Defining and Measuring Creativity:
Are Creativity Tests Worth Using?
Arthur J. Cropley
Creativity tests measure specific cognitive processes such as thinking
divergently, making associations, constructing and combining broad
categories, or working on many ideas simultaneously. They also mea-
sure noncognitive aspects of creativity such as motivation (e.g.,
impulse expression, desire for novelty, risk-taking), and facilitatory per-
sonal properties like flexibility, tolerance for independence, or positive
attitudes to differentness. Raters can score the various kinds of test
with substantial levels of agreement, while scores are internally stable
to an acceptable degree. The tests also correlate to a reasonable
degree with various criteria of creativity such as teacher ratings, and
are useful predictors of adult behavior. Thus, they are useful in both
research and education. However, they are best thought of as mea-
sures of creative potential because creative achievement depends on
additional factors not measured by creativity tests, such as technical
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
skill, knowledge of a field, mental health, or even opportunity. However,
the multidimensional creativity concept they define indicates that
assessments should be based on several tests, rather than relying on a
single score.
Arthur J. Cropley is the author of 20 books and many articles and
received the 1997 Creativity Award of the World Council for Gifted and
Talented Children. He taught school in Australia, England and Canada.
After graduate study in Canada he taught in universities in Australia,
Canada and Germany until retiring in 1998.
K altsounis and Honeywell (e.g., 1980) published a sub-
stantial list of creativity tests, and Torrance and Goff
(1989) identified no fewer than 255 such instruments.
Although there is obviously no shortage of tests, many review-
ers have questioned their usefulness, usually on the grounds of
technical shortcomings, although they do not dismiss them out
of hand (Hocevar, 1981; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Cooper,
1991). This article examines a few of the tests, emphasizing
the contents they measure and the consistency with which they
measure them. The number of tests in existence made it neces-
sary to restrict coverage to instruments specifically referring to
creativity that were developed during the modern creativity era
introduced by Guilford (1950). The review is also restricted to
paper-and-pencil tests because these are most widely used in
education and research. It covers a mixture of well-known and
little-known procedures, but cannot do more than give some
idea of the range of instruments that exist. The contents are
organized in terms of creativity-related concepts (e.g., creative
products, creative processes, creative person). At the end of the
article the dimensions of creativity that emerge from the tests
are presented in tabular form (see Table 1), and their psycho-
metric properties summarized (see Table 2).
Creative Products
An early procedure for rating the creativity of products
was Taylor's (1975) Creative Product Inventory, which mea-
sures Generation, Reformulation, Originality, Relevancy,
Hedonics, Complexity, and Condensation. More recently,
Besemer and O'Quin (1987) developed the Creative Product
72/Roeper Review, Vol. 23, No. 2
Semantic Scale, which is based on three dimensions: Novelty
(the product is original, surprising and germinal), Resolution
(the product is valuable, logical, useful, and understandable),
and Elaboration and Synthesis (the product is organic, elegant,
complex, and well-crafted). These dimensions are assessed by
raters using a semantic-differential rating scale (e.g., surpris-
ing-unsurprising, logical-illogical, or elegant-inelegant) with
43 items in the latest version (Besemer & O'Quin, 1999).
Besemer (1998) confirmed empirically that the scale measures
three dimensions, and confirmed its ability to distinguish con-
sistently among products (three chairs of quite different
design). Reliabilities of the three dimensions ranged from 0.69
to 0.87 (alpha coefficients), with the majority of coefficients
being in excess of .80.
r
t seems logical to use expert opinion in rating products,
E
Land Hennessey (1994) emphasized the method of con-
sensual assessment. However, she reported inter-rater agree-
ment ranging up to .93 even among untrained undergraduates
who rated geometric designs or Picasso drawings on Creativi-
ty of Product and Creativity of Process on a 7-point scale,
simply applying their own subjective understanding of these
qualities. Internal reliabilities of the ratings of creativity
ranged from .73 to .93. Other studies also suggest that judging
properties connected with the creativity of products such as
effectiveness, usefulness, complexity, or understandability is
not as difficult as might be supposed. Vosburg (1998) report-
ed that untrained judges who rated products on 7-point scales
such as Very complex — Not at all complex or Very under-
standable — Not at all understandable achieved inter-rater
reliabilities of about .90.
