TESTING CREATIVITY: A ROAD WITH MANY

BIFURCATIONS
LAURA TEODORA DAVID a
Transilvania University of Brasov,
Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences
a

Abstract
Creativity is considered a very resourceful concept, and if we look at it from a
practical approach, then the concept become even more important. Testing creativity
brings in the topic of defining creativity. There are at least four perspectives involved in
creativity understanding: the process, the person, the product and the pressure from
outside. Each of these perspectives promotes their own methods in testing creativity. They
raise awareness about what creativity means, but also generate debates and unsatisfactory
knowledge. In the following paper the four perspectives will be analyzed through their
contribution to testing creativity. New suggestions in using the specialized instruments are
also discussed. The most recent findings promote the idea of mixt techniques in order to
find relevant information about the target concept. Correspondingly, mixt sources are
recommended such as self-evaluation, hetero-evaluation and objectives measures. Walking
the road of creativity testing leads toward the possibility to identify creative persons or
people with creative potential, to be able to understand creativity and to plan programs
that enhance it, to find the contribution of different abilities to creativity and to predict
behavior related with creativity. The field is fertile, nevertheless intriguing and
controversial.
Cuvinte cheie: creativitate, psihodiagnostic, testare, originalitate, utilitate
Keywords: creativity, psychological assessment, testing, originality, usefulness

1. INTRODUCTION
The interest connected with creativity has generated a large number of
initiatives that aimed to assess creativity. The specialists have targeted to validate
methods in order to identify creative people or creative products and by doing so,
they can contribute to the sustainability of creativity into society. The purpose of
testing creativity is not an easy approach, and the need to take into consideration
multiple trends is necessary. Some of the most recognized debates concerning
creativity start with its definition, goes to dichotomy Big C little c, tackle the
dispute about generality-specificity of creativity (Lubart, Guignard, 2004) and ends
*

Corresponding author:
LauraTeodora David
Email: lauradavid@unitbv.ro

to the different theories that explain creativity as process, person, product or

pressure from the environment (Runco, 2004, 2007a, 2007b).
In the definitions challenge, some consents is reached by accepting that
creativity means originality and value/ usefulness, meaning that in order to talk
about creativity both requirements have to be satisfied. Even so, there is still
disputable how much originality is good: very original, completely new is difficult
to understand, or can be just bizarre, and the degree of usefulness is very dependent
by the social context in which it is evaluated (Lubart, & Guignard, 2004; Runco, &
Jaeger, 2012). Other components of the definitions emphasize the importance of
the process involved (such as Torrance definition 1966, apud Kim, 2006) or the
interaction among ability, process, product and environment (Plucker, & Beghetto,
2004).
Other considerations must be given to the difference between Big C little c
when testing is targeted. Big C means eminent creativity; it requires specialization,
effort, dedication and planning and is validated by a group of experts also largely
recognized. The impact of eminent creativity is on societal level but the occurrence
of such a high creativity is rare and is dependent on the historical, economic and
cultural context. Little c, on the other hand means everyday creativity, it is
displayed at individual level signifying the ability to solve everyday challenges
through novel ways. The creative potential is activated when a person is able to
transform the ordinary, to identify problems and to solve them in a unique and
appropriate manner. Sometimes little c manifests spontaneously, other time need
preparation and commitment (Richards, 2007).
Regarding the controversial generality-specificity dimension, Pucker and
Beghetto (2004) consider that creativity needs a certain level of specialization and
experience, but too much of it can produce rigidity and overlook fresh perspectives.
In the same time, too less of it generates superficiality and inconsistency. The
balanced position values both expertize and dedication but leaves space for time
and investments in other domains that differ from the professional one.
Accordingly, a person should be exposed to different contexts that encourage
flexibility and adaptability but also should be supported to pursue his/her own
interests and passions.
Finally, the four Ps that encompass creativity are represented by:
Process, meaning a sequence of states, actions and specific operations
Person, cognitive ability more or less wide (and more or less in
interaction with other cognitive abilities)
Product, a result that is new and valuable/ useful
Pressure, external factors that influence creativity (environment,
economic resources, and cultural values).
In order to offer a more comprehensive procedure to the testing system, the
information will be structure according to these four Ps, without neglecting the
need of concluding remarks. A unified approach is presented after the separate
facets are discussed mirrored in Batey (2012) model. His model points toward
answering the what, how and where questions about testing creativity.
38

