4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F
A Report on the 40-Year Follow-Up
of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:
Alive and Well in the New Millennium
Bonnie Cramond, Juanita Matthews-Morgan,
and Deborah Bandalos
University of Georgia
A B S T R A C T
This article updates information about the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) by reporting on
predictive validity data from the most recent data
collection point in Torrance’s longitudinal studies.
First, we outline the background of the tests and
changes in scoring over the years. Then, we detail
the results of the analyses of the 40-year follow-up
on the TTCT resulting in a structural equation
model, which demonstrates the validity of the
TTCT for predicting creative achievement 40 years
after its administration. Finally, we provide a ration-
ale for the relevance of the test in schools today.
Although their creator, E. Paul Torrance, passed away
in 2003, his eponymous tests of creative thinking are still
very much in use around the world. Most educators in
the fields of gifted education and creativity are aware of
these tests, but many people have outdated information
about them. This article will update information about
the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) by
reporting on the background of the tests, changes in scor-
ing, and the existence of a new abbreviated form of the
tests for adults, and by providing quantitative results of
the latest data point in the 40+ years of study1, as well as a
rationale and suggestions for their use in schools today.
Background and Scoring
C h a n g e s i n t h e To r r a n c e
Te s t s o f C r e a t i v e T h i n k i n g
The TTCT battery is composed of verbal and figural
tests. The verbal test is comprised of five activities, and
the figural is comprised of three activities. Responses to
the verbal and figural tests of the TTCT are not only
expressed in two different modalities—written or oral
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S
Li Zuo
United Nations
P U T T I N G T H E
R E S E A R C H T O U S E
This study should give individuals who are inter-
ested in using the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking some confidence that the tests can be good
predictors of adult creativity. So, why should educa-
tors consider using the TTCT? One reason is to find
creative strengths that may be hidden in children
who are seen as behavior problems. According to
Torrance’s observations, discovering and nurturing
creativity in children may redirect some children’s
misbehavior toward more positive pursuits and away
from diagnoses of psychological disturbance.
Another reason that the TTCT are especially use-
ful to educators today is as one of the multiple crite-
ria to identify gifts and talents in children. The
recent and growing emphasis on identifying and
nurturing talents in youth has created a need for dis-
covering a broad array of talents using a variety of
measures. The TTCT are especially useful for iden-
tifying more students from underserved populations,
because they are not as culturally loaded as other
standardized assessments that might be used
(Torrance, 1971, 1977). The TTCT figural, which
requires very little language, is especially helpful with
the increasing numbers of children with limited or
no proficiency in English.
Whether for identification, curriculum develop-
ment, or both, the TTCT can provide some infor-
mation about students that other assessments do not
readily measure. Because the items are open-ended,
students are also able to express their interests, fears,
hopes, knowledge about diverse topics, and emo-
tional states. The TTCT provide teachers with addi-
tional information about how their students think
through an activity that most children enjoy.
• F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4 2 8 3
4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E
responses for the verbal, and drawn responses on the fig-
ural—but they are also measures of different creative abil-
ities. In fact, Torrance (1990) found very little correlation
(r = .06) between performance on the verbal and figural
tests.
Furthermore, there are two forms of each test, A and
B, and each activity on the tests is based on research link-
ing the required ability to creativity (Torrance, 1966,
1974). With both measures, the instructions are designed
to motivate the respondents to give unusual, detailed
responses.
The items on the test have been the same for many
years with the exception of the removal of one of the ver-
bal tasks when it was not shown to provide additional
meaningful information on the respondent’s creative
abilities. (Activities 1–5 and 7 of the original verbal tasks
remain: Asking Questions, Guessing Causes, Guessing
Consequences, Product Improvement, Unusual Uses,
and Just Suppose. Activity 6, Unusual Questions, was
removed.) However, the scoring procedures have gone
through several iterations as Torrance attempted to find a
scoring procedure that could be taught easily to others
and still produce valid, reliable results. For example, at
one point he adopted the U.S. Patent Office criteria for
rating new inventions as a scoring scheme for the TTCT
(Torrance, 1959). It proved to have very good predictive
validity, but it was too difficult and time consuming for
the scorers, so it was eschewed (E. P. Torrance, personal
communication, September 26, 1991). For many years,
Torrance based his scoring of the TTCT on Guilford’s
(1956) four divergent thinking factors: (a) f luency—the
number of relevant responses; (b) f lexibility—the num-
ber of different categories or shifts in responses; (c) orig-
inality—the number of unusual yet relevant ideas as
determined by statistical infrequency; and (d) elabora-
tion—the number of details used to extend a response
(Torrance, 1966, 1974, 1990).
