults, it can be concluded that the highly sensitive ones (87%) are generally more
overexcitable than the non-HSP gifted adults. Could it be that the relationship between
giftedness and OEs needs to be seen in the context of HSP?

15/25

Giftedness itself was not measured within this study. The participants were asked “Are you
gifted. Y/N?”. No additional questions were asked to support this answer. Therefore a morenuanced way to describe the Gifted Adults in this study would be: “Adults that identify
themselves as being gifted”. This means that the group GA could contain false-positives, andthe nGA group could contain false-negatives. This could be seen as a limitation of this study.

As stated in the theoretical introduction, the different definitions regarding giftedness all say
being gifted means more than just having a high IQ. So even if an IQ-test was included in thisstudy, this would not have identified the gifted adults fully. It would have only selected theparticipants that were able to perform well on the IQ-test. One might argue if an IQ-test is asufficient measurement of a person’s giftedness. Mental health professionals working withgifted people (both children and adults) see a lot of problems in performance when gifted
individuals are being observed, timed or under any other pressure (Jackson, 2015). We know
underachieving is a problem when gifted persons are not recognized and do not receive
specific guidance in their developmental process.

Could it be that their HSP is of great influence on that? Could it be that studies into excellent
performing children, the IQ-tested children, like the previous mentioned Terman (1925-1967)
studies and the studies into the mathematically precocious youth (Stanley, 1972-1997), did
not see any reason to investigate a relation to high sensitivity because most of the highly
sensitive ones were already excluded at the entrance? Because they had to peak perform
before being included in the research programs as being gifted?

This is a very difficult issue. Both groups studying the gifted, the ones in mental healthcare
working with gifted persons with (mental) problems and psychologists and educationalists
studying the excellent-performing gifted persons, seem to have a blind spot for their selection.
They both exclude a part of the gifted population. The mental health care professionals do not

16/25

see many peak performing gifted individuals in their practices; they see the ones withchallenges in their daily life, like mental problems and performance issues. The scientists
working with the individuals that score in the 98th percentile on IQ-tests, might haveexcluded very gifted persons that were too nervous or stressed to deliver a performance
matching their intelligence. So both investigated samples may not fully represent the gifted
population.

This study might just have a more representative sample of gifted adults. The participants ofthis study where not selected or investigated because of mental health issues or because ofhigh performance and/or IQ-scores. Everybody with a job, either gainfully or self-employed
was invited to participate and they could determine themselves if they identify themselves as
being gifted.
There is another possible limitation to be mentioned is the use of Aron and Aron’s (1997)
short questionnaire for determining HSP. Aron herself also introduced a questionnaire with a
Likert scale instead of the yes/no version used in this study. But research by Van Hoof(personal communication) shows no differences in results in using either one. A second
remark to be made on the use of Aron’s questionnaire is: how well does this questionnairemeasure HSP? Although the trait HSP itself is well accepted within today’s world of
psychology, the way to measure it is not yet fully developed.

Relevance

Why is it important for gifted adults to know whether they are highly sensitive and/or
overexcitable?

17/25

Giftedness and HSP in itself are two positive traits. But they do not automatically lead to arich and fulfilling life. Being aware of these traits will help people with these traits to explain
the differences they experience compared to people that do not possess these traits.
Dabrowski’s (1964, 1972) OE’s in relation to giftedness provide an explanation for behavior
in gifted children and adults that is often misdiagnosed with disorders such as ADHD, ODD,
Bipolar, OCD, or Autism. Sometimes this leads to inappropriate counseling and or unneeded
medication (Webb, Amend, Webb, Goerss, Beljan, & Olenchak, 2005).
From Gagné’s (2012) model we know that abilities (gifts) can become competencies (talents)
through a positive developmental process. Sensitivity acts as a catalyst on that process. If not
identified as being gifted or highly sensitive, negative coping strategies might be developed
and these are of negative influence on the development process. Developing proactive,
positive coping strategies, and good self-regulation support the realization of one’s (full)potential.

