Sie sind auf Seite 1von 15

Journal of Psychoeducational

Assessment
http://jpa.sagepub.com/

Identifying and Assessing Creativity as a Component of Giftedness


James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker and Christina M. Russell
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 2012 30: 60 originally published online 5 December 2011
DOI: 10.1177/0734282911428196

The online version of this article can be found at:


http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/30/1/60

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jpa.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jpa.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/30/1/60.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Feb 9, 2012


OnlineFirst Version of Record - Dec 5, 2011

What is This?

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at Central Library Alzahra Univ on November 1, 2013


428196 JPAXXX10.1177/0734282911428196

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Identifying and Assessing 30(1) 6073


2012 SAGE Publications
Reprints and permission:
Creativity as a Component of sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/0734282911428196

Giftedness http://jpa.sagepub.com

James C. Kaufman1, Jonathan A. Plucker2, and


Christina M. Russell2

Abstract
Most theories of giftedness include creativity as a central component. Creativity assessment
has a key role, therefore, in measuring giftedness. This article reviews the state of the creativity
assessment, from divergent thinking tests (including the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking) to
the consensual assessment technique to rating scales and self assessments. Despite the many
flaws present in every type of creativity measurement, there are compelling reasons for including
creativity as part of a gifted assessment battery.

Keywords
creativity, assessment, giftedness, creative assessment

Although educational assessment generally pays little attention to creativity, creativity moves
from being a background player to a key role within the context of giftedness and gifted education.
Most theories of giftedness include creativity as a central component. The federal government
proposed a multifaceted definition of giftedness in the early 1970s that appears to have been based
on the trait-specific view of giftedness (as opposed to state-specific views). This delineation sug-
gested that giftedness and talent are manifest in six areas: general intellectual ability, specific
academic aptitude, creative or productive thinking, leadership ability, visual and performing arts,
and psychomotor ability (Marland, 1972). The Marland definition has been extremely influential
and is still used by many school districts in their identification of talented students. In a large
national study, Callahan, Hunsaker, Adams, Moore, and Bland (1995) found that nearly 50% of
districts based their gifted education identification procedures on this definition, making it far and
away the most popular definition in this setting. Our review outlines major theories of creativity
in addition to ways to identify and assess creative people (e.g., for admission to a program or
school) and creative products.
Other prominent theories of giftedness also include creativity: Gagns (2005) Differentiated
Model of Giftedness and Talent (DMGT) conceptualizes gifts as the innate abilities (or

1
California State University, San Bernardino, CA, USA
2
Indiana University, Bloomington, IN, USA

Corresponding Author:
James C. Kaufman, Learning Research Institute, California State University at San Bernardino, Department of
Psychology, 5500 University Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407, USA
Email: jkaufman@csusb.edu
Kaufman et al. 61

aptitudes) in at least one domain area (intellectual, creative, socioaffective, and sensorimotor)
and talents as demonstrated mastery of these gifts. Renzullis (1986, 2005) Three-Ring
Conception views giftedness as emerging from the interaction of well above average ability,
creativity, and task commitment, with each characteristic playing a critical role in the develop-
ment of gifted behavior. In Sternbergs (2005) model, giftedness is conceptualized as a synthesis
of wisdom, intelligence, and creativity (WICS).
Prominent theories of creativity and giftedness have been applied to create numerous assess-
ments to identify products, environments, and people. Gifted identification systems are, for all
practical intents and purposes, the main application of creativity assessments in the United States
(Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008; Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). Much of our review of the field of
creativity assessment will be geared to emphasize measures used in evaluating giftedness.

What Is Creativity?
The first step to discussing the assessment of creativity is to first define the construct. It is
notable that so many studies on creativity do not actually specify what is meant by creativity.
Plucker, Beghetto, and Dow (2004) selected 90 different articles that either appeared in the two
top creativity journals or were articles in a different peer-reviewed journal with the word cre-
ativity in the title. Of these articles, only 38% explicitly defined what creativity was. Based on
current theoretical and empirical work, Plucker et al. (2004) proposed the following definition,
which we will use for the purposes of this article:

Creativity is the interaction among aptitude, process, and environment by which an indi-
vidual or group produces a perceptible product that is both novel and useful as defined
within a social context. (p. 90)

Our conceptions of creativity assessment were shaped by early pioneers in the field. In 1950,
Guilford placed creativity into a larger framework of intelligence in his Structure of the Intellect
Model. He attempted to organize all of human cognition along three dimensions: operations, con-
tent, and product. Operations, the first dimension, were seen as the general intellectual processes
or mental gymnastics needed for any kind of task. The second dimension, content, referred to
the general subject area, while product represented the actual products that might result from
thinking abstractly in different kinds of subject matters. With five operations, four contents, and
six products, Guilfords (1967) model had 120 different possible mental abilities. Guilford later
introduced the notion of divergent thinking, otherwise known as the ability to answer open-ended
questions with both novel and useful responses. Today, divergent thinking remains a very common
measure among creativity assessments (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995).