Yet, he became dissatisfied with these scoring criteria
for several reasons. On the figural test, he was concerned
about the high correlation between Flexibility and
Fluency scores, and he determined that there were addi-
tional creative attributes that individuals demonstrated on
the tests that were not being measured (Torrance, 1979,
1981b). So, in 1984, he designed the streamlined scoring
system, which includes five norm-referenced scores and
13 criterion-referenced scores (Ball & Torrance, 1984;
Torrance, Ball, & Safter, 1992). He deleted Flexibility
from the scoring because of overlap with Fluency, and
added two new norm-referenced scores: Abstractness of
Titles, as a verbal measure on the figural tests, and
Resistance to Premature Closure, as a gestalt measure of
2 8 4 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
T E S T S
a person’s ability to stay open and tolerate ambiguity long
enough to come up with a creative response. When
added to the other three norm-referenced scores—
Fluency, Originality, and Elaboration—there are now
five norm-referenced scores. The 13 criterion-refer-
enced measures of creative strength, derived from years of
creativity testing and research, are: emotional expressive-
ness, storytelling articulateness, movement or action,
expressiveness of titles, synthesis of incomplete figures,
synthesis of lines or circles, unusual visualization, internal
visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, humor,
richness of imagery, colorfulness of imagery, and fantasy.
Because of the difficulty of getting interrater reliabil-
ity for untrained scorers on Elaboration for the verbal
tests, the scoring was simplified to include only Fluency,
Flexibility, and Originality (Torrance, 1966, 1974).
Torrance intended to include a list of criterion-refer-
enced measures of creative strength to the verbal scoring,
but did not get to do so before he died. He did develop a
list of creative strengths for the Demonstrator Form of
the TTCT (Torrance, 1979, 1980), a shortened form of
the battery that combines elements of the figural and ver-
bal tests. He developed this Demonstrator Form, with
two verbal activities and two figural activities, as an
example of the kinds of activities that are found on the
actual TTCT. It was printed in the book, The Search for
Satori and Creativity (1979), so that readers could experi-
ence the test activities without taking the actual test.
The combined form of verbal and figural activities was
later reconceptualized as the Abbreviated Torrance Test
for Adults (ATTA; Goff & Torrance, 2002). Although it
does not yet have the history and research trail of the
complete battery, it is suitable as a screening instrument
and has great promise for increased use because it can be
administered in 15 minutes. There is nothing about the
activities themselves that would preclude the ATTA’s use
with children; however, additional research must be done
to establish its validity and reliability with that group.
As a final note on scoring, Torrance maintained that
the composite score was not the most useful way to look
at a person’s creative functioning because he knew it
could mask individual strengths; however, he conceded
that it provided a good measure of an individual’s creative
energy (Torrance, 1966, 1974). Other ways of looking at
the scores—according to individual dimensions, by inter-
actions, as profiles, and through specific responses to cer-
tain stimuli—can often provide much more information
about creative functioning than the composite scores.
These methods are discussed in more detail elsewhere
(Cramond, 1999).
2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4
 4 0 - Y E A R
O v e r 4 0 Ye a r s o f R e s e a r c h —
Longitudinal Studies
There have been four major points of data collection
in the longitudinal studies of the TTCT. There were
some preliminary studies done with smaller samples
within a shorter interim of time (c.f. Cropley, 1971;
Torrance, Tan, & Allman, 1970; Witt, 1971), but the
longitudinal studies conducted with the students who
had been in two elementary schools and a high school in
Minneapolis in the late 1950s form the basis of the pre-
dictive validity evidence for the TTCT (Torrance 1969,
1972a, 1972b, 1980, 1981a).
