Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

Evidence of the Psychometric Integrity of the

Creative Personality Scale using Item Response
Theory Models

Meihua Qian, Jonathan A. Plucker & Xiangdong Yang

To cite this article: Meihua Qian, Jonathan A. Plucker & Xiangdong Yang (2019): Evidence of
the Psychometric Integrity of the Creative Personality Scale using Item Response Theory Models,
Creativity Research Journal, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2019.1647758

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1647758

View supplementary material

Published online: 04 Aug 2019.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 17

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 0(0), 1–7, 2019
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print/1532-6934 online
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2019.1647758

RESEARCH NOTE

Evidence of the Psychometric Integrity of the Creative

Personality Scale using Item Response Theory Models
Meihua Qian
Clemson University

Jonathan A. Plucker
Johns Hopkins University

Xiangdong Yang
East China Normal University

Gough’s Creative Personality Scale (CPS) has been very widely used to assess creative
personality characteristics, and many researchers have argued that it is associated with strong
reliability and validity evidence. However, findings vary considerably across the samples
used in each study, suggesting that an analysis using the item response theory framework
would provide more useful evidence of the instrument’s psychometric integrity. Results
suggest that the CPS is multidimensional, and some items have low discrimination indices.
Additionally, significant correlations between participants’ trait estimates (i.e., estimated
creative personality) and their engagement in a range of creative activities indicate that the
CPS is associated with convincing evidence of criterion-related validity.

