See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/235342006

Evaluation of children's creativity: Psychometric properties of

Torrance's 'Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement' test

Article  in  Early Child Development and Care · April 2009

DOI: 10.1080/03004430601078669

CITATIONS READS
20 681

3 authors:

Evridiki Zachopoulou Anastasia Makri

Alexander Technological Educational Institute of Thessaloniki National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
60 PUBLICATIONS   733 CITATIONS    4 PUBLICATIONS   63 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pollatou Elisana
University of Thessaly
26 PUBLICATIONS   126 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Playful behaviour View project

Early Steps Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Evridiki Zachopoulou on 06 June 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ]
On: 15 March 2012, At: 09:39
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Early Child Development and Care

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

Evaluation of children's creativity:

psychometric properties of Torrance's
‘Thinking Creatively in Action and
Movement’ test
a b c
Evridiki Zachopoulou , Anastasia Makri & Elisana Pollatou
a
Alexandrio Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki,
Greece
b
Democritus University of Thrace, Greece
c
University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece

Available online: 27 Apr 2009

To cite this article: Evridiki Zachopoulou, Anastasia Makri & Elisana Pollatou (2009): Evaluation
of children's creativity: psychometric properties of Torrance's ‘Thinking Creatively in Action and
Movement’ test, Early Child Development and Care, 179:3, 317-328

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03004430601078669

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-

conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Early Child Development and Care
Vol. 179, No. 3, April 2009, 317–328

Evaluation of children’s creativity: psychometric properties of

Torrance’s ‘Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement’ test
Evridiki Zachopouloua*, Anastasia Makrib and Elisana Pollatouc
a
Alexandrio Technological Educational Institution of Thessaloniki, Greece; bDemocritus
University of Thrace, Greece; cUniversity of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

Early
10.1080/03004430601078669
GECD_A_207802.sgm
0300-4430
Original
Taylor
02009
00
000002009
Child
and
& Article
Francis
(print)/1476-8275
Francis
Development and(online)
Care

The purpose of this study was to examine the test–retest reliability of Torrance’s
‘Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement’ (TCAM) test and the relationship
between TCAM and the Divergent Movement Ability (DMA) test. The TCAM
and DMA tests were used for a sample of 115 children, while the whole
experimental procedure included three testing sessions: first and second testing
sessions for the TCAM test and retest, and third testing session for the DMA test.
The time interval between the two testing sessions was two weeks and each testing
session lasted approximately 10 days. The results for the comparison between the
test and the retest session for TCAM showed a high intra-class correlation
coefficient, and also the paired simplet-test indicated that there were no
statistically significant differences between the two testing sessions. Canonical
correlation analysis revealed a high correlation between TCAM variables and
DMA variables. A low value has been only reported concerning the variable of
TCAM imagination. In conclusion, the present results are encouraging and seem
to support the psychometric properties of TCAM for preschool-aged children,
showing that TCAM is a valid and reliable instrument to measure creative
movement in preschool children.
Keywords: motor creativity assessment; internal consistency; canonical
correlation; preschool children

Introduction
Definitions of creativity reflect a host of diverse characteristics of creative adults and
creative children. Many definitions recognize the complexity of creativity (Davis,
1997; Isaksen, 1987; Treffinger, 1987). Isaksen (1987) noted that creativity occurs in
many people, in differing degrees and manners, and should be viewed as ‘a multi-
faceted phenomenon rather than as a single unitary construct capable of precise
definition’ (p. 8). Creativity could be defined as a qualitative and discrete trait of the
human intellect. Therefore, it includes divergent/convergent and primary/secondary
thinking methods as well as critical/analytical thinking processes, intuition, imagina-
tion, elaboration, creative outcomes, novelty and utility as well as certain personal and
environmental factors (Barron & Harrington, 1981; Torrance, 1981; Kalliopuska,
1989; Berretta & Privette, 1990; Smith & Tegano, 1992; Sen & Hagtvet, 1993; Lubart,
1994; Sternberg, 1994, 1997; Yong, 1994; Therivel, 1998; Ferracuti et al., 1999; Lack
et al., 2003).

*Corresponding author. Email: ezachopo@bc.teithe.gr

ISSN 0300-4430 print/ISSN 1476-8275 online

© 2009 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/03004430601078669
http://www.informaworld.com
 318 E. Zachopoulou et al.