From 1958 through 1964, all pupils enrolled in grades
1–6 in two elementary schools were administered various
batteries of the TTCT, standardized intelligence and
achievement tests, and sociometric questionnaires each
year. Beginning in September of 1959, all students
enrolled in grades 7–12 of the University of Minnesota
High School also completed the tests. The results of these
tests became the predictor variables in the follow-up
studies. Then, the high school respondents were followed
up after 7 years (Torrance, 1969), and again after 12 years
(Torrance, 1972a, 1972b), with a questionnaire. The
questionnaire asked for biographical and demographic
information, as well as information about the subject’s
most creative achievement, aspirations, and a checklist of
creative accomplishments, which included type and
degree of achievement in the arts, research, work innova-
tions, inventions, and change in life philosophy
(Torrance, 1969). The two follow-ups of the elementary
students were conducted 22 years after the initial testing,
in 1980 (Torrance, 1980, 1981a), and again 40 years after
the testing, in 1998. Detailed information on the first
three studies, the two high school follow-ups and the first
elementary school follow-up, has been presented else-
where (Torrance, 1969, 1972a, 1972b, 1980, 1981a) and
is also collectively reported (Cramond, 1994).
In summary, from the first follow-up of the high
school students who had been seniors in 1959, Torrance
found that three of the component scores of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking (Fluency, Flexibility, and
Originality, but not Elaboration) were better predictors
of creative achievement 7 years later than were intelli-
gence, high school achievement, or peer nominations.
When the four TTCT scores were entered into a step-
wise regression equation, they accounted for 25% of the
variance noted in creative quality, 21% of the variance in
creative quantity, and 26% of the variance in creative
motivation (Torrance, 1969).
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S
With the second high school follow-up, 5 years later,
Torrance sent the questionnaire to the entire 1959
University of Minnesota High School population. This
time there were enough respondents to break down the
information by gender. All of the creativity predictors
were found to be significant at the .01 level. By combin-
ing the scores on the creativity test battery administered
in 1959 into a total creativity score to predict the com-
bined creativity criteria derived in 1971, a canonical cor-
relation of .51 was obtained for the full sample. When
looking at the genders separately, a canonical correlation
of .59 was obtained for males and one of .46 for females.
This data collection point illustrated once again that cre-
ativity measures administered in high school were able to
accurately predict individuals’ adult creative accomplish-
ments on three dimensions: quantity of creative achieve-
ments, quality of creative achievements, and creative
aspirations or motivation (Torrance, 1972a, 1972b).
Although these results were encouraging, Torrance
faced the more daunting challenge of following up on the
elementary school students. This task was more difficult
for several reasons. First, because there was a much longer
period of time between the testing and the questionnaire,
he knew that the predictive ability of the variables would
tend to decrease. Second, the additional time, as well as
Torrance’s move from Minneapolis to Georgia, exacer-
bated the problem of finding the participants. Third, the
follow-up of the elementary school students was more
difficult because much more data had been collected
from the elementary school students over several years, so
there was a more complex predictor set. Finally, there is
the complex nature of the construct itself and its unsub-
stantiated developmental path.
Torrance (1981a) realized that establishing adequate
predictive validity for tests of creative thinking ability
presented particular difficulties. During the initial 6-year
period of testing in Minnesota elementary schools, he
had seen many of the children in his sample “surrender”
their creativity at an early age. He feared that a “fourth
grade slump” (Torrance, 1966, 1968) was indicative of
this trend, which would destroy the best predictions.
Even reporting that he had found a “fourth grade slump”
created an additional problem for him when it was noted
by Senator William Proxmire as an example of wasteful
spending of taxpayer money; the resulting controversy
made it more difficult for Torrance to fund his longitudi-
nal studies2 (Torrance, 1990).
Torrance realized that the best measure of creative
abilities would not measure all creative abilities, much less
such important considerations as motivation, opportu-
• F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4 2 8 5
4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E
nity, and social inf luences, as well as physical, emotional,
and experiential factors that can impact the expression of
creativity. For example, several of Torrance’s initial par-
ticipants were later conscripted into service during the
Vietnam War. For those who survived, the impact on the
nature and timeline of their creative development cannot
be measured. Also, limited opportunities for creative
expression may explain the lower predictive validity of
the TTCT for females and for children from the housing
projects.
In both schools many of the children lived in federal
housing developments and were from definitely
disadvantaged backgrounds. They were difficult to
locate 22 years later. We did locate enough of them
to get some notion of how poverty inf luenced the
chances of creative achievement. They just don’t
have a chance. (E. P. Torrance, personal communi-
cation, October 29, 1990)
In order to calculate the predictive validity of the cre-
ativity tests, a creativity index was calculated for the
respondents using data collected over 3 years of creativity
testing. Then, questionnaires were sent to all of the par-
ticipants to elicit biographical and demographic informa-
tion similar to that requested in the follow-up of the high
school students (Torrance, 1972a, 1972b), as well as
“Creative Style of Life Achievements,” achievements that
are not ordinarily publicly recognized and acknowledged,
such as organizing an action-oriented group (Torrance,
1981a).