Divergent Thinking (DT) Assessments


A lot of time, energy, and effort have been invested in developing and researching measures of
divergent thinking. Ironically, there is not much divergence in the history of creativity assess-
ments. Divergent thinking is the backbone of creativity assessment and has held this position for
many decades. The majority of articles measuring creativity use divergent thinking tests; most
books on creativity include a long discussion of divergent thinking; and schools frequently use
DT tests to identify the creative potential of students. The theoretical launching points for serious
development efforts and large-scale application of divergent thinking into assessments were
Guilfords Structure of the Intellect divergent production tests (1967), Wallach and Kogans
62 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

(1965) and Getzels and Jacksons divergent production tests, and Torrances (1974, 2008) Tests
of Creative Thinking (TTCT).
As previously noted, Guilford (1967) proposed the Structure of the Intellect Model (SOI)
in which he identified 24 distinct components of divergent thinking, one type for each combi-
nation of the four types of content (Figural, Symbolic, Semantic, Behavioral) and six types of
product (Units, Classes, Relations, Systems, Transformations, Implications). The SOI
Divergent Thinking battery consists of several dozen tests that correspond with the 24 distinct
components. One example of a Guilford DT task is the Sketches subtest, which assesses the
Figural Unit dimension by inviting the student to draw as many objects as possible using a
basic figure, such as a circle. Many tests of DT were based off of Guilfords SOI assessments,
including the most widely studied of the DT assessments: The Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking.
During the 1960s, researchers published results of studies that relied on Guilford/SOI-like
assessments. For example, the Instances Test required students to list as many things that move
on wheels (that make noise, etc.) as possible (Wallach & Kogan, 1965; Wallach & Wing, 1969).
Another such example is the Uses Test in which students provide answers to prompts such as
Tell me all the different ways you could use a chair (Wallach & Kogan, 1965, p. 31) or bricks,
pencils, and toothpicks (Getzels & Jackson, 1962). The greatest difference between the various
batteries developed during this time were the conditions under which students took the tests.
Wallach and Kogan (1965) preferred a more game-like, untimed administration of divergent
thinking tasks as they believed this allowed creativity to be measured distinctly from intelligence
due to the creation of a frame of reference which is relatively free from the coercion of time
limits and relatively free from the stress of knowing that ones behavior is under close evalua-
tion (p. 24). This test-taking approach is in contrast to timed, test-like protocols used with most
other DT measures and is in part based on concerns that children are so accustomed to the one
correct or best answer that they may be reluctant to think of other possibilities or to build up a
pool of ideas to be evaluated later (Torrance, 1970, p. 86).

The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)


The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1974, 2008) remain the most widely
used assessment of creative talent (Sternberg, 2006). Torrance focused on divergent thinking as
the basis for creativity and constructed tests that emphasized the assessment of divergent think-
ing. Torrances drive for creating the TTCT was not merely to measure creativity, but rather to
be used as tools to better understand what fosters and nurtures creativity (Hebert, Cramond,
Spiers-Neumeister, Millar, & Silvian, 2002; Kim, 2006). Although based on the SOI
Assessments, Torrance (1968) argued that the TTCT represented a sharp departure from
Guilfords factor-type tests associates (Kaufman, Plucker, et al., 2008). This departure is more
in regard to Torrances early work as many tasks on the most recent versions on the TTCT are
similar to Guilford and Guilford-related tests.
Of all tests of creativity, the TTCT are the longest running, continually published assessments
of DT, most carefully studied, and most widely used in educational settings of all tests of creativ-
ity (Kaufman, Plucker, et al., 2008). The Torrance Tests are commonly used in efficacy studies
and meta-analyses of the impact of creativity training programs.
Test organization. The TTCT battery is comprised of a Figural and Verbal section with Forms
A and B to be used alternatively. The Verbal section examines ones ability to think creatively
with words, whereas the Figural tests assess an individuals ability to think creatively with pic-
tures. The Figural section includes three subtests:
Kaufman et al. 63

Picture Construction: participants use basic shape and expands on it to create a picture;
Picture Completion: the student is asked to finish and title incomplete drawings;
Lines/Circles: participant is asked to modify many different series of lines (Form A) or
circles (Form B).