It is said that creative behaviour is expressed more easily when a person is not
aware of how to deal with a problem or an unknown situation. Early young children
confront problems in their everyday lives with which they are not familiar, so it is
quite plausible for them to develop creative mechanisms in order to cope with
reality. Torrance noted that every child is creative by its nature unless they have
experienced abandonment, cruelty, rejection, lack of love or an early loss (Torrance,
1981). However, a well-balanced amount of misfortunes and assistances as well as a
given genetic endowment may lead in high levels of creative activity (Therivel,
1998).
Creativity tests measure specific cognitive processes such as thinking divergently,
making associations, constructing and combining broad categories, or working on
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

many ideas simultaneously. They also measure non-cognitive aspects of creativity

such as motivation (e.g. desire of novelty, risk-taking), and facilitatory personal prop-
erties like flexibility, tolerance for independence, or positive attitudes to differentness
(Cropley, 2000). An important advance in creativity testing in recent years derives
from increasing recognition of the fact that actual creative production does not depend
on divergent thinking alone, but also requires convergent thinking (Rickards, 1994;
Brophy, 1998). Rickards (1994) argues that the process of producing effective novelty
needs both kinds of thinking in order to be complete.
At the preschool level, the focus of creativity is on the generation of ideas – the
process that precedes evaluation of ideas. Thus, an appropriate criterion for identify-
ing creative potential in preschoolers is the generation of unusual ideas (Tegano
et al., 1986). The problems involved in the measurement of creativity in preschool
children include problems that may be encountered in any research with young chil-
dren, such as: finding the most suitable instrument for assessing creativity in
preschool children, establishing familiarity and honesty between the experimenter
and the child, evaluating the responses the child gives through a child’s eyes, and
training the susceptibility of the examiners in recognizing and assessing the unusual
and original responses (Starkweather, 1964, p. 1971). Some factors that may affect
children’s creative behaviour are: the testing environment, variations in instructions
and other administration conditions, task unfamiliarity, as well as an individual’s
level of motivation, persistence, self-confidence and the perceived relevance of test-
ing tasks to real-life activity. Divergent thinking tests have come under harsh
criticism for measuring intelligence-related factors rather than creativity and for
being affected too easily by external circumstances. It has also being suggested that
the test procedure measures ‘creativity on request’ rather than creativity in daily life
(Baer, 1994; Fishkin & Johnson, 1998; Cropley, 2000; Craft, 2001).
Torrance’s Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) are the most widespread creativity
tests and consist of alternate forms of two batteries: a verbal section ‘Thinking
Creatively with Words’ and a nonverbal or figural section ‘Thinking Creatively with
Pictures’. The standard scoring system provides measures of fluency, flexibility, orig-
inality and elaboration (Torrance, 1981). Mouchiroud and Lubart (2001) studied the
effect of alternative evaluation models of originality in the evaluation system of TTCT
according to its potentiality as well as its age’s norms suitability. Early young children
originality was measured via three trials based on TTCT norms (Unusual Uses of a
box test) plus three more divergent thinking tests. The results showed that alternative
evaluation models of originality had statistically significant effects in: creativity
indicators, the reliability of originality scores and in the relationship between original-
ity and other creativity measures.
 Early Child Development and Care 319

Moran et al. (1984) studied the imaginative game of 15 children, aged from 47 to
57 months, via three tests that measure ideational fluency: Wallach and Kogan (1965),
Starkweather (1971) and Ward (1968, 1969). Real-time creativity as well as fantasy
predisposition were measured by direct observation, which included videotaping
children’s behaviour in the classroom. Two 10-minute observations by two different
observers were recorded for each child. During self-selected activities, observations
were performed behind a one-way mirror; during the outdoor time, observers were on
the playground with the children. Quantitative measures were conducted concurrently
with the qualitative measures and lasted approximately 15 minutes. The results
showed significant correlations among ideational fluency, fantasy predisposition and
imaginative play. This finding provided preliminary evidence for the construct valid-
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

ity of the multidimensional model of creativity proposed by the researchers.

Preschool children have only marginal skills for expressing their feelings or ideas
in words and drawings, and so they feel more comfortable expressing their thoughts
through the kinesthetic modality more than other modalities (Torrance, 1981).
Torrance’s ‘Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement’ (TCAM) test (Torrance,
1981) is suitable for preschool children (aged from three to eight years old) because it
does not require verbal responses, although verbal responses are accepted. The differ-
ence in response mode (verbal or non-verbal) may be critical in the cross-validation
of these measures. The relationship between verbal creativity and non-verbal creativity
(i.e. movement) in young children is unclear. Several studies have examined response
mode with older subjects but have found no conclusive support for the verbal/non-
verbal relationship (Brennan, 1982). No literature, however, has been found that
addresses this issue with young children.
Holguin and Sherrill (1989) examined the psychometric properties of TCAM in 30
young learning-disabled boys and 193 non-disabled children (mean = 8.11 years).
Significant differences were found between the two groups on fluency, imagination
and total motor creativity, but not on originality. Testing–retesting over 1–14 days
gave coefficients of 0.71–0.89. The alpha coefficient for total test internal consistency
was 0.79. It appeared that originality may be a strength of young disabled boys, but
fluency and imagination may be areas of weakness. In conclusion, Holguin and
Sherrill (1989) suggest that further psychometric research is needed on the Torrance
TCAM test. The manual of this test reports reliability coefficient’s values above 0.58
(from 0.58 to 0.79).
According to Michael and Wright (1989), validity of creativity assessment is the
single most important consideration when selecting a test. Concurrent validity coeffi-
cients are generally lower for creativity measures than validity coefficients found in
other domains, such as achievement or intelligence. However, this is not surprising
given the many facets of creativity and the variety of definitions from which creativity
measures are derived (Davis, 1997; Michael & Wright, 1989).
Tegano et al. (1986) examined the concurrent validity as well as the construct
validity of the TCAM test (Torrance, 1981) and the Multidimensional Stimulus
Fluency Measure (Moran et al., 1983). Significant inter-correlations among the
subtests of each instrument demonstrated construct validity, and concurrent validity
was established with Spearman rank-order correlations between the scores of the two
tests (r = 0.55, p < 0.01). Lloyd and Howe (2003) examined the relationship between
multiple forms of solitary play (solitary–active, solitary–passive, reticence) and
convergent and divergent thinking. The sample consisted of 72 preschool children.
Divergent thinking was assessed via TCAM, while convergent thinking via the
 320 E. Zachopoulou et al.

Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and Wechster Primary and Preschool Scale
of Intelligence Test-Revised (WPPSI-R) tests (Picture Completion subtest by Sattler
[1992]). Solitary-active play was more strongly positively related to divergent think-
ing, whereas reticent behaviour was more strongly negatively associated with conver-
gent and divergent thinking.
Loraine and Joan (1992) examined the correlations among social or non-social play,
intelligence, convergent and divergent thinking in a sample of 34 children aged from
three to five years old. Divergent thinking was assessed with TCAM as well as the
Unusual Uses Test (Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Convergent thinking was assessed by
testing each subject on the abbreviated form of the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scale
(Form L–M, 1972 norms). Play behaviours were observed via a nested form of the
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

Patern/Smilansky social–cognitive play scales used by Rubin et al. (1976). Negative

relationships were seen between non-social play and divergent and convergent think-
ing. In conclusion, social play maybe an important prerequisite for divergent thinking.
Although Torrance (1981) stated that measures of creativity for preschool-aged
children other than the TCAM test ‘call into play different modalities and cannot be
expected to produce comparable scores’ (p. 7), he reported studies that attempt to
validate the TCAM (Erikson, 1977; Reisman et al., 1981). Perhaps the most direct
validity study of TCAM was conducted by Reisman et al. (1981), who found that
TCAM measures were correlated positively and significantly with the Modified Piaget
Tests and the Mathematics Readiness Test, but not with the convergent Piaget test of
conservation of number and mass. They suggested, that ‘creative thinking ability as
assessed by the TCAM predicts significant cognitive performances that involve some
divergent thought’ (Reisman et al., 1981, p. 209).
The development of valid and reliable creativity measures as well as the collection
of sufficient data is essential, as they will contribute in the increase of knowledge with
regard to the multifaceted importance of creative movement in children holistic devel-
opment. The purpose of this study was to examine the psychometric properties of the
TCAM test (Torrance, 1981) in preschool children. More specifically, the present
study examined the test–retest reliability of TCAM and the relationship between
TCAM and the Divergent Movement Ability (DMA) test (Cleland & Gallahue, 1993).
The use of both these tests is proposed from the literature in order to evaluate
children’s motor creativity. The relationship between these tests was examined by
employing a multivariate statistical technique, namely canonical correlation analysis.