For this follow-up, five indices of creative achieve-
ment were derived by the expert judges from the ques-
tionnaire responses and used as criteria: (1) number of
high school creative achievements, (2) number of post-
high-school creative achievements, (3) number of “cre-
ative style of life” achievements, (4) quality of highest
creative achievements, and (5) creativeness of future
career image.
To determine how well the creativity measures pre-
dicted future achievements, Pearson product-moment
correlation coefficients were calculated between the cre-
ativity index derived from elementary school assessments
and each of the five indices of creative achievement
obtained 22 years later. All correlation coefficients were
significant at the .001 level (see Torrance, 1981a, p. 60).
A multiple correlation coefficient of .63 was obtained for
the five criteria entered into a stepwise multiple regres-
sion equation (Torrance).
2 8 6 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
T E S T S
The 40-Year Follow-Up
Participants
In 1998, 40 years after the initial testing, Torrance ini-
tiated another data collection point based on the same
design as the last one with a few modifications. This
time, 99 of the 170 respondents who were located
returned the questionnaire: 45 males and 55 females.
This is approximately one fourth of the original eligible
group of participants, and approximately one half of the
number that responded in 1980.
Analyses
There were eight predictor variables in the analyses
this time. The predictors included: (1) IQ, (2) f luency,
(3) f lexibility, (4) originality, (5) elaboration, (6) the same
index of creativity that was derived for the elementary
sample based on 3 years of TTCT testing, (7) whether
respondents had a mentor in 1980, and (8) whether
respondents had a mentor in 1998. The predictor vari-
ables were from IQ tests (#1), the TTCT (#2, #3, #4, and
#5), 3 years of TTCT testing as in the earlier elementary
studies (#6), and from the questionnaire (#7 and #8). The
criterion variables were the quantity and quality of cre-
ative achievements reported on the follow-up question-
naire.
Two criteria of creative achievement were derived
from the questionnaire responses: (1) quantity of publicly
recognized creative achievements, and (2) quality of pub-
lic achievements. Because the respondents were now
mature adults, it didn’t seem suitable to measure their
aspirations, so the third criterion from the earlier studies
was deleted. As in the 1980 study, three expert judges
rated the quantity and quality of creative achievements.
The 1998 judges’ interrater reliabilities were obtained
using Pearson product-moment correlations resulting in
coefficients ranging from .78 to .88.
A Pearson product-moment correlation was used to
examine the relationship between the predictors obtained
in childhood (IQ, Fluency, Flexibility, Originality,
Elaboration, and the creative index), two predictors
derived from the follow-up questionnaires (having a
mentor in 1980 and having a mentor in 1998), and the
criteria of adult creative achievement obtained 40 years
later (quantity and quality). Another Pearson product-
moment correlation was used to analyze the relationships
of the predictors to the criterion variables by gender.
2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4
 4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S

In order to examine the differences between the most Ta b l e 1

and least creative of the respondents, individuals were
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients
assigned to the high creative group if their number of Between Predictors of Creativity Obtained in
public achievements was greater than or equal to 61 (n = 1958–64 and Criteria of Creative Achievement
27, 31% of the sample), and to the low creative group if Obtained in 1998
their number of public achievements was less than or
equal to 22 (n = 26, 31% of the sample). Additional analy- Criteria
ses were then conducted on this sample of 53 respon-
dents. A chi-square analysis was used to determine if Predictors Quantity Quality
there were any differences in the number of males and
females in the two groups. Then, the grouping variable IQ .30* .32**
was used in a two-way ANOVA to determine if there was Fluency .23* .30
a difference in quality ratings for the genders in the two Flexibility .17 .35**
quantity groups. Originality .24* .39**
Finally, in order to examine the relationships of the Elaboration .09 .14
various variables more clearly, structural equation model- CIQ .27 .43**
ing was employed. Plucker (1999) had analyzed
Mentor ’80 .29** .39**
Torrance’s 1980 follow-up data using structural equation
Mentor ’98 .26* .26*
modeling and found a significant effect of the verbal
TTCT scores and IQ on adult creative achievement. The Quality .85**
intention to replicate the Plucker model on the 1998 fol- *
p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01
low-up had to undergo some modifications due to the
following difficulties. Results
First, the 1998 data had a smaller sample size (N = 80
for this analysis) than the 1980 data because of the attri- The results of a Pearson product-moment correlation
tion typical in longitudinal studies. The small sample size between the predictors obtained in childhood and the
created a problem for a stable estimation of parameters in criteria of creative achievement are illustrated in Table 1.