The Creative Process
Creative thinking
The Creativity Tests for Children is based on Guilford's
(1976) Structure of Intellect (SI) model of intelligence. Suit-
able for Grades 4-6, it involves 10 tests from either the seman-
tic (verbal) or the visual and figural (nonverbal) content areas
of the SI model. The tests focus on "divergent production" of
units, classes, relations, systems, transformations and implica-
tions. Examples of tests are "Names for stories," "Different let-
ter groups," or "Making objects." Scoring of the tests concen-
trates on free production of a large number of ideas, not
originality or effectiveness. The test manual reports internal
reliabilities ranging from .42 to .97, mostly however, between
.70 and .85. Test scores correlate only moderately with teacher
ratings of creativity, and at a low level (-.06 to .35) with the
nowadays better known Torrance Tests discussed below. Also
based on the SI model, the Structure of the Intellect Learning
Abilities Test: Evaluation, Leadership, and Creative Think-
ing (SOI: ELCT) (Meeker, 1985) measures eight cognitive
activities connected with creativity, all of them involving
divergent thinking: divergent symbolic relations, divergent
symbolic units, divergent figural units, divergent semantic
units, divergent semantic relations, divergent semantic trans-
Manuscript submitted March, 2000.
Revision accepted September, 2000.
 formations, divergent figural relations, and divergent figural
transformations. Factor-analytic studies support the construct
validity of this test and inter-rater reliabilities are often very
high (up to .99).
T he best-known of the tests based on divergent think-
ing, however, are the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT), initially published in 1966 and since
revised (Torrance, 1999). The test materials include a verbal
section "Thinking Creatively with Words," and a nonverbal
or figural section, "Thinking Creatively with Pictures," both
of them having two forms, A and B. There are six verbal
activities (Asking, Guessing Causes, Guessing Conse-
quences, Product Improvement, Unusual Uses, Unusual
Questions and Just Suppose) and three figural activities (Pic-
ture Construction, Picture Completion and Lines/Circles).
The verbal activities yield scores on three dimensions
(referred to by Torrance as "mental characteristics"): Fluen-
cy, Flexibility and Originality. The nonverbal activities yield
scores for five mental characteristics: Fluency, Originality,
Elaboration, Abstractness of Titles, and Resistance to Prema-
ture Closure. In addition, the figural tests can be scored for
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
13 creative strengths (e.g., Storytelling Articulateness, Syn-
thesis of Incomplete Figures, and Fantasy).
The test manual reports a median inter-rater reliability
derived from a number of studies of the verbal activities of the
TTCT of as high as .97, and other research (see for instance
Sweetland & Keyser, 1991) indicates that the figure is com-
monly greater than .90 for both parts. According to Treffinger
(1985) test-retest reliabilities of the various subdimensions
commonly lie between .60 and .70. Mumford, Marks, Connel-
ly, Zaccaro and Johnson (1998) asked judges to use a 5-point
rating scale ranging from low to high to rate, among other
things, quality (in essence, effectiveness), originality, com-
plexity, and realism of answers on the Guessing Consequences
subtest, and after a practice run and a meeting to discuss the
basis of ratings the judges achieved inter-rater reliabilities of
.90 for quality, .86 for complexity, and .84 for originality. The
figure for realism was somewhat lower at .65.
A recent study by Plucker (1999) used sophisticated sta-
tistical procedures to reanalyze 20-year longitudinal
data on predictive validity originally collected by Torrance .