Method
Subjects
A sample of 115 children (57 girls and 58 boys) participated in this study, from five
preschool centres. Two of the preschool centres were located in Thessaloniki and 57
children participated in that study. The first preschool centre consisted of two classes.
The first class had 16 children (13 boys and three girls) and the second class had 17
children (10 girls and seven boys). The second preschool centre in Thessaloniki
consisted of 24 children (14 girls and 10 boys). The other three preschool centres were
located in Athens and 58 children were the participants of this study. The first
preschool centre in Athens consisted of two classes. The first class had 18 children (10
boys and eight girls) and the second class had 12 children (six boys and six girls). The
second preschool centre in Athens consisted of 13 children (eight boys and five girls).
Finally, the third preschool centre in Athens consisted of 15 children (11 girls and four
 Early Child Development and Care 321

boys). These preschool centres were selected randomly from two big cities of Greece
via the Internet page of the Ministry of Education. All children from these specific
preschool centres who were aged from three to five years old (mean = 4 ± 0.7 years)
participated in this study. Parental permission was obtained before the beginning of
the study.

Measures
The Greek language version of the Torrance TCAM test was used. The administration
and the scoring manual were translated back to back from English to Greek and some
appropriate adaptations were made. The test includes four activities. The first, third
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

and fourth activities are scored for fluency and originality while the second activity is
scored for imagination. Fluency is defined as the ability to produce alternative ways
of moving. Originality is the ability to move in novel, unique or unusual ways. Imag-
ination is the ability to imagine, empathize, fantasize and assume unaccustomed roles.
For the first activity (How many ways?) the child is asked to run or walk across
the room in as many ways as possible. The second activity (Can you move like?)
includes six pretend situations, four of them telling the child that he or she is an animal
or object (tree, rabbit, fish and snake) and the other two casting the child in roles
related to other subjects (driving a car and pushing an elephant off a desired object).
The third activity (What other ways?) requires that the child demonstrate all the ways
to put a paper cup in a trashcan. For the fourth activity (what might it be?) the child
plays with and finds different uses for a paper cup.
Fluency was calculated by summing the different responses recorded on score
sheets. Originality was calculated via the tests’ norms of the most frequent responses
given by a sample of 500 children ranging in age from three to seven years. Imagina-
tion scores were calculated by a five-point scale rating (from 1 = no movement to 5 =
excellent imitation).
The subject’s divergent movement was assessed using the DMA test (Cleland &
Gallahue, 1993), which consisted of three fundamental movement tasks:

● One task included four stations. Equipment located in each station area was used
to elicit a variety of locomotor movement patterns and movement in different
directions. Concretely, stations were composed of: four cones placed diagonal
one to one-and-a-half metres from each other, a mat four feet by six feet , a
jumping rope 38 inch x 18 inch tied in two chairs and a hula hoop placed
horizontally distant 12 inches from the ground, based on three foam cubes.
● The second task evaluated the subject’s ability to make shapes on, below, beside
or at the end of a padded bench 18 inches high. The task was designed to
measure how many body parts, shapes and levels (high, medium or low) the
subject used to execute a variety of movements.
● A third task evaluated the subject’s ability to manipulate a playground ball nine
inches in diameter within a U-shaped space (10 feet × 15 feet) that was bounded
by one wall and cones. Subjects were told that they could use the wall if they
wanted to.

Two trials, each lasting one-and-a-half minutes, were provided for each task. Rest
periods of 30 seconds were provided between trials and rest periods of one minute
were given between each of the three test tasks. The total movement time for all three
 322 E. Zachopoulou et al.

fundamental tasks was nine minutes. Subjects were reminded during the rest period
that they were to continue to ‘find as many ways as possible’. Innovative movement
responses were verbally encouraged.
The criterion measures were motor fluency and motor flexibility. Fluency is a
dimension of divergent movement since subjects are asked to execute as many move-
ment responses as possible. The second dimension of divergent movement is flexibility
since each movement response has to be different from any previous motor response
(Barron & Harrington, 1981) and it can be achieved when the movement concepts
(space, relationships, etc.) are used to modify fundamental movement skills (Cleland
& Gallahue, 1993). Motor fluency was calculated by summing the different responses
recorded on score sheets. Each different pattern and the variations of these represented
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

‘different’ responses. If a subject performed a movement pattern that was not a

response included on the score sheet, that different response was added to the subject’s
score sheet. Motor flexibility was the number of thematic changes, which means
changes in the effort exerted, in the spatial aspect or by changing one’s relation to
another person or object. Originality has been defined as statistical rareness or unique-
ness of a motor response in comparison to the population sample.