a structural equation model. In order to ameliorate the IQ, Fluency, and Originality scores obtained in child-
sample size problem, the Plucker model had to be simpli- hood were the best test predictors of quantity of creative
fied by reducing the number of variables entered. One achievement 40 years later. The best test predictors of
way to reduce the number of variables was to concentrate quality of creative achievements were IQ, Flexibility,
on only one form of the TTCT, Verbal or Figural. As Originality, and the creativity index. From the question-
Plucker had already derived a model using the scores naires, the predictors of having had a mentor, in 1980 and
from the Verbal TTCT, it was decided to use only the 1998 respectively, were correlated with quantity and
Figural scores. Therefore, the Verbal TTCT scores of quality of creative achievements. Quality and quantity
Fluency, Flexibility, and Originality, which composed were highly correlated with each other.
the latent factor of Verbal TTCT in Plucker’s model, As indicated in Table 2, when the data were analyzed
were left out. by gender, IQ was still a better predictor of adult creative
Second, the Figural TTCT in its older form yielded achievements for females than for males, as was found in
four scores: Fluency, Flexibility, Originality, and 1980. Flexibility, Originality, and the creativity index
Elaboration. In fitting the model to the 1980 follow-up were better predictors of quality of creative achievements
data, Flexibility and Elaboration were pruned out (Plucker, than of quantity for both genders.
1999). Nevertheless, we included all four scores in the Having had a mentor in 1980 was significantly related
model fitting in order to preserve the integrity of the to females’ quantity and quality of creative production,
TTCT and to have more indicators for the latent factor. but not to males’. Having had a mentor in 1998 was
Third, considering that the latent factor of IQ had related to both males’ and females’ quality of creative
only a single indicator and that IQ is known to have a achievement, but not to the quantity. As might be
high reliability but is not free from measurement error, expected, quantity and quality of creative production
we specified a 10% measurement error in the IQ vari- were highly correlated for both males and females. This
able. provides further evidence of the link between quantity of

G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4 2 8 7
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
 4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S

Ta b l e 2
Product-Moment Correlation Coefficients by Gender Between Predictors of Creativity Obtained in 1958–64
and Criteria of Creative Achievement Obtained in 1998

Criteria

Males Females

Predictors Quantity Quality Quantity Quality

IQ .15 .22 .38* .43**

Fluency .16 .30 .30 .35*
Flexibility .20 .37* .16 .35*
Originality .20 .36* .29 .45**
Elaboration -.02 .13 .22 .20
CIQ .33 .51** .26 .43**
Mentor ’80 .17 .30 .41** .50**
Mentor ’98 .27 .36* .25 .40**
Quality .90** .81**
*
p ≤ .05, **p ≤ .01

Figure 1. Structural equation model

ideas and the production of quality ideas (c.f. Runco,
1990).
The chi-square analysis of gender by high vs. low
quantity of public achievements was not significant.
There were no differences in the proportion of males and
females in the two quantity groups. A two-way ANOVA
of quality, by gender by group (high vs. low creative), was
statistically significant (F [1,49] = 9.53, p < .01). The
quality ratings for both males and females were signifi-
cantly higher for the high quantity group.
The structural equation model is diagrammed in Figure
1. This model specified that intelligence as indicated by IQ
scores should have an effect on the TTCT, indicated by
fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, and also
have an effect on creative achievement, indicated by expert
judges’ mean ratings on the creativeness and importance of
participants’ creative products. Moreover, the model speci-
fied that performance on the TTCT should have an effect
on creative achievement, too. This path from TTCT to
creative achievement is considered essential because the
purpose of Torrance’s longitudinal studies is to test the
predictive ability of the TTCT.