The Verbal section of the TTCT has seven subtests. The first three tasks are considered part of
Ask-and-Guess:

Ask-and-Guess: the examinee is asked to look at a picture (e.g., Form A has a picture of
an elf staring into a pool of water) at the beginning of the test booklet to complete three
subtasks:
Asking: participant asks as many questions as possible about the picture;
Guessing Causes: participant lists possible causes for the pictured action;
Guessing Consequences: participant lists possible consequences for the pictured
action;
Product Improvement: participant asked to make changes to improve a toy;
Unusual Uses: participant asked to think of as many different uses for an ordinary item
(e.g., cardboard box) as possible;
Unusual Questions: participant asks as many questions as possible about an ordinary
item (this subtest does not appear in later editions);
Just Suppose: participant is asked to just suppose an improbable situation has hap-
pened then list the possible ramifications.

Scoring recommendations. The TTCT can be administered in a group or individual setting from
kindergarten through higher education or beyond (Kim, 2006). The administration, scoring, and
score reporting of the tests and forms are standardized and include detailed norms that were
revised accordingly (Torrance, 1974, 2008; Torrance & Ball, 1984). While reading and under-
standing the manual allows novice raters to produce reliable scores, Torrance recommended for
scorers to be trained. Untrained raters deviate from the scoring protocol when assessing original-
ity as they tend to unintentionally allow their personal judgments to affect scoring of individual
responses.
Scoring dimensions. Although the original test produced scores in four traditional DT areas, cur-
rent versions of the Figural TTCT (Torrance, 2008) produce scores in the following five areas:

Fluency: The number of responses to a given stimuli;


Elaboration: The extension of ideas within a specific category of responses to a given
stimuli;
Originality: The uniqueness of responses to a given stimuli. The most common responses
receive a score of 0, whereas all other legitimate responses receive a score of 1;
Resistance to Premature Closure: The degree of psychological openness when process-
ing information; to keep an open mind (Kim, 2006);
Abstractedness of Titles: A measurement of the degree to which a title is more abstract/
moves beyond a labeling of a picture (Kim, 2006).

Earlier revisions to the scoring protocol (Torrance & Ball, 1984) streamlined the scoring pro-
cess through the removal of Flexibility scores as these were undifferentiated from Fluency scores
(Hebert et al., 2002). The Verbal TTCT produces scores for Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality.
Another change in the scoring protocol allowed for the Figural tests to be scored for Resistance
to Premature Closure. This score is determined by a participants tendency not to immediately
64 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

close the incomplete figures on the Figural Picture Completion Test. Torrance believed that this
score reflected the examinees ability to keep open and delay closure long enough to make the
mental leap that makes possible original ideas (Torrance & Ball, 1984, p. 20). On the Picture
Completion task, the responses are scored zero points for finishing the picture with the easiest,
most direct route. One point is scored for indirectly finishing the figure. Two points are awarded
for never completing the picture or completing it with irregular lines that form part of the figure
rather than with simple straight or curved lines.
Scoring for Abstractedness of Titles for the figures in the Picture Construction and Picture
Completion tasks range from zero points for common, obvious titles (Shoe or River), one
point for more descriptive titles (The Dancing Cat), two points for more descriptive or imagina-
tive titles that reach beyond concrete labels (The Giants Finger Puppet) or three points for
abstract but appropriate titles that go beyond the picture and tell a story (The Time of Your Life).

Other Divergent Thinking Assessments


Most DT assessments are borrowed from or are very similar to the TTCT and Guilfords SOI
Assessments. One example is that the DT scores from the Profile of Creative Abilities (Ryser,
2007) are derived from Guilfords work and have tasks similar to those on the TTCT. One depar-
ture is real-world divergent thinking items, which are similar to those of Guilford and Wallach
and Kogan verbal tasks, but are placed in a realistic, applied context. This format assumes that
a more realistic assessment of DT skills should take place within a realistic context (Plucker,
Runco, & Lim, 2006). Runco and his colleagues have developed a number of these realistic DT
tasks and gathered evidence of adequate reliability (Chand & Runco, 1993).