The Creative Personality Scale (CPS; Gough, 1979) has
been extremely widely used, with this popularity due pri-
marily to its ease of administration, ease of scoring, and
generally convincing evidence of reliability and validity
(e.g., Hocevar, 1981; Kadusa & Schaefer, 1991; Sheldon,
1995; Zhou & Oldham, 2001). But the evidence concerning
its reliability and validity varies considerably across the
samples used in each study.
Specifically, the CPS was derived from the Adjective
Check List (ACL; Gough & Heilbrun, 1965), a self-
report measure which itself was originally intended to
Address correspondence to Meihua Qian, College of Education,
Clemson University, 410 Tillman Hall, Clemson, SC 29634. E-mail:
mqian@g.clemson.edu
The authors have no conflicts of interest to report and confirm that the
data used for this article have not been used in any previous reports.
Meihua Qian, College of Education, Clemson University; Jonathan
A. Plucker, Center for Talented Youth and School of Education, Johns
Hopkins University; Xiangdong Yang, School of Education Science, East
China Normal University.
examine a person’s self-concept. Later six subscales were
developed to investigate creativity (e.g., MacKinnon,
1963), but evidence of validity for these subscales was
lacking (Gough, 1979). Therefore, with a sample of
1,701 architects, mathematicians, research scientists,
senior engineers, and graduate students in psychology,
Gough used the ACL to develop another subscale, the
CPS.
Gough first divided the subjects into four subgroups
based on gender and field in which each person worked,
and the subjects completed the ACL. Second, the corre-
lations between each item and the criterion ratings of
creativity in the subgroups were calculated. If the cor-
relations were statistically significant, the corresponding
items would be included (Gough, 1979). For example,
the item “original” produced correlations with the var-
ious criterion ratings of creativity of .13, .06, .17 and
.11 in the four subgroups. Two of these coefficients
were statistically significant (p < .05). Although the
other two coefficients were not significant, they were
2 QIAN ET AL.
positive, and the item “original” is consistent with the
definition of creative personality (Gough, 1979). For all
of these reasons, it was included in the CPS. Another 29
items were similarly selected for the final scale. Among
the 30 items, there were 12 contraindicative and 18
indicative adjectives. Internal consistency estimates, as
measured by Cronbach’s Alpha, ranged from .73 to .81
for the four subgroups. In addition, 10 out of 12 criter-
ion validity coefficients for the CPS were significant at
the 0.05 level, but all of these validity coefficients
varied from subgroup to subgroup, ranging widely
from 0.15 to 0.42.
This lack of invariance in reliability and validity esti-
mates across samples is a cause for concern and, given
the continued popularity of the instrument, the motiva-
tion for the current study. During many phases of the
instrument’s development, from the item selection pro-
cess to the calculation of reliability and validity evi-
dence, sampling impacted the development of the CPS.
In order to obtain item estimates independent of
a specific sample, the CPS was reexamined using the
item response theory (IRT) framework. In IRT, item
properties such as difficulty and discrimination can be
estimated independent of the ability level of the exam-
inee (e.g., Nandakumar & Ackerman, 2004), given that
the corresponding IRT model fits the data. In other
words, item statistics are invariant across samples. This
is a great advantage over the traditional classical test
theory (CTT), in which items statistics rely heavily on
the characteristics of each sample and thus might lack
invariance across samples (e.g., Embretson & Reise,
2000; Nandakumar & Ackerman, 2004).
IRT models
There are a variety of IRT models. Based on various data
formats, there are dichotomous IRT models and polyto-
mous IRT models. According to the number of latent
traits included in the model, there exist unidimensional
and multidimensional IRT models. IRT models can also
be classified into one-parameter logistic (1PL) model,
two-parameter logistic (2PL) model, or three-parameter
logistic (3PL) model based on the number of item para-
meters included in the model. Since the CPS generates
binary responses, and it is not an achievement test, a 2PL
IRT model for dichotomous data will be used to estimate
its item properties. The detailed model specification is as
follows:
PðXis ¼1j θs ; bi ; αi Þ¼ exp½1:7αi ðθs bi Þ=
f1 þ exp½1:7αi ðθs bi Þg :
For any person s, the probability of endorsing
a particular CPS item (i.e., P (Xi = 1)) is based on the
difference between his/her creative personality trait level
(θs) and the item location parameter (bi), and the item
discrimination parameter (αi).
IRT provides a more complete theoretical framework
than CTT for checking items’ properties. However, the
benefits of IRT techniques are associated with a close
match between the model and data. Three fundamental
assumptions underlie item response models. They are
monotonicity, dimensionality, and local independence.
Monotonicity means that the higher the examinee’s abil-
ity, the greater the probability of getting an item correct.
As many tests inherently meet with this assumption, it is
often assumed (Nandakumar & Ackerman, 2004).
According to Embretson and Reise (2000), dimensional-
ity and local independence are the two major assump-
tions that should be checked. Local independence implies
that for an examinee, his/her response to an item only
depends on his or her trait level and has nothing to do
with his or her response to other test items or other
common factors. But actually item responses are condi-
tionally independent. If the test is unidimensional, then
local independence is achieved by conditioning on
a unidimensional latent trait. If the test is multidimen-
sional, then local independence can be achieved by con-
ditioning on a multidimensional latent trait vector.
Therefore, local independence and dimensionality are
two interrelated concepts, and only one of them needs
to be tested. In practice, local independence is usually
assumed, and dimensionality is tested. The aim of this
paper was to reexamine the psychometric properties of
the CPS using the IRT framework.
STUDY 1: FACTOR AND IRT ANALYSIS STUDY
Method
Participants and procedure
Participants consisted of 220 undergraduate students and
139 graduate students who attended two leading universi-
ties in East China. They (68% female) represented a wide
range of majors, such as psychology, sociology, biology,
chemistry, engineering, arts, and music.
Students were first instructed to sign a consent form to
participate in the study, and then they were instructed to
complete the measures by one of the researchers in their
classrooms. In the meantime, students were reminded
that their participation was completely voluntary and
they could withdraw from the study at any time.
Measures
The Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979) was
employed in the study, which is one of the most widely
used instruments for measuring a person’s creative
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 3

personality (e.g., Sheldon, 1995). It consists of 18 posi- TABLE 1

tive and 12 negative items. All the items have binary Exploratory factor analysis of the CPS
responses. A participant scored 1 by endorsing a positive Standardized Factor Loading
item and scored −1 by endorsing a negative item. In
addition, items were translated into Chinese by a group Item Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3
of researchers who had years of experience of studying Inventive 0.74
creativity and were fluent in both Chinese and English. Individualistic 0.71
The conceptual equivalence of the English and Chinese Original 0.67
versions was examined and achieved through back- Sexy 0.60
Insightful 0.59
translation.
Confident 0.58
Clever 0.56
Informal 0.56
Results Intelligent 0.55
Unconventional 0.52
Dimensionality assessment Egotistical 0.51
Reflective 0.47
The unidimensionality of the CPS was examined via Humorous 0.42
exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using TESTFACT 4 Resourceful 0.41
software (e.g., Bock, Gibbons, & Murraki, 1988; Bock Self-confident 0.41
et al., 2002). As all the responses were binary, EFA was Interest-wide 0.37
Conservative 0.67
carried out based on the tetrochoric correlation matrix.
Conventional 0.66
The CPS appeared to be multidimensional because the Capable 0.65
first eigenvalue (6.16) was not five times as large as Honest 0.64
the second one (4.32), and the second and third eigenva- Well-mannered 0.62
lues (4.07) were very similar. In the end, three factors Cautious 0.52
Sincere 0.39
were extracted because the fourth eigenvalue (2.51)
Artificial 0.77
seemed to be much smaller than the third one. Snobbish 0.71
However, a further examination of several large residual Suspicious 0.68
correlations indicated that the addition of a fourth factor Submissive 0.57
might be necessary. Moreover, the chi-square decrease Dissatisfied 0.47
Narrow interest 0.35
(and the associated change in degrees of freedom) due to
Commonplace 0.32
adding the fourth factor was 68 (27), which was signifi-
cant at the .01 level. But after the fourth factor was
extracted, only two items loaded highly on it, and these
items also had nontrivial loadings on the third factor. In a unidimensional subscale, three 2PL IRT models were
other words, these two items did not seem to represent fitted to the data. Item parameters were estimated via the
a meaningful fourth dimension. Hence, the three-factor marginal maximum likelihood procedure, and the person
solution was adopted for subsequent analyses. Table 1 parameter was estimated through the expected
shows the factor loading of each item on the correspond- a posteriori approach.
ing factor. It seems factor 1 stands for positive creative All item characteristic curves (ICC) indicated excel-
personality characteristics (e.g., inventive, confident, and lent fit between observed values and predicted values
intelligent), factor 2 represents neutral creative personal- generated from the IRT model, with p-values much
ity characteristics (e.g., conventional, well-mannered, and greater than 0.05 for each chi-square test. In addition,
honest) and factor 3 represents negative creative person- concerning each model, both item parameter invariance
ality characteristics (e.g., snobbish, submissive, and nar- and person parameter invariance were achieved. For
row interest). instance, with regard to model one, b1 (i.e., the esti-
mated item location values based on the first random
half sample) was regressed on b2 (i.e., the estimated
IRT analyses
item location values based on the second random half
Since the pairwise correlations among the three sample), with a resulting standardized regression coeffi-
extracted factors were very weak (i.e., r < 0.1) and cient of 0.92. These results suggested that the estimates
were not statistically significant, unidimensional IRT of item location values were invariant across different
models instead of a multidimensional IRT model were samples. A similar strategy was used to examine item
employed to estimate each item’s discrimination and discrimination estimates, with a resulting standardized
difficulty (i.e., location) indices using the BILOG-MG3 regression coefficient of 0.89, indicating that the esti-
program. In other words, treating each factor as mates of item discrimination were also invariant across
4 QIAN ET AL.