2 8 8 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
 4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S

Ta b l e 3
Parameter estimate values, standard errors, and values
Parameter Estimate, Standard Error, and R2 Values
for Model A of R2 are shown in Table 3. All hypothesized paths were
significant and in the expected direction. No out of range
Parameter Parameter Standard R2 parameter estimates or inf lated standard errors were
Estimate Error noted. As can be seen in the table, the scales measuring
f luency and f lexibility resulted in the highest values of R2
Fluency ‘ TTCT 1.00a —— .63 for the TTCT, while quality of creative achievements
Flexibility ‘ TTCT 1.05 .16 .58 yielded the highest value for the creative achievement
Originality ‘ TTCT 1.00 .17 .46 scale. Although intelligence was a significant predictor of
Elaboration ‘ TTCT 0.79 .17 .30 TTCT scores, it explained very little of the variance in
Quality ‘ Creative Ach 1.00 —— .87 these scores (R2 = .085). However, the combination of
Quantity ‘ Creative Ach 1.70 .44 .31
TTCT and intelligence explained 54% of the variance in
Intelligence ‘ TTCT 0.10 .043 .085
creative achievement.
TTCT ‘ Creative Ach 0.71 .14
Intelligence ‘ Creative Ach 0.06 .04 .54b
a
Value fixed for identification purposes. S u m m a r y o f t h e 4 0 - Ye a r
b
This value represents the amount of variance explained by both the TTCT and
intelligence scales.
Study
A difference between the 1980 and 1998 follow-ups The predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative
was the evaluation of creative achievement. In 1980, it Thinking, Verbal and Figural, is relatively strong consider-
was evaluated by the participants themselves, who ing the span of 40 years during which time data were col-
selected three of their most creative products, which were lected. The various studies demonstrated that the creativity
then rated by expert judges on their creative quality. In index, a combined TTCT score, was predictive of future
1998, it was the expert judges who rated the creativeness creative production, as were the dimension scores when
and importance of participants’ creative achievement analyzed separately. The fact that TTCT scores could
based on the information participants provided on the explain 23% of the variance in creative production is
questionnaires. The univariate distributions of mean rat- important in view of the length of the study and the fact
ings from three expert judges on the creativeness and that other important variables such as motivation and
importance of participants’ creative products (labeled as opportunity mediate creative production.
Overall, the data support the value of intelligence and
M Creativeness and M Importance) deviated slightly
creativity measures taken in childhood for predicting adult
from normality (kurtosis = -1.095, skewness = .10 for M
productive success. However, it is very clear that there are
Creativeness; and kurtosis = .912, skewness = .093 for M
many additional factors that can help or hinder this success.
Importance), but transformation was not considered to
As in Terman’s (Terman & Oden, 1959) and Bloom’s
be necessary (Wang, Fan, & Willson, 1996).
(1985) studies with highly intelligent and talented individ-
The model presented provided a good fit to the data:
uals, Torrance’s longitudinal studies point out the critical
χ212 = 17.07 (p = .15; RMSEA [Root Mean Square Error of
role that personalogical factors, chance experiences, and
Approximation] = .088; CFI [Comparative Fit Index] =
other environmental situations play in the development of
.98; SRMR [Standardized Root Mean squared Residual] = the productive individual. This further validates the sys-
.05). Although the value of the RMSEA was slightly tems emphasis for the study of creativity (Feldman,
higher than that recommended by Hu and Bentler (1999), Csikszentmihalyi, & Gardner, 1994) of which creative
all other fit indices indicated an adequate fit. Therefore, aptitude is but one, albeit critical, part of the formula.
although modification indices indicated that the model
could be improved by allowing a correlation between the
residuals of f luency and flexibility, this parameter was not Relevance to the Schools
added. However, this suggested correlation does indicate of This Millennium
that the two scales share more variance than can be
accounted for by the fact that they are part of the same fac- The work on measuring creative potential that was
tor. This finding lends some support to Torrance’s argu- begun in 1958 (Torrance, 1990; Torrance & DeYoung,
ment that these two scales should be highly correlated. 1958) has direct ramifications for the classrooms of today.

G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4 2 8 9
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
4 0 - Y E A R F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E
That is because Torrance’s initial interest in creativity test-
ing derived from his observation that children seen as
behavior problems were often also very creative. This
observation was strengthened when he studied the survival
training of air force pilots; he observed that the risk-taking
fighter pilots were also very creative (Torrance, 1954).