Controversy Regarding Divergent Thinking Assessments


There is mixed evidence and conflicting opinion as to the psychometric quality and practical
importance of DT tests. The DT tests are associated with evidence of reliability and concurrent
validity (e.g., Torrance, 1968, 2008). Plucker (1999), for example, reanalyzed data from
Torrances longitudinal study and found that divergent thinking was much more predictive for
how people differed in creative achievement than was traditional IQ. Nonetheless, many schol-
ars have questioned DT tests predictive validity (Baer, 1993, 1994; Gardner, 1993; Kogan &
Pankove, 1974; Weisberg, 1993). This has led researchers and educators to avoid using DT tests
and, broadly, leads to criticisms of the psychometric study of creativity (Plucker & Renzulli,
1999). Another controversial aspect of DT assessments is that people tend to overgeneralize DT
test performance to all other aspects of creativity, such as problem identification (e.g., Runco &
Okuda, 1988; Wakefield, 1985) and evaluative thinking (e.g., Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991;
Runco, 1991; Runco & Chand, 1994).
Recent developments in the scoring of DT tasks address many of these concerns. For exam-
ple, analyses of various scoring systems provide evidence that alternatives to the traditional
scores should be considered, such as the calculation of summative scores (i.e., totaling fluency,
flexibility, and originality scores), highly uncommon scores (answers given by less than 5% of
participants), weighted fluency scores, percentage scores, and scores based on the entire body of
each subjects answers, as opposed to scoring individual responses in a list of ideas (Hocevar &
Michael, 1979; Runco & Chand, 1993; Runco & Mraz, 1992; Runco, Okuda, & Thurston, 1987).
Silvia et al. (2008) have had good success with subjective evaluation of DT test results, and
Plucker, Qian, and Wang (2011) found evidence that the percentage scoring method (i.e., divid-
ing originality scores by fluency scores) may be the most appropriate scoring strategy for deter-
mining originality scores on DT assessments.
Kaufman et al. 65

Remote Associates Test (RAT)


The Remote Associates Test (RAT), although different from traditional DT tests, is still generally
assumed to tap into DT skills (Mednick, 1968). It is based on the associative theory that creative
thinking . . . consists of forming mutually distant associative elements into new combinations
which are useful and meet specified as well as unforeseen requirements (Mednick, 1968, p. 213).
Basically, more creative individuals tend to make meaningful, useful associations between dispa-
rate concepts and ideas to a greater extent than do less creative individuals.
The initial test consisted of 30 items, each with three stimulus words. Examinees must iden-
tify a fourth word that links the groupings of words. An example of a problem is Sleeping, Bean,
and Trash. The correct answer is Bag. Sleeping bag, bean bag, and trash bag are all common
phrases. The RAT is most traditionally used to study problem solving and creative thinking
(Ansburg, 2000; Beeman & Bowden, 2000). The test is often used because it is fairly easy to
administer and score. Although typically used as a creativity measure, it is more heavily influ-
enced by intelligence and verbal abilities than most other measures (Katz, 1983). The RAT has
been updated to modify out-of-date language; Bowden and Jung-Beeman (2003) presented many
new items (calling them the Compound Remote Associates Task).

Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)


Although divergent thinking is the most common way to assess creativity, it is far from the only
way. The best assessment of creativity in a particular field is usually derived from the collective
judgment of recognized experts in the field (see J. C. Kaufman, 2009, for a fuller discussion).
This type of assessment emphasizes the creative product.
The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is one such approach to creative product evalu-
ation. The CAT is based on the idea that the best measure of creativity of a work of art, theory, or
any other artifact is the combined assessment of experts in that field to judge creative products
(Amabile, 1996). Subjects are asked to create something (a product) and experts independently
evaluate the creativity of those products. Poems, collages, and stories are often evaluated in CAT
studies. One example of how the CAT was used was in the field of childrens writing (Baer, 1994).
Students were given a simple drawing of a boy and a girl and were asked to write an original story
involving both the girl and the boy. Experts in this field of childrens writings were asked to evalu-
ate the creativity of the stories written by students on a 1.0 to 5.0 scale. Judges were able to use
fractions (4.5) and were not asked to defend their ratings (Baer, 1994).
The CAT does not have standardized scores, rather only comparative scoring among partici-
pants. This method is widely used in creativity research and less widely in schools. Creativity
may vary a great deal, however, from domain to domain or even on tasks within the same gen-
eral area (e.g. Baer, 1993). Therefore, CAT ratings may not be the best approach to measure
creativity from a domain-general approach. CAT ratings can be used in classrooms, however, to
assess creativity for admission to special programs that look for people who excel in an area of
creativity (e.g., art). To use the CAT technique, have participants produce some type of creative
product. Creative writing and visual art are the most commonly used products although studies
have focused on such diverse areas as music composition (Priest, 2006) and math (Baer, 1994).
Although most CAT research uses responses to the same prompt (e.g., write a Haiku about
happiness), it is possible to use products created to different prompts (Baer, Kaufman, &
Gentile, 2004).
The next (and most time-consuming) step is to have appropriate experts assign creativity rat-
ings to all of the products. Raters use their own implicit definition of what is creative and are not
given specific instructions or allowed to discuss their ratings with each other. Creative products
66 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