different samples. Since item parameter invariance and by 1 over the square root of test information. The test
person parameter invariance for the other two IRT mod- information function (TIF) is the sum of the item infor-
els also appeared to hold, it seems reasonable to con- mation functions, and is a measure of how much infor-
clude a good fit between the constructed IRT model and mation a test provides at different trait levels. For
observed data was achieved (Hambleton, Swaminathan, a given item, its information function will reach its
& Rogers, 1991). maximum for individuals whose trait is at or near the
Table 2 displays the estimated item parameters. As the value of the location parameter.
participants’ trait estimates are not a focus of the present The TIF actually corresponds to reliability in the CTT
study, they are not listed below. Table 2 shows that most framework and the standard error of measurement.
items had moderate discrimination values, and eight items Reliability pertains to the precision of measurement,
(i.e., Egotistical, Reflective, Humorous, Resourceful, Wide and it is usually measured using a single index such as
Interests, Self-confident, Sincere, and Commonplace) had the ratio of true and observed score variance. This index
rather low discrimination values. According to Gough characterizes a test’s average reliability. But in the IRT
(1979), the first six items are positive and are consonant framework, the precision of measurement is not uniform
with the definition of creative personality, and the last two across the entire range of estimated trait levels.
items are contraindicative. Specifically, regarding subscale1, clearly items contribu-
The test information curve of each subscale can be ted the most information between theta values (i.e., esti-
found in the online supplemental materials. The standard mated creative personality trait) of −1.6 and 0, and little
error function was plotted on the same graph. It’s given information at the end points, where the standard error
rose sharply (see online supplemental materials). For
subscale 2, items offered the most information between
TABLE 2 theta values of −2.0 and −1.0, and less information
Item analyses of subscales 1–3 beyond this range (see online supplemental materials).
Item discrimination Item location Subscale 3 displays an interesting situation. The higher
the theta values were, the more information the items
a SE b SE provided (see online supplemental materials).
Subscale 1 Intelligent 1.53 0.40 −1.73 0.27
Inventive 1.28 0.41 −0.46 0.17
Original 1.20 0.35 −0.90 0.21 STUDY 2: VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY STUDY
Individualistic 1.00 0.23 −1.17 0.25
Clever 0.99 0.26 −1.53 0.35
Sexy 0.81 0.18 −0.03 0.19 Method
Confident 0.79 0.22 −1.09 0.32
Insightful 0.76 0.18 −0.87 0.24
Participants
Informal 0.71 0.16 −0.56 0.20 A subset of the participants described in study 1 were chosen
Unconventional 0.70 0.17 0.22 0.24
Egotistical 0.59 0.16 1.80 0.44
for study 2 because only 312 students completed both the CPS
Humorous 0.59 0.15 −1.44 0.42 and the Creative Behavior Inventory (Hocevar, 1979, 1980).
Reflective 0.58 0.13 −0.46 0.27
Self-confident 0.57 0.14 −0.80 0.32 Measures
Resourceful 0.52 0.14 −1.11 0.35
Wide-interests 0.51 0.14 −2.08 0.59 In addition to the CPS, participants were also asked to
Subscale 2 fill out the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI; Hocevar,
Honest 1.22 0.36 −1.27 0.23
Conservative 1.09 0.40 0.72 0.19
1979, 1980) because the CBI and other similar measures
Capable 1.06 0.31 −1.95 0.35 have been widely used to measure students’ creativity (e.g.,
Conventional 0.80 0.21 1.27 0.28 Dollinger, 2003; Paek & Runco, 2017). This 77-item inven-
Well-mannered 0.69 0.17 −1.23 0.30 tory is a self-reported checklist of creative behaviors or
Cautious 0.67 0.16 −0.37 0.21 activities that each participants has been previously
Sincere 0.56 0.14 −1.45 0.37
Subscale 3
engaged in. Every item is on a scale from 0 (never) to 6
Artificial 1.34 0.50 1.65 0.30 (more than six times).
Snobbish 1.05 0.38 2.17 0.47
Suspicious 0.98 0.31 0.75 0.21
Narrow Interests 0.78 0.23 2.28 0.55 Results
submissive 0.74 0.24 1.93 0.50
Dissatisfied 0.69 0.19 1.07 0.31 Criterion-related validity
Commonplace 0.54 0.16 2.58 0.75
Since Gough (1979) selected the CPS items based upon
Note. a = item discrimination. b = item location. SE = standard error. the correlations between every item and various criterion
 CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 5

ratings of creativity, correlations between the CPS item
scores and the CBI total score were calculated. As
described above, the CBI is a self-report checklist that
asks participants to indicate the frequency with which
they participate in a range of creative activities. Previous
psychometric research has indicated that the CBI item
scores can be represented effectively with a one-factor
model (Pluker, 1999). Correlations between the CPS item
scores and CBI scale score are included in Table 3. It seems
seven items did not correlate significantly with CBI scores.
Also, according to Gough (1979), sincere should be nega-
tively correlated with the criterion measure of creativity,
while egotistical should be positively correlated with the
criterion measure of creativity.
In addition, for the three subscales, correlations
between the total score of each subscale and the total
score of CBI were calculated to show criterion-related
validity under the CTT framework, whereas the correla-
tions between the participants’ trait estimates and the
total score of CBI were calculated to show criterion-
related validity under the IRT framework. Specifically,
CPS subscale 1 included 16 positive items, so significant
TABLE 3
Correlations between CPS item scores and CBI scale score
positive correlations of subscale 1 with CBI scores were
observed (see Table 4). CPS subscales 2 and 3 repre-
sented either neutral or negative creative personality
characteristics. Hence, they appeared to be significantly
negatively correlated with CBI scores, which is basically
consistent with Gough’s (1979) conclusion. Also, both
CTT and IRT provided similar evidence of the CPS’s
criterion-related validity.
Internal consistency
The Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for the CPS and
subscales 1–3 were calculated to provide evidence of
internal consistency, and they were .70, .77, .61, and
.58, respectively. If those eight items with low discrimi-
nation indices (i.e., Egotistical, Reflective, Humorous,
Resourceful, Wide Interests, Self-confident, Sincere, and
Commonplace) are deleted, the CPS will have 10 positive
items and 12 neutral or negative items, with subscale 1
containing 10 positive items, subscale 2 having 6 neutral
items, and subscale 3 including 6 negative items. After
deletion, the Cronbach’s Alpha Coefficients for the CPS
and subscales 1–3 will be .60, .74, .61, and .60, respec-
tively. Therefore, removing those eight items with low
discrimination indices does not seem to dramatically
change the Cronbach’s Alphas Coefficients.