However, in the late 1950s, there were fewer psychological
classifications for children whose behaviors did not fit the
classroom norm; some would argue that there were fewer
children who misbehaved. In any case, when Torrance
began work on his tests of creativity, the now common clas-
sification of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder did
not exist. Until about 1960, the syndrome, when diag-
nosed, was known as minimal brain dysfunction (Barkley,
1990). By 1991, ADHD was listed as the most common
reason for referral and diagnosis in children seen in psycho-
logical clinics (Frick & Lahey, 1991). Currently, Asperger’s
Syndrome, an autism-type syndrome, is gaining as a diag-
nosis for bright children who don’t fit in socially (Boyle,
2003; Gallagher & Gallagher, 2002; Neihart, 2000).
When Torrance began his work on creativity testing in
1958, he could have no way of knowing that the schools
of the next millennium would be beset with multiple
diagnoses for the “wild colts” children (Torrance, 1990,
p. 2) who interested him. He knew they were creative,
and he set about to design an instrument to measure that.
Perhaps, now, with the proliferation of psycho-educa-
tional syndromes in the schools, it is especially important
to be able to discern aberrant behavior that is indicative of
high creativity rather than psychological disturbance.
Another reason that the TTCT are especially relevant in
education today is the increased emphasis on using multiple
criteria to identify gifts and talents in children, and a widen-
ing belief in the existence of multiple intelligences. When
intelligence tests alone were an accepted way of identifying
the gifted, measures of creativity seemed less critical.
However, the change in emphasis in recent years on identi-
fying and nurturing talents in youth has necessitated various
methods for assessing potential in a wide variety of ways.
The TTCT is one way to assess creative potential.
Also, with the emphasis shifting to identifying more
students from underserved populations, the use of a cul-
ture-fair instrument like the TTCT-Figural (Torrance,
1971, 1977) is indicated. With the increased enrollment
of children with limited or no proficiency in English, the
use of a test that requires minimal language, like the
TTCT-Figural, is helpful.
In the wake of the Brown decision (Brown v. Board of
Education, 1954), Torrance may have had some idea about
the effects of the developing civil rights movement on the
2 9 0 G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY • F A L L
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
T E S T S
schools, but could only hope that the schools would
someday use measures of creativity as another way of
finding gifts in children who did not necessarily score
highly on IQ tests. The demographics of the U.S. schools
and society were so different in the 1950s, he would not
have anticipated the numbers of ESOL children in the
schools of today. However, he knew that children of all
colors and nationalities can demonstrate creative think-
ing, and he created a test to measure that ability in them.
The reasons for using the TTCT as stated in 1966 are
as relevant today, or more so, as they were then: namely,
(a) to promote understanding of the human mind,
its functioning and development; (b) to assist in the
development of individualized instruction; (c) to
provide additional information for remedial and
psychotherapeutic programs; (d) to assess the differ-
ential effects of educational materials, programs,
curricula, procedures, and so on; and (e) to point
out potentialities that might otherwise go unno-
ticed—especially in children from culturally diverse
and lower socioeconomic backgrounds. (Torrance,
1966, p. 6)
References
Ball, O. E., & Torrance, E. P. (1984). Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking: Streamlined scoring guide Figural A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Barkley, R. A. (Ed.). (1990). Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity
Disorder: A handbook for diagnosis and treatment. New York:
Guilford Press.
Bloom, B. S. (Ed.). (1985). Developing talent in young people. New
York: Ballantine Books.
Boyle, D. (2003, October 6). The syndrome that became an
epidemic. New Statesman, 132, 27.
Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas, 347 U.S. 483
(1954).
Cramond, B. (1994). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:
From creation through establishment of predictive validity.
In R. F. Subotnik & K. D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman:
Longitudinal studies in contemporary education (pp. 229–254).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cramond, B. (1999). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:
Going beyond the scores. In A. S. Fishkin, B. Cramond, &
P. Olszewski-Kubilius (Eds.), Investigating creativity in youth
(pp. 307–328). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Cropley, A. J. (1971). Some Canadian creativity research.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3),
113–115.
2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4
 4 0 - Y E A R
Feldman, D. H., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994).
Changing the world: A framework for the study of creativity.
Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
Frick, P. J., & Lahey, B. B. (1991). The nature and characteris-
tics of Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. School
Psychology Review, 20, 163–173.
Gallagher, S., & Gallagher, J. J. (2002). Giftedness and
Asperger’s Syndrome: A new agenda for education.
Understanding Our Gifted, 14(2), 7–12.
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). The Abbreviated Torrance Test
for Adults (ATTA). Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing
Service.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). Structure of intellect. Psychological Review,
53, 267–293.
Hu, I., & Bentler, P. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in
covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus
new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, l–55.
Millar, G. W., & Torrance, E. P. (2001). The Torrance kids at
midlife: Selected case studies of creative behavior. Westport, CT:
Greenwood.
Neihart, M. (2000). Gifted children with Asperger’s Syndrome.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 222–230.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof really in the pudding?
Reanalysis of Torrance’s longitudinal data. Creativity
Research Journal, 12, 103–114.
Runco, M. A. (1990) Implicit theories and ideational creativity.
In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity
(pp. 234–252). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). Genetic studies of genius:
Vol. 5. The gifted group at midlife: Thirty-five years’ follow-up of
a superior group. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1954). The development of a preliminary Life
Experience Inventory for the study of fighter interceptor pilot com-
bat effectiveness. San Antonio, TX: Air Force Personnel and
Training Research Center, Lackland AFB.
Torrance, E. P. (1959). Current research on the nature of cre-
ative talent. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 6, 309–316.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-
technical manual (Research ed.). Princeton, NJ: Personnel
Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1968). A longitudinal examination of the
fourth grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 12,
195–199.
Torrance, E. P. (1969). Prediction of adult creative achievement
among high school seniors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13,
223–229.
Torrance, E. P. (1971). Are the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking biased against or in favor of “disadvantaged”
groups? Gifted Child Quarterly, 15, 75–80.
Torrance, E. P. (1972a). Career patterns and peak creative
achievements of creative high school students twelve years
later. Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 75–88.
Torrance, E. P. (1972b). Predictive validity of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6,
236–252.
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A R T E R LY
Downloaded from gcq.sagepub.com at TEXAS SOUTHERN UNIVERSITY on December 19, 2014
F O L L O W- U P O F T H E T O R R A N C E T E S T S
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Norms-technical manual: Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking. Lexington, MA: Ginn & Co.
Torrance, E. P. (1977). Discovery and nurturance of giftedness in the
culturally different. Reston, VA: ERIC Clearinghouse on
Handicapped and Gifted Children. (ERIC Document
Reproduction Service No. ED145621)
Torrance, E. P. (1979). The search for satori and creativity. Buffalo,
NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Torrance, E. P. (1980). Norms-technical manual: Demonstrator form
for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Unpublished
Manuscript, Georgia Studies of Creative Behavior, Athens,
GA.
Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Predicting the creativity of elementary
school children (1958–80)—and the teacher who “made a
difference.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62.
Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Empirical validation of criterion-refer-
enced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal
study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136–140.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). Experiences in developing creativity measures:
Insights, discoveries, decisions. Unpublished Manuscript,
Torrance Center for Creative Studies and Talent
Development, University of Georgia, Athens, GA.
Torrance, E. P., Ball, E. O., & Safter, H. T. (1992). Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking: Streamlined scoring guide Figural A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P., & DeYoung, K. (1958). Life Experience
Inventory: Creativity Form. Minneapolis, MN: Bureau of
Educational Research, University of Minnesota.
Torrance, E. P., Tan, C. A., & Allman, T. (1970). Verbal origi-
nality and teacher behavior: A predictive validity study.
Journal of Teacher Education, 21, 335–341.
Wang, L., Fan, X., & Willson, V. L. (1996). Effects of nonnor-
mal data on parameter estimates and fit indices for a model
with latent and manifest variables: An empirical study.
Structural Equation Modeling, 3, 228–246.
Witt, G. (1971). The Life Enrichment Activity Program, Inc.:
A continuing program for creative, disadvantaged children.
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 4(3), 14–22.
End Notes
1. Although qualitative data were also collected and
analyzed, the report of that information is too lengthy to
be included here. Some of the qualitative data will be
reviewed in a future article. Also, readers are referred to
Millar, G. W., & Torrance, E. P. (2001). The Torrance kids
at midlife: Selected case studies of creative behavior. Westport,
CT: Greenwood.
2. For the rest of his life, Torrance used his own
money, usually from his royalties, to pay for most of his
research. He bought his own copy machine, paid for
graduate student help, purchased his own postage, etc.
• F A L L 2 0 0 5 • V O L 4 9 N O 4 2 9 1