Experimental procedure
All testing was conducted in the indoor multipurpose room of the preschool centres.
The testing room contained enough space for one child to move comfortably. The
temperature was comfortable and distractions were kept to a minimum. Efforts were
made to avoid taking children from their favourite activities.
The examiners visited in advance the groups (for one hour) in order to develop some
degree of familiarity and trust. The administration and scoring procedure of the
Torrance TCAM test followed the standardized test instructions (Torrance, 1981).
Three examiners conducted the research after their training in the evaluation techniques
of the test. For the second activity of the test (Can you move like?) inter-rater reliability
among the examiners was established up to 89% before the beginning of the test.
All measures took place in the morning hours (from 9 a.m. to 12 a.m.) and lasted
approximately three months. The whole experimental procedure included three testing
sessions: first and second testing sessions for the TCAM test and retest, and third test-
ing session for the DMA test. The time interval between two testing sessions was two
weeks and each testing session lasted approximately 10 days. During the first testing
session, the TCAM test was administered and subjects were tested individually, and
testing lasted approximately 15 minutes for every child, so 8–12 children were
measured every day. The second testing session, which included the retesting of
TCAM, began two weeks later and lasted approximately 10 days . The third testing
session included the administration of the DMA test, where subjects were tested also
individually.

Results
The internal consistency of fluency and originality of TCAM for the testing session
and the retesting session was examined. Internal consistency reliability coefficients for
fluency and originality for the testing session were above the conventionally accepted
values (0.72 and 0.75, respectively). These coefficients for fluency and originality for
the retesting session were 0.73 and 0.80, respectively.
 Early Child Development and Care 323

Table 1. Means, standard deviations, internal consistency, and ICCs for TCAM variables for
the two testing sessions (test and retest).
Test Retest
Mean ± standard Mean ± standard
Measure deviation α deviation α ICC(A,1)
TCAM Fluency 17.28 ± 4.51 0.66 19.73 ± 6.83 0.73 0.96
TCAM Originality 24.04 ± 6.29 0.70 21.28 ± 4.77 0.80 0.97
TCAM Imagination 18.88 ± 4.47 15.56 ± 5.18 0.91
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

The temporal stability of TCAM was examined using the intra-class correlation
coefficient (ICC). Among the many alternative intra-class correlation coefficients
reported by McGraw and Wong (1996), the ICC(A,1) for the estimation of absolute
agreement between measurements was selected. The computation of the ICC(A,1) is
based on a two-way model, in which it is assumed that there is a systematic source of
variance associated with columns (trials) as well as with rows (children). The ICC(A,1)
expresses the reliability of a single measurement. Table 1 presents the values for the
internal consistency reliability coefficienta, and the ICC for the three TCAM variables.
To check for possible differences between the two testing sessions (test and retest),
paired simplet-tests were used. Analysis indicated that there were no statistically
significant differences (p > 0.001) for TCAM fluency, TCAM originality and TCAM
imagination between the two testing sessions.
Canonical correlation analysis was employed to examine the multivariate relation-
ship between the TCAM and the DMA. Means and standard deviations of the factors
of the test TCAM and test DMA are presented in Table 2.
One significant canonical function emerged that yielded a canonical correlationrs
= 0.81, Wilks’ λ = 0.39, and p = 0.001. In Table 2 the loadings of the two tests with
their variables on the canonical function are shown. Following the suggestion of
Tabachnick and Fidell (1996), a cut-off score of 0.30 was used to interpret loadings.
The variables ‘TCAM fluency’ and ‘TCAM originality’ had a high loading,
whereas lower loading was noticed for ‘TCAM imagination’. The three DMA
variables also reached high loadings.
The strength of the relationship between the two sets of variables was assessed using
the redundancy index (Stewart & Love, 1968). This statistic indicated that 53.25% of
the variance in the TCAM variables was accounted for by the DMA variance.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics and canonical loadings of the TCAM and DMA variables.
Mean ± standard deviation Function 1
TCAM test
TCAM Fluency 17.28 ± 4.51 0.92
TCAM Originality 24.04 ± 6.29 0.99
TCAM Imagination 18.88 ± 4.47 0.21
DMA test
DMA Fluency 19.12 ± 6.35 0.97
DMA Originality 9.45 ± 4.67) 0.88
DMA Flexibility 20.06 ± 8.25 0.96
 324 E. Zachopoulou et al.

The redundancy index serves as a measure of accounted-for variance, and it is

similar to the R2 calculation used in multiple regression. However, it should be noted
that canonical correlation analysis does not deal with a single criterion variable but
has a criterion set that is a composite of several variables, and this composite has only
a portion of each dependent variable’s total variance. For this reason, Hair et al.
(1995) point out that it cannot be assumed that 100% of the variance in the criterion
set is available to be explained by the predictor set. Several authors tend to interpret
redundancy index values above 10% as significant and meaningful (Duda et al.,
1991; Koustelios & Tsigilis, 2005).
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

Discussion
Among the ‘creativity’ tests, the Torrance battery is probably the most widely
researched and used for children at the school level (Rosenthal et al., 1983). The
present study examined the internal consistency of fluency and originality of TCAM
for the testing and the retesting session, and the results showed high values for this
psychometric characteristic of TCAM.
Two methods were used to check the temporal stability of TCAM, the ICC and
the paired simple t-tests. Although the Pearson product moment correlation has tradi-
tionally been employed as an index of reliability, many investigators criticized its
use (McGraw & Wong, 1996; Tomas & Nelson, 1996; Tsigilis & Theodosiou,
2003). This statistical analysis has been designed to investigate the bivariate relation-
ship of two variables representing different classes of measurement (interclass corre-
lation). Determination of reliability, however, involves univariate measures.
Furthermore, sources of systematic variance from trial to trial cannot be assessed
using Pearson’s r coefficient. That means that the correlation coefficient is insensi-
tive to any possible differences in the means and variances of the raw data. A more
appropriate index of reliability in the case of multiple trials might be the intra-class
correlation coefficient.
The present results showed a high ICC, which clearly indicate that children’s
scores of TCAM between the test and retest sessions did not change. The reliability of
TCAM was also examined using the paired simple t-test and the results indicated that
there were no statistically significant differences (p > 0.001) for TCAM fluency,
TCAM originality and TCAM imagination between the two testing sessions.
Canonical correlation analysis revealed a high correlation between TCAM
variables and DMA variables. The nature of observed variable canonical loadings
indicates that the creativity variables of the two tests are positively correlated, yielding
high values (from 0.88 to 0.99). A low value has been only reported concerning the
variable of TCAM imagination. Canonical loadings indicate that TCAM is primary
affected by children’s originality followed by children’s fluency.
Children’s imagination did not reach the cut-off value of 0.30 suggested by
Tabachnick and Fidell (1996). Imagination is essential for creative movement but
may also be a qualitative characteristic that can only be compared with itself.
Cameron (1988) noted that imagination is not easy to define or measure quantita-
tively and is not related to memory. The second activity of TCAM measures imagi-
nation in terms of imagined, empathized, fantasized and assumed unaccustomed
roles. There is a five-point scale (ranging from 1 = no movement to 5 = excellent,
like the thing) in order to evaluate children’s’ imagination. While Torrance’s defini-
tion of imagination as a criterion of creativity is not related to memory or imitation,
 Early Child Development and Care 325

the evaluation of this activity encrypts imitation – as the child is asked to move ‘like’
a tree, a snake, a rabbit, a fish or ‘like’ driving a car – and memory because all these
situations – especially the snake and the fish – have to be stirred up from the child’s
memory. Harnad (1990) noted that imitation is not a creative action.
The results for DMA showed that it is affected from the three creativity variables:
fluency, originality and flexibility. Cleland and Gallahue (1993) defined divergent
movement as the combination of two creativity measures: motor fluency and motor
flexibility. The addition of originality in these two measures gives the definition of
creative movement.
It seems that divergent movement ability as well as creative movement are statis-
tically significant correlated with TCAM fluency and TCAM originality. There was
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

no statistically significant correlation among imagination and the other DMA

variables. It seems that imagination is a unique aspect of creativity, which is probably
task oriented.
In conclusion, the present results are encouraging and seem to support the psycho-
metric properties of TCAM for preschool-aged children, showing that the TCAM test
is a valid and reliable instrument to measure creative movement in preschool children.
More specifically, TCAM yielded adequate internal consistency for measuring the
dimensions of children’s motor creativity.
Testing for creativity is recognized as an important component of educational
assessment. In the West, divergent thinking tests are easily available and are the most
commonly used measures of children’s creative potential (Hocevar & Bachelor,
1989; Runco, 1986, 1990). It is important for educators and researchers to first
clarify their theoretical position or understanding of creativity prior to selecting
assessment instruments. Otherwise, they might select assessments that are inconsis-
tent with their own implicit idea of creativity (Runco, 1993) or inconsistent with
needed adjustments to the students’ curriculum (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995).
Assessment of a child’s ability to generate unusual ideas may serve several purposes
for educators of young children:

● Teachers may heighten their awareness of creativity as a positive attribute of

young children.
● Unlike most tests, the emphasis may suggest importance of a ‘no right or wrong
answer’ approach.
● Teachers may discover a ‘creative child’ and, as a result, may be able to reframe
their understanding of that child’s classroom interactions.
● In administering and scoring any creativity tests, teachers may become more
aware of the steps in the process of creativity.

Creativity is multifaceted and so, it is difficult to be assessed quantitatively only.

It has been recommended that any single measure of creativity is rarely sufficient by
itself (Fishkin & Johnson, 1998) and that creativity tests are best thought of as tests of
creative potential, not of creativity (Cropley, 2000). Baer (1994) noted that part of the
problem in creativity measurement lies in defining the criteria that will be accepted as
evidence of creativity, and concluded that it depends on one’s theory of creativity.
Future research should combine quantitative with qualitative methods of evaluation in
order to assess creativity that might occur in children’s real-life activity, when creativity
emerges spontaneously – not ‘on request’.
 326 E. Zachopoulou et al.

References
Baer, J. (1994). Why you still shouldn’t trust creativity tests. Educational leadership, 52(2),
72–73.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. (1981). Creativity, intelligence and personality. Annual Review
of Psychology, 32, 439–476.
Berretta, S. & Privette, G. (1990). Influence of play on creative thinking. Perceptual and
Motor Skills, 71, 659–666.
Brennan, M.A. (1982). Relationship between creativity ability in dance and selected creative
attributes. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55, 47–56.
Brophy, D.R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative problem-
solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 123–150.
Cameron, J., (1988). A proposed model of imagination and creativity. Wisconsin Academy
Review, 34(3), 33–36.
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

Cleland, F. & Gallahue, D. (1993). Young children’s divergent movement ability. Perceptual
and Motor Skills, 77, 535–544.
Craft, A. (2001). Little c creativity. In A. Craft, B. Jeffrey, & M. Leibling (Eds.), Creativity in
education. London: Continuum.
Cropley, A. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: are creativity tests worth using?
Roeper Review, 23(2), 1–18.
Davis, G.A. (1997). Identifying creative students and measuring creativity. In N. Colangelo,
& G. A. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Duda, J.L., Olson, L.K., & Templin, T.J. (1991). The relationships of task and ego orienta-
tion to sportsmanship attitudes and the perceived legitimacy of injurious acts. Research
Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 62(1), 79–87.
Erikson, J.G. (1977). A study of the verbal productive humor of preschool children. Dissertation
Abstracts International, 38a, 5999 (University Microfilms No. 78-03984).
Ferracuti, S., Cannoni, E., Burla, F., & Lazzari, R. (1999). Correlations for the Rorschach
with the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 89, 863–870.
Fishkin, A.S. & Johnson, A.S. (1998). Who is creative? Identifying children’s creative abilities.
Roeper Review, 21(1), 40–59.
Hair, J.F., Anderson, R.E., Tatham, R.L., & Black, W.C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis
with readings. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Harnad, S. (1990). Creativity: method or magic? Available online at: http://
www.ecs.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/ (accessed 23 August 2003).
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the
study of creativity. In J.A. Glover, R.R. Ronning, & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of
creativity. New York: Plenum Press.
Holguin, O., & Sherrill, C. (1989). Use of a motor creativity test with young learning disabled
boys. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1315–1318.
Hunsaker, S.L. & Callahan, C.M. (1995). Creativity and giftness: published instrument uses
and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 110–114.
Isaksen, S.G. (1987). Introduction: an orientation to the frontiers of creativity research. In
S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity research: beyond the basics (pp. 1–26).
Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Kalliopuska, M. (1989). Empathy, self-esteem and creativity among junior ballet dancers.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 69, 1227–1234.
Koustelios, A. & Tsigilis, N. (2005). The relationships between burnout and job satisfaction
among physical education teachers: a multivariate approach. European Physical Education
Review, 11(2), 189–203.
Lack, S.A., Kumar, V.K., & Arevalo, S. (2003). Fantasy proneness, creative capacity, and
styles of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96, 19–24.
Lloyd, B., & Howe, N. (2003). Solitary play and convergent and divergent thinking skills in
preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 18(1), 22–41.
Loraine, D., & Joan, H. (1992). Play behaviors and convergent and divergent thinking skills
of young children attending full-day preschool. Child Study Journal, 22(1), 23–38.
Lubart, T. (1994). Thinking and problem solving (R. Sternberg, Ed.) Boston: Academic Press.
McGraw, K.O., & Wong, S.P. (1996). Forming inferences about the some intraclass correlation
coefficients. Psychological Methods, 1, 30–46.
 Early Child Development and Care 327