18/25

References

Aron, E. N. (1996). The highly sensitive person: How to thrive when the world overwhelms
you. New York, NY: Broadway Books.
Aron, E. N. & Aron, A. (1997). Sensory-processing sensitivity and its relation to introversion
and emotionality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 345-368.
Aron, E. N. (2006, May). Personality and Temperament: The Highly Sensitive Person Who Is
Also A High Sensation Seeker. Retrieved from The Highly Sensitive Person:
http://www.hsperson.com/pages/1May06.htm
Dabrowski, K. (1964). Positive Disintigration. Boston: Little Brown and Company.
Dabrowski, K. (1972). Psychoneuroses is not an illness. London: Gryf Publications LTD.
Falk, R. F. & Miller, N. B. (2009). Building firm foundations: Research and assessments. In
S. Daniels & M. M. Piechowski (Eds.), Living With Intensity: Understanding theSensitivity, Excitability and Emotional Development of Gifted Children, Adolescentsand Adults (pp. 239-260). Scottsdale, AZ: Great Potential Press.
Fiedler, E. (2015). Bright Adults: Uniqueness and Belonging across the Lifespan. Tucson:
Great Potential Press.
Gagné, F. (2002). Transforming Gifts into Talents: The DMGT as a Developmental Theory.
In N. Colangelo & G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 6074). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Gagné, F. (2012). Building gifts into talents: Brief overview of the DMGT 2.0.Retrieved fromhttp://gagnefrancoys.wix.com/dmgt-mddt#!dmgtenglish/cabg
Heller, K. A., Perleth, Ch. & Lim, T. K. (2005). The Munich Model of Giftedness Designed to
Identify and Promote Gifted Students. In R.J. Sternberg & J.E. Davidson (Eds.),
Conceptions of Giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 172-197). New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Jackson, S. (2015). Rise: The Extraordinary Journey of the Exceptionally and Profoundly
Gifted [Documentary]. Surrey: Daimon Institute.
Jacobsen, M.-E. (1999). The Gifted Adult: A Revolutionary Guide for Liberating Everyday
Genius. New York: Ballantine Books.
Kieboom, T. (2007). Hoogbegaafd. Als je kind (g)een Einstein is. Tielt: Lannoo.
Kooijman-Van Thiel, M. (2008). Hoogbegaafd. Dat zie je zó! Ede: OYA Productions.
Mendaglio, S. (2008). Dabrowski's Theory of Positive Disintegration. Scottsdale: Great
Potential Press.

19/25

Piechowski, M., Silverman, L. & Falk, F. (1985). Comparison of intellectually and artistically
gifted on five dimensions of mental functioning. Perceptual and Motor Skills 60, 539549.
Pluess, M. (2015), Individual Differences in Environmental Sensitivity. Child Development
Perspectives, 9: 138–143.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: a developmental model for
creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions ofgiftedness (pp. 53-92). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Schoon, I. (2000). A Life Span Approach to Talent Development. In Heller, K. A., Mönks, F.
J., Sternberg, R. J. & Subotnik, R. F. International Handboek of Giftedness and Talent- second edition (pp. 213-225). Elsevier: Amsterdam.
Stanley, J. C. (Ed.). (1972-1997). Study of Mathematically Precocious Youth.
Sternberg, R. & Davidson, J. (2005). Conceptions of Giftedness; 2nd Edition. Cambridge:
Cambridge University press.
Terman, L. (Ed.). (1925-1967). Genetic studies of genius (Vols. I-V). Redwood City, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Van den Broeck, W., Hofmans, J., Cooremans, S. & Staels, E. (2014). Factorial validity andmeasurement invariance across intelligence levels and gender of the Overexcitabilities
Questionnaire-II (OEQ-II). Psychological Assessment, 26, pp. 55-68.
Van Hoof, E. (personal communication, May 16, 2016)
Webb, J. T., Amend, E. R., Webb, N. E., Goerss, J., Beljan, P. & Olenchak, F. R. (2005).
Misdiagnosis and dual diagnosis of gifted children and adults. Scottsdale: Great
Potential Press.
Winkler, D. L. (2014). Giftedness and Overexcitability: Investigating the Evidence.
Dissertation for Ph.D. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University.