2. TESTING THE PROCESS OF CREATIVITY

In the center of this facet lays the very popular divergent thinking tests. Their
assignment is to offer as many answers/ solutions a person can give to a question or
stimulus. Guilford (1967) was the one who imposed these techniques as means to
test creativity based on his theory of intellects structure. Guilford defined
divergent thinking as the ability to manipulate ideas in a flexible, fluent, original
and elaborate manner, consequently divergent thinking tests allow to measure four
distinct scores:
fluidity: the number of answers,
flexibility: the number of different categories,
originality: the degree of novelty in the answer,
elaboration: the degree of complexity of the answer.
Starting from Guilfords theory, Torrance has developed a series of tasks that
later became one of the most used test for creativity assessment - Torrance tests for
creative thinking (TTCT). Their primary objective was to identify the strengths of
the subject being tested in order to increase them and to adjust the teaching
methods so that creative expressions are encouraged (Kim, 2007). TTCT are
hybrid tasks, qualitative and quantitative, based on collecting open answers from
the subject being tested. There are figural and verbal items, both with time limits,
allowing partial and global scores. Some of the controversy generated by TTCT are
due to the high correlation between fluidity and flexibility scores (that lead to the
renouncing of flexibility scores for figural tasks) and low correlation between
verbal and figural scores, which means that not only divergent thinking is involved
in the tasks but also some more specific component dependent on the domain
(Clapham, 2011; Kim, 2006, 2007; Plucker, & Makel, 2010). The validation
studies indicate two explicative models for TTCT scores:
- The first one shows a uni-factorial component, with a global score for
creativity
- The second one is bi-factorial (Kirton, 1989, apud Kim, 2007) with two
components: innovative creativity measured by fluidity, originality and resistance
to closure (persons with high scores are those who change paradigms) and adaptive
creativity measured by elaboration, sematic abstractizations and creative
characteristics (persons with high scores are those who extend the existing
paradigms).
Special attention should be given to instructions and the environment
conditions during testing, the results being sensitive to such factors (e.g. type of
materials being at hand, tasks being presented as a playful activity or as a
competitive one, atmosphere during testing and so on). The merits of the battery
are considerable (Kim, 2006, 2007): there are no gender, race, economic, cultural
or linguistic differences. The time required to complete the battery is cost efficient.
TTCT scores are better predictors then IQ scored for creative achievements and for
identifying gifted children. Longitudinal studies (Torrance, 2003; Runco, Miller,
39

Acar, & Cramond, 2010) showed moderate and high correlations (.39 to .63)
between TTCT scores and other indicators of creative achievement (such as public
recognized creative achievements).
Besides TTCT other known divergent thinking tests are Wallach & Kogan
test (1965, apud Starko, 2005) and Remote Associates Test RAT (Mednick,
1962, apud Sternberg, & OHara, 2005).
Focusing on process assessment through divergent thinking or remote
association these tests are one of the first options when creativity is evaluated. The
results of these tests have a good predictive validity, especially for shorter period of
time. More authors (Clapham, 2011; Starko, 2005) recommended replacing them
with tasks that require identifying problems not only solving problems, or tasks
that involve the ability to recognize the potential of an idea. Also, another
suggestion is to adapt assignments in a more ecological fashion, close to daily
living context.
3. TESTING CREATIVE PERSON
In this category of methods are included self-evaluation tests (such as
personality questionnaires, interests and attitude scales, biographical
questionnaires, behavioral scales) and hetero-evaluation tests (usually answered by
relatives, teachers, mentors, peers, experts) that assess traits or behavior related
with creativity.
Personality questionnaires represent a substantial type of instruments used to
study creativity. There are some independent scales and some scales that are
derived from bigger inventories, like C scale derived from MMPI-2 (Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory). The creative individuals detected by this scale
are sociable persons, able to engage in interpersonal relations, but usually associate
substance abuse behavior (mostly alcohol or anti-depressive or anxiolytic drugs),
high scores in hypomania and small but significant correlation with psychopathy
scores due to their rebellious nature and tendency to disobey rules (Nassif, &
Quevillon, 2008).
Feist and Barron (2003) showed that creative persons have high score for
openness and small scores for conscientiousness (from Big five factors model,
measured by NEO-PI-R), and high score for self-acceptance, dominance,
impulsivity, ambition, capacity for status from CPI (California Psychological
Inventory). Tolerance, achievement via independence, flexibility, psychological mindedness are also predictive for creativity.
Some useful independent scale is The Creative person profile (Martinsen,
2011) that covers cognitive and affective-motivational factors. All components of
the scale are validated through their good correlations with personality traits
specific to NEO-PI-R or CPI, disclosing that artists are open to experience, playful,
avoid routines, elude highly social stimulation, disobey conventions, are emotional
instable, goals oriented, have desire to succeed but are less interested in others
opinion, and more critical and stubborn than normal population.
40