are compared to each other, as opposed to a specific ideal. Research is currently underway to
determine appropriate levels of expertise for different creativity-judging tasks (Kaufman & Baer,
in press), but there are a few guidelines that are helpful in choosing a judge. Judges should have
a level of expertise clearly higher than the subjects (i.e., a published poet or a musician who has
performed professionally) and have some familiarity with the populations from which the par-
ticipants are drawn (e.g., judges of high school work should have some familiarity with high
school student production in the domain in question). Quasiexperts, such as students with special
experience or aptitude in the domain, have been found to show solid agreement (Kaufman,
Gentile, & Baer, 2005) although novices (such as undergraduates) generally neither agree with
each other or with experts (Kaufman, Baer, & Cole, 2009; Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton,
2008). Typically, 5 to 10 experts should be adequate; however, more quasiexperts may be needed
to reach strong interrater reliability.

Parent, Peer, and Teacher Measures: Assessments by Others


Whereas the CAT focuses on products, assessments by others focus on the creative person (per-
sonality traits, creativity-relevant abilities, motivation, intelligence, thinking styles, emotional
intelligence, or knowledge). This method of assessment can be as simple as having a teacher
globally rank his or her students based on the teachers knowledge of the students and implicit
beliefs about the nature of creativity. This method is similar to the CAT in that it is an evaluation
by others; however, the CAT evaluates individuals creative products while the assessments by
others focus on the creative person as a whole. This method emphasizes traits and abilities that
are believed to be relevant to creativity and is domain-general (By its nature, CAT is always
domain-specific). The assessors using this method are experts on the child (teachers, parents of
the child), not experts in creativity.

Creativity Checklists
One common form of assessment by others is via checklists. When using creativity check-
lists, there is reason to be wary of teacher and parent ratings of creativity based on global
impressions of a student due to unintended bias. For example, when the second author was
a gifted program coordinator, he asked teachers to use a specific rating scale to assess the
creativity behavior characteristics of select students. One teacher completed a checklist for
each student but then discussed the scores with other teachers and revised the instruments
until the scores fit the teachers desired ranking of the students. To limit this bias, raters
should be encouraged to rate each child individually and not make post hoc score compari-
sons (and revisions!).
There are many different creativity checklists, most of which were designed for use in
schools. Many creativity checklists, such as the Gifted Rating Scales (see below), are sold
commercially and copyright protected. One freely available assessment is the Creativity
Checklist (Proctor & Burnett, 2004). The Creativity Checklist is composed of characteristics
thought to be indicative of a creative person, both cognitive and dispositional traits, which
load onto 9 scales: fluent thinker, flexible thinker, original thinker, elaborative thinker, intrin-
sically motivated student, curious/immersed in topic, risk taker, imaginative/intuitive, and
engages in complex tasks/enjoys a challenge. The items are defined in terms of classroom
behaviors for teachers to use on elementary students (Proctor & Burnett, 2004). There were
no norms established for this checklist and therefore it is only appropriate for making com-
parisons within groups of students. There also has been no criterion-related or predictive
validity established.
Kaufman et al. 67

Gifted Rating Scales


The Gifted Rating Scales (GRS) were designed with the goals of being user friendly screening
instrument, require minimal training to score and interpret, be psychometrically reliable and
valid, and include a standardized sample which reflected the current U.S. census demographics
(Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007). The forms are linked to the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for
ChildrenFourth Edition (WISC-IV) and Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence
Third Edition (WPPSI-III; Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007). These rating forms were designed for
preschool (GRS-P: ages 4.0-6.11) and school-aged children (GRS-S: ages 6.0-13.11). The
GRS-P is made up of 60 items that load onto five scales while the GRS-S consists of six scales
with 12 items each, for a total of 72 items (Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007). Although these forms
were designed for teachers to rate students, research results suggest that a Chinese-translated
version of the GRS-S may be acceptable to use parents as raters (Li, Lee, Pfeiffer, & Petscher,
2008). The GRS-S validity was demonstrated as it was compared to IQ scores from the WISC-IV
and successful in identifying individuals who are intellectually gifted and not intellectually
gifted, particularly when intellectually gifted is operationally defined IQ score within the top 5%
(Pfeiffer & Jarosewich, 2007).

Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students


The Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) are widely
used in the selection of students for gifted and talented programs in Grades K to 12 (Callahan
et al., 1995; Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995). The SRBCSS was initially designed to introduce
teacher perspectives into the gifted and talented identification process (Bracken & Brown,
2006). These rating scales are based on a multiple talent approach to identifying gifted stu-
dents (Renzulli, 1986). Included in the SRBCSS are the following 14 scales that help identify
student abilities: learning, motivation, creativity, leadership, art, music, drama, planning, com-
munication (precision), communication (expression), math, reading, science, and technology.
The development of this scale was based on a literature review as well as feedback from
educators. Although the publisher reports no criterion-validity, the reliability has been found
to be significant if those completing the assessment have been trained (Center for Creative
Learning, 2002). Test-retest and interrater reliability based on teacher ratings have been found
to be excellent for the learning, motivation, and creativity scales (Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, &
Morris, 2002).

Guidelines for Using Creativity Checklists


When using creativity checklists, it is crucial for the assessors to be familiar with the students
for whom creativity is being assessed. The raters should have had the opportunity to observe and
work with students in a variety of different contests and domains. The validity of creativity
checklists depends on how well the assessors know the students, how well they understand the
questions and theory of creativity that underlies them, the objectivity of the assessors, and the
appropriateness of the questions/theory of creativity that underlies them.
There currently is not a creativity checklist that exists that has the criterion-related con-
current and predictive validity one would like of tests being used for decision-making pur-
poses. It is helpful for several people to independently rate students. While checklists may
not be the most psychometrically sound assessments, they can serve as a small piece of an
assessment when combined with other measures to help paint a picture of the students cre-
ative abilities.
68 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

Self-Assessment
Self-assessment, in which one asks people to judge their own creativity, is one of the simplest
ways to assess creativity. This method seems too easy and good to be trueand dependant on
the purpose of the assessment, it may be exactly that.

Creative Personality Assessment


Personality inventories are some of the most prevalent forms of self-assessment. The Five-
Factor Theory is the leading theory in personality (Costa & McCrae, 1992). It organizes per-
sonality into five components: neuroticism (emotional stability), extraversion, openness to
experience, conscientiousness, and agreeableness. Openness to experience is the personality
component most associated with creativity. Examples of items on this subscale include I have
a big imagination, and I spend time reflecting on things (Costa & McCrae, 1992). There is
a near-universal finding that openness to experience is associated with creativity, whether
measured by divergent thinking tests (King, McKee-Walker, & Broyles, 1996; McCrae, 1987),
the Consensual Assessment Technique (Wolfradt & Pretz, 2001), or self-report measures
(Griffin & McDermott, 1998; Soldz & Vaillant, 1999). The NEO Personality Inventory and
briefer NEO Five-Factor Inventory are the most popular measures of the five-factor personality
theory (Costa & McCrae, 1992). The International Personality Item Pool (Goldberg et al.,
2006) is a free alternative.
Another type of creativity personality assessment is to assess ones creativity style, which
refers to the ways in which people choose to use their creativity (Selby, Treffinger, Isaksen, &
Powers, 1993). An example of a style measure is the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory
(KAI; Kirton, 1999) which was developed to measure a personality dimension ranging from
adaption (ability to do things better) to innovation (ability to do things differently). This 32-item
inventory is often used in organizations in the public and private sector as it is relevant to orga-
nizational change (Bobic, Davis, & Cunningham, 1999).

Creative Behavior Checklists


Rather than asking people questions regarding personality, another method for self-assessment of
creativity is through creative behavior checklists, which asks people to rate past or current cre-
ative accomplishments. The author of The Creative Behavior Inventory argued that self-reports
of activities and attainments are among the best techniques for measuring creativity (Hocevar,
1981). While deciding what activities and attainments are decidedly creative, lists that have been
used in research are considered to have reasonable face validity and are recognized by society as
important (Hocevar, 1981), This inventory is constructed of 90 items that assess creative behavior
in literature, music, crafts, art, performing arts, and math/science. Another creative behavior
checklist is the Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ; Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005).
This instrument assesses creativity through 96 items across nine domains that load on two factors:
the arts (drama, writing, humor, dance, visual arts) and science (invention, science, and culinary).
The 10th domain (architecture) did not load on a factor.
Another self-report instrument, which has been used with elementary school students, is the
Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test (CT). The CT is unique in having a Spanish-language version
that has been studied extensively (Abedi, 2002; Auzmendi, Villa, & Abedi, 1996). Items include
questions such as, How do you approach a complex task? with response options of I come up
with a single approach, I may be able to come up with a few approaches, and I will be able
to come up with a variety of approaches. The CT provides scores in the traditional DT
Kaufman et al. 69

components of fluency, originality, elaboration, and flexibility, making it a nice complement to