He concluded that composite verbal (but not figural) creativity
scores on the TTCT (obtained by averaging scores on three
testings) accounted for about 50% of the variance of scores on
the criterion of publicly recognized creative achievements and
participation in creative activities obtained several years later,
and predicted about three times as much of the criterion vari-
ance as IQs. This corresponds to a predictive validity coeffi-
cient of about .7. The TTCT's scores differentiate well
between students who subsequently go on to achieve public
acclaim as creative and those who do not.
Another influential creativity test to appear during this
period was that of Wallach and Kogan (1965), whose major
contribution was perhaps their emphasis on a gamelike atmos-
phere and the absence of time limits in the testing procedure.
This test contains three verbal subtests (Instances, Alternate
Uses and Similarities) and two subtests consisting of ambigu-
ous figural stimuli (Pattern Meanings, Line Meanings). Proba-
bly the most widely applied subtest is Alternate Uses, which,
as the name suggests, asks respondents to give as many unusu-
al uses as they can for various common items (e.g., newspaper,
knife, car tire, button, shoe, key). Originally, the test was
scored by counting the number of responses (fluency) and by
identifying responses that were unique to a specific person
within the group being tested (uniqueness). Nowadays, some
users also score the test for flexibility, originality (statistical
uncommonness), and usefulness (practicality and relevance to
reality). Fluency and flexibility require merely counting, but
originality and usefulness involve rating answers on a 7-point
scale (not original - very original; not useful - very useful).
Kogan (1983) listed many studies supporting the validity and
reliability of this test. More recently, Vosburg (1998) reported
inter-rater reliabilities of .92 for originality ratings and .83 for
usefulness. An overall alpha (internal consistency) reliability
of .86 was reported by the same author.
further, frequently cited test of the foundation period
dn the 1960s was the Remote Associates Test (RAT;
Mednick, 1962). This test is now out of print, but because of its
seminal influence on creativity testing it will be discussed here.
It is based on the fact that some people are better than others at
finding remote associates to stimulus words: These people are
rated more creative. Each of the 30 items, for which 40 minutes
are allowed, consists of several apparently unrelated words
(e.g., moon, cheese, and grass) and the task is to find a remote
fourth word that links these words (in the case of the example
just given blue would be appropriate). The score is the number
of correct solutions. Mednick reported internal consistency
coefficients of .91 and .92 respectively when the test was
administered to samples of male and female undergraduates.
The correlation with instructors' ratings on a university level
design course was .70, and the scale distinguished significantly
between psychology students rated as creative researchers and
those rated as low on creativity. Scores on the RAT also distin-
guished between students with liberal social attitudes and those
with conservative attitudes, as well as between those with artis-
tic and those with mechanical-agricultural vocational interests.
However, as Kasof (1997) summarized relevant findings, the
RAT has not shown more than moderate correlations with cre-
ative behavior in nontest situations.
An important advance in creativity testing in recent years
derives from increasing recognition of the fact that actual cre-
ative production does not depend on divergent thinking alone,
but also requires convergent thinking (e.g., Rickards, 1994;
Brophy, 1998). Rickards argued that the process of producing
effective novelty needs both kinds of thinking in order to be
complete. Facaoaru (1985) called for a two track testing proce-
dure, which assesses the area of overlap between the two kinds
of thinking (e.g., goal-directed divergent thinking). Sternberg's
Triarchic Abilities Test (Sternberg, 1997) emphasizes that
intellectual ability can be better understood in terms of several
facets, in this case Analytical Ability, Practical Ability and - of
particular interest for the present discussion - Synthetic Ability.
So far, the test includes material for two age levels: 8-10 years
and 15 years and up. The creativity test (Synthetic Ability)
involves both multiple-choice items and an essay. The people
being tested are also required to perform novel numerical oper-
ations. According to Sternberg (1997), this procedure is reli-
able, displays construct validity - creativity scores correlate
only moderately with those on the other two dimensions-and
possesses predictive validity in that test scores correlate with
grades in university courses that emphasize creativity.