Close by personality questionnaires stands interests and attitude inventories

that reveal that creative persons have multiple interests, hobbies, are involved in
activities that sometimes looks opposing, work simultaneous at more than one
project, are curious, adventurous without being driven by the need to finish tasks
but by the need to pursue the idea that appeals them.
Another method that places its interest on the person is the case study method
(Wallace, & Gruber, 1989; Gruber, & Wallace, 2005). The authors mentioned
above relay on biographical data, but go beyond that by the facts that:
They study one person at a time, but that person is exceptional
(highly creative).
The focus is on daily activities and his/her professional work
considered in interaction and as an evolving system.
The purpose is to understand the creative person as a whole taking the
course of life as an evolving change.
The ultimate goal is to formulate a theory on creativity.
The case study method proposed by Wallace and Gruber (1989) use
information from very diverse sources: the person her/ himself, family, friends,
peers, biographic and autobiographic documents, public documents, written
testimonials. All information is used to identify first what is common in every
person and is also true for highly creative ones, second what is specific only for
creative persons, third, what is unique for the precise case study and fourth the way
in which all these perspectives combine for one individual.
Some short comings of this method are that is focused on Big C creativity and
neglects little c. Inside method there can be limits related with the accuracy of
information gathered especially when between time of event and time of study
passed a long period. Also the lack or the parsimonious data on specific time of life
or specific activities can produce deficiency in understanding.

4. TESTING THE PRODUCT

Sternberg (2007, 2012) campaigns for the idea of using innovation to test
innovation, meaning that it takes creativity to test creativity. In his opinion to
assess creativity means to search to understand how a person creates, discovers,
invents, imagines, takes assumptions and makes predictions. He had verified the
validity of innovative techniques that assess the products during two major
projects: Aurora Project and Kaleidoscope Project. Mainly, the assessment tasks
asked the respondents to create stories, drawings, pictures, videos, or to create
advertising clips for specific items. In order to accomplish the tasks both analytical
and synthesis capacities of a persons were engage along with practical and
intellectual ones. The products were assessed by six different evaluators, using a
five points scale and were judged for originality, complexity, emotion involvement,
humor, cleverness and tasks accomplishment. The inter-scorer reliability was
41

close to a value of .90 which supports the capability of such techniques to measure
creativity.
Other procedures that test the product were introduce by Teresa Amabile
(apud Starko, 2005) naming here Consensual Assessment Technique CAT. This
technique uses experts to evaluate products by three criteria: how creative is the
product, the quality of the technical abilities involved and the quality of the product
as a whole. If the consensus among the experts reached 80 %, the product was
considered creative. The main principle of the method is that there are no preestablished rules or definition to judge creativity of the product, only the verdict of
the experts. Renzulli and Reis (1997, apud Starko, 2005) are more specific when
they institute the criteria for their instrument - Student Product Assessment Form
asking judgers to assess its originality, the degree of accomplishment the goal, the
quality over the expected level by the age of the respondent, the attention for
details/ the effort invested and the degree of tasks accomplishment.
Some precaution should be given when such an approach is used in testing
creativity:
The ability to produce creative results depends on the age of the
respondents (meaning that each time, criteria have to be adjusted from
an adult population to children population).
The results depend on the tasks (e.g. performance differs from verbal
to figural or kinesthetic tasks).
The subjectivity of the judges must be controlled as much as possible.
Assessment can diminish the degree of creativity being known that
external evaluation can act as an inhibitor for creativity.
Apart of these provisions, product evaluation is being more and more used in
educational context, in different stages of educational process such as for the final
tests, or interim tests or even for entering exams.
5. TESTING THE PRESSURE
This kind of approach is the most recent one in creativity testing. When the
focus is on external pressure, actually the emphasis is on:
Available resources
The presence or the absence of interaction or collaboration
The degree of external control posed on the respondent
Personal involvement perceived by the respondent
Working skills and abilities
Friedrich, Sternmark and Mumford (2011) confirm that such instruments are
used mostly in organizations to check the potential for creativity of the working
climate or for a team in the organization. Examples are: Assessing Climate for
Creativity, Creative Climate Questionnaire, and Team Climate Inventory. One
important perspective brought about by pressure testing is the influence of
reinforcement upon creativity: when reinforcement is appropriate and somehow
42