Item Correlation with CBI total score

Original .27**
Discussion
Individualistic .20** Factor and IRT analyses
Clever .04
Inventive .22** As far as creativity assessment is concerned, CTT still
Confident .28** remains the dominant approach because it does not
Insightful .21**
Humorous .14*
require strong theoretical assumptions. However, the
Intelligent .19** major drawback of CTT is that the estimation of item
Wide-interests .31** properties such as item discrimination and item diffi-
Informal .29** culty/location is heavily influenced by the characteristics
Resourceful .26** of each sample and thus might lack invariance across
Self-confident .13*
Reflective .12*
samples (e.g., Embretson & Reise, 2000; Nandakumar
Sexy .35** & Ackerman, 2004). In contrast, under the IRT frame-
Unconventional .08 work, item statistics can be estimated independent of the
Egotistical −.08 ability level of the examinee (e.g., Nandakumar &
Artificial −.13* Ackerman, 2004), given that the corresponding IRT
Snobbish .01
Narrow Interests −.24**
model fits the data well. In other words, item parameter
Capable .14*
submissive −.12*
TABLE 4
Honest −.05
Correlations of CPS subscale scores with the CBI total score
Suspicious −.14*
Commonplace −.18** Correlation with CBI scores
Dissatisfied −.04
Well-mannered −.18* Scale Under IRT framework Under CTT framework
Sincere .16**
Cautious −.03 Subscale1 .38** .33**
Conservative −.33** Subscale 2 −.28** −.28**
Conventional −.22** Subscale 3 −.25** −.24**

Note. * p < .05. ** p < .01. Note. ** p < .01.