DT assessments. Users, however, should be aware that CT results do not correlate significantly
with those from the TTCT (Auzmendi et al., 1996).
The Runco Ideation Behavior Scale (RIBS; Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2000-2001) emphasizes
ideation: the use of, appreciation of, and skill of generating ideas. The internal consistency esti-
mates for the 23-item scale tend to be in excess of .90. Runco et al. (2000-2001) concluded that
although the RIBS was a sufficiently reliable instrument for use with groups and individuals, the
construct validity evidence was somewhat ambiguous. Sample items include I come up with a
lot of ideas or solutions to problems, I enjoy having leeway in the things I do and room to make
up my own mind, and My ideas are often considered impractical or even wild. Although
the psychometric analyses were conducted using scores from college students, the instrument
should be appropriate for use with younger children.

Conclusion
When gifted identification systems use IQ or other ability tests, they are often using measures
that have been extensively tested and validated (A. S. Kaufman, 2009). Yet all the creativity
assessments discussed in this review have limitations that prevent them from being the obvious
choice to measure creativity as part of a larger assessment. Some have poor reliability or validity
evidence; others are impractically long or the psychometrics with young students is unexamined.
Given these restrictions, why is it worthwhile to include a creativity assessment as part of a
general battery? We argue that there are several key components that a creativity assessment
(however flawed) brings to any identification system.
First, there is reason to think that traditional IQ or achievement tests may not tap all of a
persons potential. Divergent-thinking or creativity tests may help give a more comprehensive
understanding of a person's overall abilities. Creativity is typically both theoretically and
empirically related to intelligence, but at a small (but significant) level; one recent meta-analysis
found the average correlation to be r = .17 (Kim, 2005). The same can be said of creativity
checklists completed by teachers. Second, some minority or female test-takers may be at risk
for a stereotype threat reaction to traditional tests (Nguyen & Ryan, 2008). Almost all measures
of creativity show less ethnicity and gender biases than standard IQ and achievement tests
(J. C. Kaufman, 2006, 2010).
Third, if a test-taker has a learning disability that may affect his or her scores on a traditional
ability or achievement measure, creativity tests can add valuable information. Finally, creativity
is part of the national guidelines to use multiple selection criteria (rather than rely solely on IQ
and achievement data). Most creativity measures, although not necessarily the only solution for
such selections, help serve as part of a broader evaluation that can add to the overall picture of
each candidate.
It is important to reiterate that we do not support administering a creativity test instead of a
traditional IQ, achievement, or behavior test (whether as part of a gifted assessment or any test-
ing scenario). We believe that all of these measures can and should work together to create the
fullest possible picture of an individual. Creativity assessment is a work in progresswe know
far less about creativity and its measurement than we would like to knowyet there are still a
multitude of tools available for a dedicated test administrator.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests


The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or pub-
lication of this article.
70 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References
Abedi, J. (2002). A latent-variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity
instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 267-276.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO:
Westview.
Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Current Psychology, 19,
143-146
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a newly constructed multiple-choice
creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 89-96.
Baer, J. (1993). Why you shouldnt trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 51, 80-83.
Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity
Research Journal, 7, 35-46.
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to
nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113-117.
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for
yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory & Cognition, 28, 1231-1241
Besemer, S. P., & OQuin, K. (1993). Assessing creative products: Progress and potentials. In S. G. Isaksen,
M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The
emergence of a discipline (pp. 331-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Bobic, M., Davis, E., & Cunningham, R. (1999). The Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory: Validity
issues, practical questions. Review of Public Personnel Administration, 19, 18-31.
Bracken, B. A., & Brown, E. F. (2006). Behavioral identification and assessment of gifted and talented
students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 112-122.
Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Instruments used in
the identification of gifted and talented students (Report No. RM-95130). Charlottesville, VA: National
Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the
creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37-50.
Center for Creative Learning. (2002). Review of the Scales for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Supe-
rior Students. Retrieved from http://www.creativelearning.com/Assess/test55.htm
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personal-
ity & Individual Differences, 14, 155-162.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Normal personality assessment in clinical practice: The NEO person-
ality inventory. Psychological Assessment, 4, 5-13.
Gagn, F. (2005). From gifts to talents: The DMGT as a developmental model. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 98-120), New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York, NY: Basic Books.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students.
New York, NY: Wiley.
Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., & Gough, H. C.
(2006). The International Personality Item Pool and the future of public-domain personality measures.
Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 84-96.
Griffin, M., & McDermott, M. R. (1998). Exploring a tripartite relationship between rebelliousness, open-
ness to experience and creativity. Social Behavior and Personality, 26, 347-356.
Kaufman et al. 71

Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-544.


Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Hebert, T. P., Cramond, B., Spiers-Neumeister, K. L., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance:
His life, accomplishments, and legacy. Storrs, CT: University of Connecticut, National Research Center
on the Gifted and Talented.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment,
45, 450-464.
Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of
divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917-921
Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published instrument uses and abuses.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 110-114.
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted students using teacher rating scales: A
review of existing instruments. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322-336.
Katz, A. N. (1983). Relationship of the Ammons Quick Test of intelligence to verbal and nonverbal tests of
creativity. Psychological Reports, 53,747-750.
Kaufman, A. S. (2009). IQ Testing 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C. (2006). Self-reported differences in creativity by gender and ethnicity. Journal of Applied
Cognitive Psychology, 20, 1065-1082.
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General
Psychology, 14, 189-203.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (in press). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativ-
ity Research Journal.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the Consensual Assessment Tech-
nique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223-233.
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters
using the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171-178.
Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate
creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260-265.
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57-66.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18, 3-14.
King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of
Research in Personality, 30, 189-203.
Kirton, M. J. (Ed.). (1994). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem solving. New York,
NY: Routledge.
Kirton, M. J. (1999). Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory (KAI) (3rd ed.) Hertfordshire, UK: KAI Dis-
tribution Centre.
Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. (1974). Long-term predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests: Some negative
evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 802-810.
Li, H., Lee, D., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Petscher, Y. (2008). Parent ratings using the Chinese version of the Par-
ent Gifted Rating ScalesSchool Form: Reliability and validity for Chinese students. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 68, 659-675.
Marland, S. P. (1972). Education of the gifted and talented: Report to the Congress of the United States by
the U.S. Commissioner of Education. Washington, DC: Department of Health, Education and Welfare.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213-214.
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 52, 509-516.
72 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment 30(1)

Nguyen, H. D., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Does stereotype threat affect test performance of minorities and
women? A meta-analysis of experimental evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 93, 1314-1334.
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving of real-world
problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45-53.
Paguio, L. P. (1983). The influence of gender of child and parent on perceptions of the ideal child. Child
Study Journal, 13, 187-194.
Pfeiffer, S. I., & Jarosewich, T. (2007). The Gifted Rating Scales-School Form: An analysis of the standard-
ization sample based on age, gender, race, and diagnostic efficiency. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51, 39-50.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrances (1958 to present) longitudinal
study data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103-114.
Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isnt creativity more important to educational psychol-
ogists? Potential, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96.
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring
techniques in the assessment of divergent thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 1-22.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In
R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-60). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and
discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 55-63.
Priest, T. (2006). Self-evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music, 34, 47-61.
Proctor, R. M. J., & Burnett, P. C. (2004). Measuring cognitive and dispositional characteristics of creativity
in elementary students. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 421-429.
Renzulli, J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for creative produc-
tivity. In R .J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring definition of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting cre-
ative productivity. In R .J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.,
pp. 246-280). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M.A., & Chand, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In M. A. Runco
(Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using ideational output and creational
index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213-221.
Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem finding, divergent thinking and the creative process. Journal
of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211-220.
Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for
scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 149-156.
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a mea-
sure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393-400.
Ryser, G. R. (2007). Profiles of creative abilities: Examiners manual. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Selby, E. C., Treffinger, D. J., Isaksen, S. G., & Powers, S. V. (1993). Use of the Kirton Adaption-Innovation
Inventory with middle school students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 27, 223-235.
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., . . . Richard, C. A.
(2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new
subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68-85.
Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits and the life course: A 45-year longitudinal
study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33, 208-232.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). WICS: Wisdom, Intelligence, and Creativity, Synthesized. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 87-98.
Kaufman et al. 73

Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 12, 195-199.
Torrance, E. P. (1970). Encouraging creativity in the classroom. Dubuque, IA: William C. Brown Company.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative ThinkingNormsTechnical ManualFigural
(Streamlined) Forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Streamlined administration and
scoring manual (Rev. ed.). Bensonville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Wakefield, J. F. (1985). Toward creativity: Problem finding in a divergent thinking exercise. Child Study
Journal, 15, 265-270.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence
distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence
distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston.
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman.
Woldfradt, U., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). Individual differences in creativity: Personality, story writing, and
hobbies. European Journal of Personality, 15, 297-310.

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen