Professional Documents
Culture Documents
mysterious, and yet most critical to human advancement. The capacity to solve problems
in new ways and to produce works that are novel, appropriate, and socially valued is an
ability that has fascinated people for centuries. Most creativity research concerns the
nature of creative thinking, the distinctive characteristics of the creative person, the
development of creativity across the individual life span, and the social environments
most strongly associated with creative activity (Simonton, 2000). This research can help
counselors who are committed to a positive psychology to assess creative thinking and to
identify creative traits in their clients. Counselors can use this knowledge to help clients
overcome both internal and environmental barriers to the development of creative lives.
Many of the studies of creativity have been driven by the desire to identify those
children who are most likely to profit from programs for developing giftedness or the
desire to identify adults who are likely to be innovative in science, business, and industry.
Counselors who want to respond to clients’ strengths and who want to seek positive
directions for counseling often focus on creativity. Assessment plays a part in all of these
activities.
creativity, the psychological and contextual variables that enhance or block it, and the
Then, we will identify measures of the creative process and the creative person, apply
creativity measurement and assessment to counseling, and discuss future directions for
the field.
Creativity3
The definition of creativity is elusive. Although most researchers agree upon such
to society, they have had difficulty agreeing upon appropriate instruments and methods in
the complex concept of creativity has been well established. Three decades ago,
Treffinger, Renzulli, and Feldhusen (1971) argued that as a result of the lack of a unified,
procedures, and understanding the relationship of creativity to other human abilities” (p.
107). Sternberg (2001) argues that creativity should not be considered in isolation from
suggests that the “common thread” in the prolific research literature is the interrelations
existing societal agendas, creativity questions them and proposes new ones, and wisdom
balances the old with the new. Yet, the many challenges in operationalizing and assessing
creativity are still being confronted today. And, the proliferation of hundreds of creativity
tests, some of which hold up better under psychometric scrutiny than others, exacerbate
the criterion problem for creative research. These concerns leave us asking an important
indicative of a viable, dynamic, creative field. Houtz and Krug (1995) suggest “Multiple
instruments and methods permit flexibility and adaptability to new problems and
evaluation of creativity tests fair much better when considered in light of recent advances
in the field and when they are interpreted with the appropriate limitations.
ideational fluency but fail to predict future creative behavior. In many cases, children
identified by creativity measures have not produced significant creative works as adults.
However, Plucker and Runco (1998) argued that the “death of creativity measurement
has been greatly exaggerated” (p. 36), discussing advancements not only in the predictive
validity of the measurements in existence but, importantly, in the utility of broadening the
Weak predictive validity coefficients may be attributed to weak methodology rather than
weak psychometrics, and may include studies too short in duration, inadequate statistical
procedures for nonnormally distributed data, and poorly operationalized outcome criteria
useful in many traditional studies, do not access the wealth of information inherent in
individuals’ personal beliefs about creativity. Plucker and Runco (1998) suggest that
when people engage in creative activity “their thoughts and actions are guided by
personal definitions of creativity and beliefs about how to foster and evaluate creativity
that may be very different from the theories developed by creativity experts” (p. 37).
Creativity5
Creating instruments which correspond well with the implicit theories of the people
completing them not only addresses the definitional problem, but yields a socially valid
Creativity in Context
Csikszentmihalyi (1996) studied one hundred individuals who had produced works that
were publicly acknowledged as creative and who had all impacted their culture in some
politicians and social activists, engineers, and religious leaders, he found that the first and
skill. Without mastery of a domain, diverse thinking or ideational fluency are not likely to
lead to creative products. These creative individuals, for the most part, had normal
childhoods and families that provided them with a solid set of values. They, however,
differed significantly from others in the high proportion of them whom had suffered a
parental loss, particularly the loss of a father. Commonly, they had other supportive
adults in their lives who encouraged them to use their loss as an opportunity to create
their own identities. Creative individuals had little good to say about school; in many
ways, general schooling was irrelevant to these profoundly curious and self-guided young
people. Only in college and advanced training did they find a match between their
interests and those of others, in mentors and significant teachers who provided the
knowledge they desired so intensely. As adults, these creative people had circuitous paths
Creativity6
to their careers. What was most extraordinary, said the author, was that these people
seized upon whatever opportunities they had been given and then shaped them to meet
their own ends, rather than being shaped by genes or external events.
timelessness and oneness with the activity in which one is engaged. In a flow state,
people have a sense that their abilities are only just equal to the challenge that the project
provides; therefore, they are caught up in the process of creating in order to enhance the
flow state.
certain psychological conditions can block creativity. Although creative individuals often
are considered to “live on the edge” and generally choose more independent lifestyles,
this may lead to substance abuse and other self-destructive behaviors that dull creativity.
Pritkzer (1999) proposes that creative people use alcohol because their work, uncertain
and plagued by rejection, is difficult, stressful and anxiety provoking. Whether self-
creative people often have long periods of time alone to drink and develop addictions
without the knowledge of others. Although it has not yet been proven that creativity
causes drug use (Kerr, Shaffer, Chambers, Hallowell, 1991; Plucker & Dana, 1999), the
pervasive belief that substance use enhances creativity may be the result of inaccurate
perceptions; that is, artists may use alcohol in the expectation that it will improve their
There is also evidence that a high proportion of creative writers, artists, and
Creativity7
(Andreasen, 1987; Jamison, 1989; Richards & Kinney, 1990). Although much of the
associated with creativity in bipolar disorder that may reflect causal relationships, and
which offer direction for further experimental research. These include: increased range
and speed of associated concepts, perseverance, increased energy, reduced sleep, overt
focus on the self, and heightened sexual interests. Unfortunately, whatever gifts that
moderate manic states might bestow upon the individual, manic psychosis and depression
destroy all motivation and productivity. No one understands fully the connection between
bipolar disorder and creativity; however, when creativity is studied in isolation from
personality and lifestyle, it is difficult to assess the true capacity of an individual for
original production.
variables to produce creative behavior (Piirto, 1998). It has long been observed that
certain communities at certain times in history seemed to give rise to a great many
creative individuals: fifteenth century Florence, the Harlem Renaissance, and San
Francisco in the 1960’s are examples. The presence of patrons, the support of a
availability of materials and resources necessary for creative products all play a part in
the emergence of creative behavior in individuals of talent. Gender, race, and class can all
discourage otherwise talented individuals from pursuing their ideas and fulfilling their
gifts. Amabile (2001) encourages creativity researchers to go beyond the assumption that
Creativity8
Amabile, 1988), which proposes three major components of creativity - skills specific to
the task domain, general creativity relevant skills, and task motivation – provides a useful
way to conceptualize the importance of the social environment in creativity, which can
ideally are reliable, meaningful, and valid. Assessments, on the other hand, involve
appraisal and comparison, which are used to make judgments and decisions about the
people being tested, such as which students should or should not be accepted into a
program for the gifted and talented. Measurement and assessment are not synonymous.
any assessment.
intellectual and affective concept of creativity; problems arise when one measure is
inappropriately compared against another. Torrance (1984), the originator of the best
measurement in assessment. He recommends that creativity not be the sole criterion for
individuals be given tasks that evaluate “the kinds of excellence that are valued by the
particular culture or subculture” (pp. 155-156) of the individuals being evaluated. Even
within the limited context of objective measurement, using multiple measures helps to
Creativity9
insure that the assessment discriminates between individuals and not against them.
Hocevar and Bachelor (1989) offer a taxonomy of measurements used in the study of
creativity. The categories include tests of divergent thinking, attitude and interest
study of eminent people, and self-reported creative activities and achievements. Readers
are directed toward recent reviews (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Plucker & Renzulli,
1999) and criticisms (Parke and Byrnes, 1984; Houtz & Krug, 1995).
Measures of Creativity
determine who among the population were gifted. Yet, traditional intelligence tests do
not require much creative or divergent-production thinking, which leads to the hypothesis
that creativity and intelligence are separate constructs, requiring separate measures.
Traditional intelligence tests primarily measure convergent thinking, the kind of thinking
used when a person must “converge” on one right answer to a question or problem.
Divergent thinking, in contrast, is the sort of thinking that produces multiple responses to
a question and which produces novel ideas and unusual responses to questions. Divergent
thinking is cognition that leads in various directions, some conventional, and some
original. As explained by Runco (1999), “Because some of the resulting ideas are
original, divergent thinking represents the potential for creative thinking and problem
solving” (p. 577). Thus, to the degree that these tests are reliable and valid, they can be
taken as estimates of the potential for creative thinking, but cautions should be taken
Creativity10
batteries of divergent thinking tests used in the early study of creativity, which are widely
used today.
The Guilford Battery. Guilford’s battery of tests, based on his Structure of the
Intellect model (Guilford, 1962) differentiated among 180 different kinds of thinking,
including many forms of divergent thinking. The abilities most relevant for creative
thinking are to be found in the divergent production abilities that allow information to be
generated from information; and transformation abilities, which involve revision of what
The Guilford Battery consists of ten individual tests measuring different aspects
of divergent production. These tests are: (1) Names for Stories (divergent production of
semantic units); (2) What to Do with It (divergent production of semantic classes); (3)
units); (7) Different Letter Groups (divergent production of figural classes); (8) Making
production of figural implications). Each of the tasks is timed and scored on fluency
and nonverbal (figural) content are included. Although Guilford’s Structure of the
Intellect model has earned support over the decades, his battery of tests does not have the
Creativity11
extensive validity research to compare with the Torrance tests. Meeker (1978) engaged in
a number of follow-up studies of children tested with Guilford’s measures and found that
children who were identified as creative in elementary school maintained high creativity
scores in high school. However, Michael and Bachelor (1990) used exploratory factor
correlation matrix of 27 divergent thinking tests from the J. P. Guilford’s (1961) study of
204 junior high school students. In the exploratory analyses, only modest agreement with
the Guilford’s original solution was found. Therefore, it is not clear that the factor
structure underlying these measures is still valid, and it may be that these tests have only
The Torrance Tests. Although Torrance would later acknowledge that creativity
“defies precise definition” (Parkhurst, 1999, p. 13), his early attempts at operationalizing
I have tried to describe creative thinking as taking place in the process of sensing
formulating hypotheses about these deficiencies; testing and retesting them; and
The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking consists of nonverbal and verbal forms,
Thinking Creatively with Pictures and Thinking Creatively with Words, which are
suitable for grades kindergarten though graduate school to assess four creative abilities:
fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. The nonverbal forms consist of three sets
of activities which require subjects to draw lines to elaborate on a single shape, to draw
lines to complete a picture, and to draw as many different pictures as possible using the
Creativity12
same shape. The verbal forms consist of six activities that require subjects to generate
questions, alternative uses, and guesses. Each of the activities in each of the nonverbal
and verbal forms is timed and scored for fluency, flexibility, and originality. The
Not only are the Torrance Tests the most widely used tests to measure creativity
(Khatena, 1989), but their use is supported by more evidence of validity than any other
creativity tests. Having been translated into numerous languages, data on the TTCT have
been gathered on an international scale (Houtz & Krug, 1995), and it has been critically
reviewed (Cooper, 1991; Hovecar et al. 1989; Torrance, 1988). Treffinger’s (1985)
and posit a range extending from .50 to .93. Torrance (1988) reported on a 22-year
with validity coefficients of .62 for males and .57 for females. Although these
coefficients demonstrate only moderate predictive validity, Torrance notes that they are
commensurate with, and sometimes even higher than, coefficients for intelligence in
predicting adult achievement. Two decades of research establish the validity and
primary criticism of divergent thinking tests when he cautioned us to not make inferences
about the complex and multifaceted construct of creativity from measures that are
distinctly cognitive. This, however, does not imply rejection of the usefulness of tests of
tell the entire story about creativity, it is quite likely that these measures do assess
intellectual abilities which play an important role in creativity” (Treffinger et al., 1971, p.
108). Moreover, the perceived lack of predictive validity for divergent thinking tests is
problematic. Divergent thinking, or critical thinking therein defined, does not necessarily
correspond to creative production or eminence. Plucker and Runco (1998) challenged this
long-standing criticism by suggesting that weak predictive validity may be the result of
argue that studies including both quantity and quality of creative achievement in outcome
variables, as opposed to the traditional reliance upon quantity, provide improved support
for the predictive validity of divergent thinking tests. Also, Parkhurst (1999) argues that it
is specious to argue that divergent thinking is not equivalent to creativity because real-life
creativity, that is, creative production has not been shown to be highly correlated with
do not assume, for example, that a test measuring an individual’s scientific ability will be
that the [individual] will have the scientific knowledge and ability when and if he or she
Finally, a serious problem with all the major tests of creative cognitive process is
that they are lengthy in administration and that they require an expert who is trained in
the specific use and interpretation of the tests. Simple forms of these instruments have not
see it as a set of personality traits. When individuals are evaluated as creative thinkers,
but do not manifest such characteristics as endurance and independence, they may not
Attitudes and personality, like divergent thinking, are observable and measurable.
attitude measures, self- and peer-nomination procedures, and interviews are all methods
used to study the creative person; however, personality assessments and projective tests
are the primary measures used. As King and Pope (1999) pointed out, creativity has long
been associated with a number of psychological traits, (p. 201), the most prominent of
wrote, “One of the most distinguishing characteristics of creative people is their desire
and preference to be somewhat removed from regular social-contact, to spend time alone
(p. 158). Closely related to the tendency toward autonomy, creative people tend to be
more introverted than extroverted; that is, they tend to avoid excessive social
stimulation.2
Understanding Those Who Create. Artists tend to be more impulsive and spontaneous
than other creative people; writers tend to be more nonconforming than other types;
architects tend to be less flexible than others; musicians are more introverted than others;
and inventors and creative engineers tend to be more well adjusted on the whole than
associated with particular domains in attempting to predict creative behavior, rather than
seeking one creative personality type that fits all creative occupations.
Birth order and attachment are two important early influences on the development
of autonomy. Sulloway (1999) argues that birth order causes siblings to experience the
development and, subsequently, creative achievement. Although evidence does not exist
to suggest that firstborns and laterborns differ in overall levels of creativity, they to tend
to demonstrate their creativity in different ways. Specifically, Feist (1999) argued that
laterborns tend to be more open to experience and tend to express their creativity in
resist new experiences and tend to express their creativity in conventional, cultured, and
Gough’s Adjective Check List (1960) is comprised of 300 descriptor words that a
reliably differentiated more creative people from less creative people. Gough’s Creative
Personality Scale for the Adjective Check List is based on 12 samples in a variety of
fields, comprising 1,701 subjects whose creativity had been assessed by experts in those
self-confident, sexy, snobbish, and unconventional. Three other slightly different sets of
adjectives have been used in creativity research. Domino (1994) examined the use of the
four Adjective Check List (ACL) scales in assessing creativity, called the Domino,
Gough, Schaefer, and Yarnell scales with two samples of creative adults. He found that
all four scales had adequate levels of reliability, as judged by internal consistency, and all
correlated significantly with the appropriate criterion measures. Since the earliest days of
creativity research, the ACL has been fixture in measuring creative personality. It has
been used successfully in studies of architects, writers, inventors, artists, and many others
(Domino, 1994).
processing. Composed of nearly 300 forced-choice items, individuals are rated on four
perceiving-judging. The Creativity Index is a pattern among the four dimensions that is
closely associated with creativity. A person whose scores show him or her to be
introverted, intuitive, thinking, and perceiving in personality style may be more likely to
be a creative individual. The Creativity Index of the MBTI has been associated with
creative styles in managers (Fleenor & Taylor, 1994), teachers (Houtz, LeBlanc, Butera,
and Arons, 1994), psychotherapists (Buchanan & Bandy, 1984) and many other
professionals.
The NEO Five Factor Personality Inventory (Costa & McCrae, 1991) is named
after the first three factors of the model upon which it is based: Neuroticism,
last two factors. This self-report personality inventory requires subjects to rate themselves
on nine-step bipolar scales using adjective pairs. The factor structure underlying the NEO
has impressive validity across cultures, across lifespan, and across gender (Costa, P. T. &
McCrae, R. R., 1992). There is only indirect evidence pointing to patterns of responding
that might be associated with creativity. Typically, laterborn siblings, who are found to be
more creative, are evaluated as conscientious, more agreeable, and more open to
experience (Sulloway, 1999) In addition, certain of these factors may facilitate the
attainment of the flow states, the sine qua non of creativity productivity, according to the
receptivity in the present moment. This author also makes it clear that creative people are
often disagreeable when faced with resistance to their work, as well as low in the sort of
conscientiousness that leads most people to conform. It may be that introversion, low
NEO will be shown to be associated with creativity. The value of this instrument is its
basis in clear and well supported constructs that make further research along these lines
possible.
Projective tests: Rorschach Inkblot Test and Thematic Apperception Test. The
psychodynamic model is the basis for projective test techniques that were developed to
interpret an individual’s instinctual drives, motives, and defenses. The basic assumption
of projective tests is that subjects’ responses to vague stimuli will tend to portray
personality style. Inkblots and pictures of human situations are commonly used. As
described by Walsh and Betz (1995), since an inkblot is ambiguous, “the interpretation a
Creativity18
person gives must come from the way that individual perceives and organizes the
world . . . one is said to project into the picture one’s own emotional attitudes and ideas
about life” (p. 128). The interpreter seeks to gain a general impression of an individual’s
important ways; not only are they less obvious in their intent, they are less structured, and
they rely on qualitative interpretation for meaning. Projective tests are more difficult to
interpret than objective measures of personality assessment, and even the most rigorous
scoring systems yield only modest reliability and validity; however, they can be used to
means of exploring personality. It consists of ten cards, each containing an inkblot. Five
of the cards are black or gray, and five are colored. The cards are presented one at a time
and the subject is asked to report what he or she sees in the inkblot or what might be
represented by the inkblot. The administrator records the responses and repeats the
procedure, asking the subject to identify where the location of the responses and the
characteristics or determinants of the inkblot the led to the responses. Although all
scoring systems require considerable training and practice, generally more original
responses are interpreted as reflecting more creativity and productivity. King and Pope
(1999) cite multiple studies that support their contention that creative individuals produce
original and often elaborate responses to the Rorschach Inkblots, and challenge other
researchers to examine Rorschach protocols for responses that are complex, novel, and
indicate autonomy. In fact, they have produced a preliminary scale of creativity for the
Creativity19
Rorschach responses that is based on content and on the hypotheses that, “creative
percepts,” that “form quality would likely be unusual, indicating a novel approach to the
stimulus,” and that “movement and color would frequently be seen” (p. 203). Ferracuti,
Cannoni, Burla, & Lazzari (1999) found strong correlations between the Figural Form
Henry Murray and Christina Morgan developed the Thematic Apperception Test
(TAT) in 1938(Walsh & Betz, 1995). The TAT requires subjects to make up stories in
response to a series of pictures to reveal something about their drives and emotions. Like
structured and obvious in intent. It consists of 30 black-and-white cards and 1 blank card.
Each card pictures a person or people in various ambiguous situations. The pictures are
presented one at a time, and the subject is asked to describe what is happening in the
picture, what led up to what is happening, and how the story ends. The basic assumption
underlying the test is that the stories reflect a subject’s personality needs and
environmental pressures, which, in turn, reflect how that subject tends to cope with
different kinds of perceived situations. Like the Rorschach, the reliability and validity of
the TAT is only modestly supported by data (Walsh & Betz, 1995). Geiser & Stein
(1999), however, trace six decades of history of the TAT, showing how it has been used
creativity. Gregory (2000) suggests that “reversing the test,” (i.e., from kinds of people to
Creativity20
experimental question: “Which kinds of pattern evoke the richest variety of perceptions?”
(p.19). Russ (1999) suggests that carefully evaluating optimistic responses on the TAT
and playful responses on the Rorschach will help to “accentuate the positive”(p.224) in
assessment.
Given the many methods of assessing creativity, what is the most useful approach
to assessing creativity in counseling? First, one must consider the reason for the
assessment. If a client has been referred for educational assessment, for example, for the
purpose of placement in gifted classes or for a special program, then the counselor should
investigate the nature of the program for which the client is being assessed. The method
should always match the program. That is, if the curriculum is one that emphasizes the
ability to brainstorm ideas and to use creative problem solving, then the Torrance tests
may be very appropriate. If on the other hand, the curriculum focuses upon a particular
domain, such as art, music, or creative writing, then it may be more effective to use
personality tests such as the Adjective Check List to attempt to identify individuals with
What does it mean if a client who has been referred for educational testing scores
very high on the Torrance tests? It means that the client thinks creatively, but not
necessarily that the client had produced creative works. It does mean that the individual
does have the cognitive “building blocks” of creativity: ideational fluency, flexibility, and
originality; however, these must be combined with motivation to achieve, above average
predict creative behavior. If the client is to be placed in a program that will require
creative writing and art work as well as creative problem-solving, then the TTCT may
help support that placement if it is used in combination with tests of ability in the critical
domains and personality tests that yield information about the need for achievement and
the need for endurance. The child who is a creative thinker but lacks intelligence,
motivation to achieve, and persistence may have many interesting ideas, but be unable to
carry them through or to evaluate them critically. Even the very intelligent creative
that permit intense concentration in the pursuit of a goal (Webb, Meckstroth, & Tolan,
1997).
Meeker (1978) advocates measuring creativity from the child’s point of view, and
shows how Guilford’s scales can be used to help a child to understand his or her own
creativity. A child is assessed according to the Structure of Intellect (SOI) model, and
then is helped to understand intellectual strengths and weaknesses. The resulting profile
is used to help place children in gifted education classes that build upon the students’
Both the Torrance tests and Guilford tests can be useful in advocating for the
bright child who is highly creative but only above average in intelligence. Because
creativity and intelligence overlap but are not perfectly correlated, many children who are
highly creative and only moderately intelligent can also benefit from gifted education if
they are also persistent and motivated to complete tasks. Those gifted programs that are
based on the Renzulli (1999) Three Ring method of identification, that includes evidence
it might be well to use the creativity scale of the Adjective Check List, or subscales of
other personality inventories that are correlated with creativity to identify creative
potential. The personality tests can be combined with vocational interest tests and values
inventories to yield a profile of the particular domains in which the client might be most
the University of Iowa’s Counseling Laboratory for Talent Development (Kerr & Erb,
1991). The Counseling Laboratory was a series of activities that integrated assessment
into both group and individual counseling. Adolescent clients took the Vocational
Preference Inventory (VPI; Holland, 1996); the Personality Research Form (PRF;
Jackson, 1991) and a values inventory. The PRF, like the Adjective Check List, yields
scores on the need for autonomy, achievement, endurance, affiliation, dominance, and
several other scales that had been found to be positively or negatively correlated with
creative productivity (Ashton, Jackson, Helms, & Paunonen, 1998). Together with
vocational interests and values, these scores were very useful to clients in determining the
probability of satisfaction and success in creative fields. In this study, over half of the
college age clients changed college majors to majors that were more creative and more in
and mood disorders, and behavioral deficits. It may be that the use of projective tests can
Creativity23
help not only the client but also the counselor to re-focus upon the positive psychology of
the client. As the counselor administers the Rorschach or the TAT, he or she often finds
that the process is often both surprising and intuitively satisfying. The counselor has an
opportunity to see the creative thought processes of the client in a more dramatic and
experiences for a client can be that of having a counselor show how the conflicts that he
or she is enduring, the polarities of emotions that are felt, and the barriers to productivity
that arise are common to creative lives. Too often, characteristics of autonomy,
nonconformity, spontaneity, and expressiveness are devalued by society; yet these are the
very traits that lead individuals to produce great art, literature, music, and science.
Counselors who are sensitive to this paradox can help the creative people to recognize
It is clear from a review of the research in creativity assessment that the bulk of
the work in this area has been on instrument development. With the exception of the
Torrance Tests, it seems as if there has been little follow through in terms of instrument
validation. More longitudinal studies of predictive validity of both tests of both cognitive
processes and personality characteristics would be useful in culling out the many
Another necessary future direction is the search for shorter, more easily
administered means of measurement. Tests need to be simplified so that they are more
easily scored. The most commonly used instrument for measuring creative thinking, the
Torrance tests, has the unfortunate quality of being long and difficult to administer and to
score. As a result, many educators and counselors sour on the use of a strategy that
requires such an investment of time, and are not willing to investigate alternatives.
Perhaps the most obvious need is that of integration of creativity assessment into
both education and counseling. Although ways of measuring creativity abound, few
practitioners understand how to make the creative aspects of personality and intellect a
part of their evaluation of students and clients. Teachers need pre-service training in the
nature of creativity and the means for identifying it. Counselors need training in ways of
evaluating and selecting creativity tests and in ways of using them in counseling. At this
point in time, there are very few counselors who are even qualified to train others in the
uses of these instruments. However, those who are willing to help counselors and
teachers to learn efficient ways of identifying the creative strengths of their clients and
References
Amabile, T. M. (2001). Beyond talent: John Irving and the passionate craft of
Ashton, M.C., Jackson, D. N., Helmes, E., & Paunonen, S.V.(1998). Joint factor
analysis of the Personality Research Form and the Jackson Personality Inventory:
comparisons with the Big Five. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 243-250.
Bowden, C. L. (1994). Bipolar disorder and creativity. In Shaw, M. P., & Runco,
Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. The Journal
Costa, P. T. & McCrae, R.R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic.
Ferracuti, S., Cannoni, E., Burla, F., & Lazzari, R. (1999). Correlations for the
Rorschach with the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Perceptual and Motor Skills,
Creativity26
89, 863-870.
Assessment Resources.
Houtz, J.C., LeBlanc, E., Butera, T., Arons, M. F. (1994) Personality type,
used in the study of creativity. In Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.)
Jackson, D. (1991). The Personality Research Form. Port Huron, MI: Sigma
Assessment Systems.
Jamison, K. (1989). Mood disorders and seasonal patterns in British writers and
Creativity27
Kerr, B. A., & Erb, C. (1991). Career counseling with academically talented
330-314.
Kerr, B., Shaffer, J., Chambers, C., & Hallowell, K. (1991). Substance use of
Lapp, W. M., Collins, L., & Izzo, C. V. (1994). On the enhancement of creativity
206.
Meeker, M. (1978). Measuring creativity from the child’s point of view. Journal
Psychology Press.
Creativity28
Plucker, J. A., & Dana, R. Q. (1999). Drugs and creativity. In M. A. Runco, & S.
Pritzker (Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity. Vol. 1. (pp. 607-611). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
been greatly exaggerated: current issues, recent advances, and future directions in
(Eds.). Encyclopedia of Creativity. Vol. 2. (pp. 699-708). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press.
Renzulli, J.S.(1999) What is this thing called giftedness, and how do we develop
it? A twenty-five year perspective. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 23, 3-54.
Richards, R., & Kinney, D. K. (1990). Mood swings and creativity. Creativity
Encyclopedia of Creativity (Vol. 1). (pp.701-701). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Sternberg (Ed.). The Nature of Creativity. (pp. 43-75). New York, NY: Cambridge
University Press.
Webb, J. T., Meckstroth, E., & Tolan, S. (1997). Guiding the gifted child.
Walsh, B. W., & Betz, N. (1995). Tests and assessment., (3rd ed.). Englewood