6 QIAN ET AL.
invariance can be achieved. In addition, CTT focuses on
test-level information (e.g., the total score), while IRT
emphasizes the item-level information, which also makes
IRT more preferable than CTT. Therefore, three 2 PL
IRT models were fitted to each subscale of the CPS.
Findings suggest that although most of the CPS items
had moderate discrimination indices and could distin-
guish participants with different levels on the specific
creative personality trait, eight items had pretty low dis-
crimination indices, which means they are not able to
effectively differentiate people with various creative per-
sonality trait levels. Since the internal consistency analy-
sis in study 2 also indicates that deleting the eight items
with low discrimination indices does not seem to signifi-
cantly change the Cronbach’s Alphas Coefficients, we
suggest those eight items be either removed from the
CPS or replaced by other new items.
In addition to the estimated item statistics, the test
information function acquired through IRT analyses
reveals that the CPS subscales 1–3 provided different
amount of information across the entire range of the
estimated creative personality trait levels.
Zampetakis (2010) examined the factor structure of
the CPS with a sample of 228 engineering students
from a small Technical University in Greece and argued
that the CPS was unidimensional. However, exploratory
factor analysis based on the tetrachoric correlation matrix
in study 1 suggests that the CPS was multidimensional,
with factor 1 representing positive creative personality
characteristics, factor 2 standing for neutral creative per-
sonality characteristics, and factor 3 representing nega-
tive creative personality characteristics. More research is
needed to determine the exact reasons for this conflicting
finding.
Also, the CPS was developed empirically rather than
theoretically. Some items did not have promising item
properties partially because the selection of each item
was based solely on statistical significance, which was
further complicated by the sample-dependent nature of
CTT-based models. In the future, researchers may want
to develop measures of creativity based upon both the-
ories and empirical evidence.
Validity
Comparing the results of this study with Gough’s
(1979) findings, it shows that the correlations between
CPS items and the criterion measure of creativity varied
a lot with different samples under the CTT framework.
Specifically, Gough (1979) found that all the items sig-
nificantly correlated with participants’ criterion ratings of
creativity, whereas in this study seven items did not
correlate with the CBI score. Moreover, sincere changed
from a negative item to a positive one, while egotistical
changed from a positive item to a negative one. The
obvious inconsistency between what was found in this
study and Gough’s (1979) findings might be due to the
smaller sample size in the present study and a different
criterion measure of creativity. But the validity analyses
of the CPS subscales under both the IRT and CTT frame-
work support that the CPS is associated with convincing
evidence of criterion-related validity.
Limitations and future directions
This study has several limitations. First, Gough (1979)
developed the CPS with a sample of 1,701 architects,
mathematicians, research scientists, senior engineers, and
graduate students in psychology. However, the sample in
this study consisted of 359 undergraduate and graduate
students with various majors. In the future, if a similar
study can be conducted with a much larger and diverse
group of participants, it may provide more useful evi-
dence for further examining and revising those poorly
functioning items.
Second, CBI scores were employed to investigate the
CPS’s criterion-related validity in this study. Since the
CBI is a self-report checklist that asks participants about
their engagement in a range of creative activities, another
way to examine the CPS’s criterion-related validity will
be to measure participants’ actual creative achievements,
and then analyze the relationship between their estimated
creative personality trait and their creativity levels. In
summary, more research seems to be needed to develop
a better version of CPS as it was created several decades
ago, and it has been extremely widely used.
SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL
Supplemental data for this article can be accessed here.
DISCLOSURE STATEMENT
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the
authors.
REFERENCES
Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R., Schilling, S. G., Muraki, E., Wilson, D. T., &
Wood, R. (2002). TESTFACT 4 [Computer Program]. Chicago, IL:
Scientific Software International.
Bock, R. D., Gibbons, R. D., & Murraki, E. (1988). Full information factor
analysis. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 261–280.
doi:10.1177/014662168801200305
Dollinger, S. J. (2003). Need for uniqueness, need for cognition, and
creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 37, 99–116. doi:10.1002/
j.2162-6057.2003.tb00828.x

Embretson, S. E., & Reise, S. P. (2000). Item response theory for psychol-
ogists. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the adjective check list.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.37.8.1398
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The adjective check list manual.
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Hambleton, R. K., Swaminathan, H., & Rogers, H. J. (1991).
Fundamentals of item response theory. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Hocevar, D. (1979, April). The development of the creative behavior inventory.
Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological
Association,Las Vegas, NV. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED
170 350.).
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity.
Intelligence, 4, 25–40. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: A review and critique.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450–464. doi:10.1207/
s15327752jpa4505_1
Kadusa, H., & Schaefer, C. (1991). Concurrent validity of the creative
personality scale of the adjective check list. Psychological Reports, 69,
601–602. doi:10.2466/pr0.1991.69.2.601
MacKinnon, D. W. (1963). Creativity and images of the self. In
R. W. White (Ed.), The study of lives: Essays on personality in
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL 7
honor of Henry A. Murray (pp. 251-278). New York, NY: Atherton
Press.
Nandakumar, R., & Ackerman, T. (2004). Test modeling. In
D. Kaplan (Ed.), The Sage handbook of quantitative methodology
for the social sciences (pp. 93–105). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications.
Paek, S. H., & Runco, M. A. (2017). Dealing with the criterion problem by
measuring the quality and quantity of creative activity and
accomplishment. Creativity Research Journal, 29, 167–173.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2017.1304078
Plucker,J.A. (1999). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity check-
lists:Evidence of content generality.The Journal of Creative Behavior,
33, 126–137. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1999.tb01042.x
Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality.
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 25–36. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj0801_3
Zampetakis, L. A. (2010). Unfolding the measurement of the creative
personality. Journal Of Creative Behavior, 44,105–123. doi:10.1002/
j.2162-6057.2010.tb01328.x
Zhou, J., & Oldham, G. R. (2001). Enhancing creative performance:
Effects of expected developmental assessment strategies and creative
personality. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 151–167.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2001.tb01044.x