unexpected it has positive outcomes; when is conditioned by the results and

promote intra-team competition it has negative effects (Starko, 2005).
6. FINAL ARGUMENTS
The four perspectives presented above have their own focus, which brings
benefits in understanding creativity but has also constrains. For clarity reason each
perspective was treated distinctly, but recent findings claims for a more cohesive
model. Bateys paradigm (2012) shortly encountered in the introduction chapter
offers a more integrative vision on creativity testing. His model puts forward three
axes:
The first axe is represented by the level of the respondents (who is tested)
and has three categories: individual (when one person is tested), group
(when a group or a team is being tested), organization (when whole
organization is being tested) and societal (when a large number of people,
members of a culture/ or a nation are being tested).
The second axe is represented by the perspective of the assessment and can
be: the process, the person, the product or the pressure (what is tested).
The third axe is represented by the methods of the testing (how is tested)
with three categories: self-evaluation, hetero-evaluation and objective
evaluation.
Even if the axes are separate presented, they interact with one another, and
give the possibility to select or design assessment methods depending on the need.
Table 1 presents few examples of a multiple method using referential axes
form Bateys concept.
Table 1. Examples of testing methods for creativity using Bateys model (2012)
Level of respondent
(who is tested)
Individual

Assessment
perspective
(what is tested)
Process

Methods used
(how is tested)

Example

Self-evaluation

The degree a person see him/herself able

to combine ideas
Grade offered by experts for ideas
combination
Time spent to identify a solution
The degree a person see him/herself as
open to unknown
The degree a third perceives the person
as open to ideas
How many new experiences a person
undergo
Group assessment of their own product
Experts assessment of group product
Public recognition of a group product

Hetero-evaluation

Person

Objective
Self-evaluation
Hetero-evaluation
Objective

Group

Product

Self-evaluation
Hetero-evaluation
Objective

Similarly, for all the other axes someone can identify methods to test
creativity. What is truly important is to become aware of the limitation of each
method and to deal with that in order to obtain the most comprehensive evaluation
43