Michael, W.B., & Wright, C.R. (1989). Psychometric issues in the assessment of creativity. In
J. A. Glover, R.R. Ronning & C.R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 33–52).
New York: Plenum.
Moran, J.D., Miligram, R.M., Sawyers, J.K., & Fu, V.R. (1983). Original thinking in
preschool children. Child Development, 54, 921–926.
Moran, J.D., Sawyers, J.K., Fu, V.R., & Miligram, R.M. (1984). Predicting imaginative play
in preschool children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28(2), 92–94.
Mouchiroud, C. & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: an empirical examination
of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. The Journal of Genetic
Psychology, 162(4), 382–401.
Reisman, F.K., Floyd, B., & Torrance, E.P. (1981). Performance on Torrance’s Thinking
Creativity in Action and Movement as a predictor of cognitive development of young
children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 205–210.
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

Rickards, T.J. (1994). Creativity from a business school perspective: past, present and future.
In S.G. Isaksen, M.C. Murdock, R.L. Firestien, & D.J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and
developing creativity: the emergence of a discipline (155–176). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rosenthal, A., DeMers, S.T., Stilwell, W., Graybeal, S., & Zins, J. (1983). Comparison of
inter-rater reliability on the Torrance tests of creative thinking for gifted and nongifted
students. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 35–40.
Rubin, K.H., Maioni, T.L., & Hornung, M. (1976). Free play behaviors in preschool and
kindergarten children. Child Development, 47, 414–419.
Runco, M.A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted
children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375–383.
Runco, M.A. (1990). Implicit theories and ideational creativity. In M.A. Runco & R.S. Albert
(Eds.), Theories of creativity. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Runco, M.A. (1993). Cognitive and psychometric issues in creativity research. In S.G.
Isaksen, M.C. Murdock, M.L. Firestien, & D.J. Treffinger (Eds.), Understanding and
recognizing creativity: the emergence of a discipline (pp. 331–368). Norwood, NJ:
Ablex.
Sattler, J.M. (1992). Assessment of children: WISC-III and WPPSI-R supplement. San Diego:
Jerome M. Sattler.
Sen, A.K. & Hagtvet, K.A. (1993). Correlations among creativity, intelligence, personality
and academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 497–449.
Smith, D.E. & Tegano, D.W. (1992). Relationship of scores on two personality measures:
creativity and self-image. Psychological Reports, 71, 43–49.
Starkweather, E.K. (1964). Problems in the measurement of creativity in preschool children.
Journal of Educational Measurement, 1, 543–547.
Starkweather, E.K. (1971). Creativity research instruments designed for use with preschool
children. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 5(4), 245–255.
Sternberg, R. (1994). Intelligence. In R. Sternberg (Ed.), Thinking and problem solving.
Boston: Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. (1997). What does it mean to be smart? Educational Leadership, 54(6), 20–24.
Stewart, D., & Love, W. (1968). A general canonical index. Psychological Bulletin, 70(3),
160–163.
Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (1996). Using multivariate statistics (3rd ed.). New York:
Harper-Collins.
Tegano, D.W., Moran III, J.D., & Godwin, L.J. (1986). Cross-validation of two creativity
tests designed for pre school children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 1, 387–396.
Therivel, W.A. (1998). Creative genius and the GAM theory of personality: why Mozart and
not Salieri? Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13(2), 201–234.
Tomas, J., & Nelson, J. (1996). Research methods in physical activity (3rd edn) Champaign,
IL: Human Kinetics.
Torrance, E.P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Benesville, IL: Scholastic
Testing Service.
Treffinger, D.J. (1987). Research on creativity assessment. In S.G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of
creativity research: beyond the basics (pp. 103–119). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.
Tsigilis, N., & Theodosiou, A. (2003). Temporal stability of the intrinsic motivation inven-
tory. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 97, 271–280.
 328 E. Zachopoulou et al.

Wallach, M.A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York: Holt.
Rinehart & Winston.
Ward, W.C. (1968). Creativity in young children. Child Development, 39, 737–754.
Ward, W.C. (1969). Rate and uniqueness in children’s creative responding. Child Development,
40, 869–878.
Yong, L.M.S. (1994). Relations between creativity and intelligence among Malaysian pupils.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 739–742.
Downloaded by [Nat and Kapodistran Univ of Athens ] at 09:39 15 March 2012

View publication stats