20/25

Appendices

Appendix A: HSP Scale, Aron and Aron (1997)
Translation by Van Hoof and Bijttebier.
Geef aan of u het eens bent met onderstaande uitspraken.
Mee eens Niet mee
eens
1

Ik word gemakkelijk overweldigd door sterke zintuiglijke
prikkels.

2

Ik word mijn omgeving gewaar in al zijn subtiliteiten.

3

De stemmingen van andere mensen beïnvloeden me.

4

Ik heb de neiging nogal gevoelig te zijn voor pijn.

5

Tijdens drukke dagen merk ik dat ik behoefte heb om meterug te trekken in mijn bed, in een verduisterde kamer ofop een andere plek waar ik wat privacy heb en beschermd
ben tegen prikkels.

6

Ik ben bijzonder gevoelig voor de effecten van cafeïne.

7

Ik word gemakkelijk overweldigd door dingen als fel licht,
sterke geuren, grove weefsels of sirenes dichtbij.

8

Ik heb een rijke en complexe belevingswereld.

9

Harde geluiden zorgen ervoor dat ik me ongemakkelijk
voel.

10

Ik word diep geraakt door kunst of muziek.

11

Soms worden mijn zenuwen zo op de proef gesteld dat ik
me even moet afzonderen.

12

Ik ben gewetensvol.

13

Ik schrik gemakkelijk op.

14

Ik voel me opgejaagd wanneer ik veel moet doen in korte
tijd.

21/25

15

Wanneer mensen zich in een fysieke omgeving niet op hun
gemak voelen, weet ik meestal wat nodig is om het voor
hen aangenamer te maken (bijvoorbeeld de verlichting ofhet meubilair aanpassen).

16

Ik raak geërgerd wanneer mensen proberen me te veel
dingen tegelijk te laten doen.

17

Ik doe erg mijn best te voorkomen dat ik fouten maak ofdingen vergeet.

18

Ik kijk bewust niet naar gewelddadige films of tvprogramma’s.

19

Ik word op een onaangename manier geprikkeld wanneer
er veel om me heen gebeurt.

20

Als ik sterke honger heb, verstoort dat erg mijn
concentratievermogen of mijn gemoedstoestand.

21

Veranderingen in mijn leven maken me overstuur.

22

Ik heb een fijne neus voor delicate of fijne geuren, smaken,
geluiden en kunstwerken en geniet ervan.

23

Ik vind het onaangenaam als er veel tegelijk gebeurt.

24

Het is voor mij een prioriteit om mijn leven zo teorganiseren dat situaties die me van streek maken ofoverweldigen vermeden worden.

25

Intense prikkels, zoals harde geluiden of chaotische
toestanden, vind ik hinderlijk.

26

Als ik bij het uitvoeren van een taak met iemand moet
wedijveren of door iemand geobserveerd word, word ik zo
nerveus of trillerig dat ik het veel minder goed doe dan ik
anders zou doen.

27

Toen ik een kind was, leken mijn ouders en leerkrachten
me gevoelig of verlegen te vinden.

22/25

Appendix B: Overexcitabilities Questionnaire-II (OEQ-II),
This questionnaire has been developed by Falk, Lind, Miller, Piechowski & Silverman(1999) and has been translated by Van den Broeck, Hofmans, Cooremans and Staels of
the University of Brussels (2014).

Duid bij elke uitspraak het antwoord aan dat het beste bij u past. Antwoord zoals u nu bent en
NIET zoals u zou willen zijn of denkt te moeten zijn. Omcirkel het nummer van het antwoord
dat het best weergeeft hoe u zichzelf ziet.