function of the goals of the testing. Using a multiple method is necessary to read
each result by its specificity and not to try to compute them by a common factor.
Today literature recognize that some techniques are more popular than other,
some are new and still sporadic used, but essential is to keep searching to integrate
knowledge obtained by testing in order to adjust theory and to promote creativity.
REFERENCES
Batey, M. (2012). The measurement of creativity: from definitional consensus to the
introduction of a new heuristic framework. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 55-65.
Clapham, M.M. (2011). Testing/Measurement/ Assessment. In M. A. Runco, & S.
Pritzker (Eds). Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp. 458-464). San Francisco: Academic Press.
Feist, G.J., & Barron, F.X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to late adulthood:
intellect, potential and personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 62-88.
Friedrich, T.L., Sternmark, C.K., & Mumford, M.D. (2011). Climate for creativity. In
M. A. Runco, & S. Pritzker (Eds). Encyclopedia of Creativity (pp.208-213). San Francisco:
Academic Press.
Gruber, H.E., & Wallace, D.B. (2005). Metoda studiului de caz i abordarea sistemelor
de dezvoltare n nelegerea procesului de creaie al personalitii excepionale. In J.R.
Sternberg (Ed.) Manual de creativitate (pp.119-146). Iai: Polirom.
Guilford, J.P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New-York: McGraw Hill.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity test? A review of the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3-14.
Kim, K.H. (2007). The two Torrance creative tests: the Torrance test for creative
thinking & Thinking creatively in action and movement. In A.G. Tan (Ed). Creativity. A
handbook for teachers (pp. 117-141). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, Co. Pte. Ltd.
Lubart, T., & Guignard, J-H. (2004). The generality-specificity of creativity: a
multivariate approach. In R.J. Sternberg, E.L. Grigorenko, & J.L. Singer (Eds). Creativity.
From potential to realization (pp. 43-56). Washington D.C.: American Psychological
Association.
Martinsen, . L. (2011). The creative personality: a synthesis and development of the
creative person profile. Creativity Research Journal, 23(3), 185-202.
Nassif, C., & Quevillon, R. (2008). The development of a preliminary creativity scale
for the MMPI-2: The C scale. Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 13-20.
Plucker, J.A., & Beghetto, R.A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, it looks
domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter? In R.J. Sternberg, E.L.
Grigorenko, & J.L. Singer (Eds). Creativity. From potential to realization (pp.153-167).
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Plucker, J.A., & Makel, M.C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J.C. Kaufman, &
R.J., Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge Handbook of Creativity (pp. 48-73). NewYork, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Richards, R. (2007). (Ed.) Everyday creativity and new views of human nature.
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Everyone has creative potential. In R.J. Sternberg, E.L.
Grigorenko, & J.L. Singer (Eds). Creativity. From potential to realization (pp. 21-30).
Washington D.C.: American Psychological Association.
Runco, M.A. (2007a). Creativity. Theories and themes: research, development and
practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier, Inc.

44

Runco, M. A. (2007b). Creativity. Definition. In Encyclopedia of Giftedness, Creativity,

and Talent. Available at http://sage-ereference.com/giftedness/Article_n188.html, accessed
by September 17th 2009.
Runco, M.A., Miller, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement. A fifty-year follow-up.
Creativity Research Journal, 22 (4), 361-368.
Runco, M.A., & Jaeger, G.J. (2012). Standard definition of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 24 (1), 92-96.
Torrance, E.P. (2003). The millennium: a time for looking forward and looking back.
Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 6-12.
Starko, A.J. (2005). Creativity in the classroom. Schools of Curious Delight. Mahwah,
New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Publishers.
Sternberg, R. J., & OHara, L.A. (2005). Creativitate i inteligen. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Manual de creativitate (pp. 200-227). Iai: Polirom.
Sternberg, R.J. (2007). Creativity as a habit. In A.G. Tan (Ed), Creativity. A handbook
for teachers (pp.3-25). Singapore: World Scientific Publishing, Co. Pte. Ltd.
Sternberg, J. R. (2012). The assessment of creativity: an investment based approach.
Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 3-12.
Wallace, D.B., & Gruber, H.E. (1989). Creative people at work. Twelve cognitive case
studies. New-York: Oxford University Press.

REZUMAT
Creativitatea este un concept foarte generos, iar dac privim conceptul din
perspectiv practic, atunci importana acestuia este i mai mare. Pentru a testa
creativitatea, se pornete de la definirea acesteia, cunoscndu-se faptul c sunt cel puin
patru perspective din care poate fi privit creativitatea: ca proces, ca persoan, ca produs
i ca rezultat a interaciunii cu mediul. Fiecare perspectiv promoveaz propriile
modaliti de testare, contribuind la nelegerea creativitii, dar producnd i controverse.
Cele mai recente rezultate promoveaz idea unei abordri mixte, nu doar ca perpespectiv,
dar i ca surse de culegere a datelor, ca de exemplu metode de auto-evaluare, heteroevaluare i metode obiective.
Parcugnd traseul studierii creativitii, se ating finaliti precum: identificarea
persoanelor creative i a celor cu potential creativ, nelegerea modului n care
funcioneaz creativitatea pentru a planifica programe de stimulare i evaluarea eficineei
acestor programe, nelegerea contribuiei celorlalteprocese psihice la creativitate i
formularea de predicii asupra comportamentelor creative. Domeniul testrii creativitii
rmne unul fertile, incitant, dar n acelai timp, controversat.

45