1 : zo ben ik helemaal niet
2 : zo ben ik meestal niet
3 : zo ben ik een beetje
4 : zo ben ik dikwijls
5 : zo ben ik helemaal

11

Ik dagdroom graag

2

Ik ben competitief3

Ik vind de verscheidenheid van kleuren en geluiden zalig

4

De wereld die ik me inbeeld is heel echt voor mij

5

Ik ben een onafhankelijk denker

6

Ik voel de gevoelens van anderen aan

7

Het geeft me voldoening als een activiteit me fysiek uitput

8

Als ik naar kunst kijk, dan vergeet ik alles rond mij

9

Ik maak me dikwijls zorgen

10

Ik ben graag in beweging

11

Als ik in een groep iemand alleen zie staan, dan maakt me dat

2

3

4

5

verdrietig
12

Ik kan moeilijke ideeën omzetten naar iets dat makkelijker tebegrijpen is13

Ik geniet heel erg van kunstwerken die door anderen gemaakt
werden14

Als ik me verveel, begin ik te dagdromen

23/25

15

Als ik veel energie heb, dan wil ik iets echt fysiek doen

16

Ik stel alles in vraag: hoe dingen werken, wat ze betekenen,
waarom dingen zijn zoals ze zijn

17

Ik kan zo gelukkig zijn dat ik zou willen lachen en huilentegelijkertijd18

Ik heb meer energie dan de meeste mensen van mijn leeftijd

19

Ik kan tot een nieuw idee komen door een aantal,
verschillende dingen bij elkaar te brengen

20

Soms doe ik alsof ik iemand anders ben

21

Hoe langer ik moet stil zitten, hoe onrustiger ik word

22

De dingen die ik me in mijn hoofd voorstel, zijn zo levendig,
dat ze echt lijken voor mij

23

Ik observeer en analyseer alles

24

Ik betrap er mijzelf op dat ik waarheid en fantasie door elkaar
haal in mijn gedachten

25

Theorieën zetten me aan het denken

26

Mijn gevoelens van plezier, woede, opwinding en wanhoop
kunnen hevig zijn

27

Muziek voel ik in heel mijn lichaam

28

Ik hou ervan om de werkelijkheid uit te vergroten(overdrijven

29

Ik heb het gevoel dat mijn lichaam constant in beweging is30

Ik los graag problemen op en ik ontwikkel graag nieuweideeën31

Ik ben erg begaan met anderen

32

Ik geniet meer van de kleur, vorm en textuur van dingen dan
andere mensen

33

Ik geloof dat poppen, opgezette dieren of de personages inboeken echt leven en gevoelens hebben

34

Woorden en geluiden veroorzaken ongewone beelden in mijn
hoofd

35

Als ik hevige emoties heb, begin ik te huilen

36

Ik ga graag dieper in op problemen en onderwerpen

37

Ik word geraakt door schoonheid in de natuur

24/25

38

Ik ben niet gevoelig voor de kleur, vorm en textuur van
dingen, zoals sommige mensen wel zijn

39

Als ik nerveus ben, dan moet ik iets fysiek doen40

Ik probeer mijn gedachten en gedrag te analyseren

41

Ik kan een mengeling van verschillende emoties tegelijkertijd
voelen42

Ik ben het type persoon dat steeds actief moet zijn: wandelen,poetsen, organiseren, bezig zijn

43

Ik speel graag met ideeën en ik probeer een manier te vinden
om ze in praktijk om te zetten

44

Ik ben niet emotioneel45

Ik geniet heel erg van kleuren, vormen en patronen

46

Ik vind het verschil in geuren en smaken (aroma’s) interessant47

Ik heb aanleg om te fantaseren48

Ik luister graag naar de geluiden in de natuur

49

Ik neem alles ter harte

50Intense fysieke activiteit, zoals bij sport en snelle spelletjes,
doet me goed

25/25