Urban and Jellen's (1996) Test of Creative Thinking
(Divergent Production) (TCT-DP) takes a different approach
from those of the procedures described above. It derives
scores from what the authors call image production. Respon-
dents' productions are rated according to dimensions derived
from a Gestalt-psychology theory of creativity. These include
Boundary Breaking, New Elements, and Humor and Affectiv-
December, 2000, Roeper Review/73
 ity. The test has two forms, A and B, on each of which
respondents are presented with a sheet of paper containing
incomplete figures. Their task is to make a drawing or draw-
ings containing the fragments, in any way they wish. Studies
in a number of different countries indicate that the inter-rater
reliability of the test is above .90, while test-retest reliability
is about .70-.75. The test manual reports correlations up to .82
with teacher ratings of creativity, and correlations with real-
life criteria show that TCT-DP scores distinguish between
people who follow acknowledged creative pursuits and those
who do not.
dents are required to find the correct answer, and a scoring key
is provided that contains these answers. According to Doolittle
the test, which is in some ways reminiscent of the RAT (see
above), requires associative, inductive and divergent thinking.
Since answers are specified in the scoring key, inter-rater relia-
bility is not an issue. The author reported split-half reliabilities
of .63-.99 for Form A and .90 for Form B, and validity (corre-
lations with scores on the RAT) of .70, the latter scarcely sur-
prising in view of the similarity of contents.

I<[n examining creative thinking Mumford and coworkers

(for a summary, see Mumford, Supinski, Baughman,
Costanza & Threlfall, 1997) focused on problem solving. They
The Creative Person

Biographical inventories
developed tests of Problem Construction, Information Encod-
The two best known instruments of this kind are Schaefer
ing, Category Selection, and Category Combination and Reor-
and Anastasi's (1968) biographical inventory and Taylor's
ganization. The category combination test, for instance,
(Taylor & Ellison, 1968) Alpha Biographical Inventory
involves problems consisting of sets of four exemplars of each
(ABI). They are now relatively old and do not focus exclusive-
of three categories. To take an example in the style of Mum-
ly on creativity: the ABI actually gives equal weight to con-
ford et al. (1997), a problem could consist of the following
ventional academic achievement. Schaefer and Anastasi's
three sets of exemplars: table, chair, lamp, bed; banana,
inventory will be reviewed here to give an idea of the nature of
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013

pineapple, orange, peach; telephone book, search warrant, mar-

such scales. It consists of 165 items, the ABI 300, some of
riage certificate, map. These are given without naming the cat-
them in multiple-choice format, some involving selecting from
egories defined by the exemplars. The respondents' task is to
alternatives, and some open- ended. The scale focuses on fac-
identify the categories defined by the exemplars; to combine
tual information, and measures five areas: family background
these categories to create a new, superordinate category; to
(e.g., educational level of parents, degree of public recognition
provide a label for the new category and write a brief, one-sen-
of parents or siblings), intellectual and cultural orientation
tence description of it; to list as many additional exemplars of
(e.g., interests and hobbies, level of availability of demanding
the supercategory as possible; to list additional features linking
literature, frequency of visits to museums or art galleries),
the exemplars combined in the new category. A respondent
motivation (possession and use of special equipment such as a
might identify the three subordinate categories in the example
microscope, willingness to skip meals to work on a project,
above as furniture, fruit and printed documents, and might then
taking summer jobs in a field of interest)-referred to by Schae-
combine these to form the supercategory of "forest products,"
fer and Anastasi as pervasive and continuing enthusiasm,
supporting this with the explanatory sentence, "All the furni-
breadth of interest (number of hobbies pursued, number of
ture could be made of wood, all the documents of paper (which
favorite school subjects), and drive towards novelty and diver-
is made from wood), and fruit and wood come from trees,
sity (level of interest in unusual art forms, extent of unconven-
which grow in a forest."
tional collections such as spider webs).
In Mumford et al's study, five judges rated the respon-
dents' products on a 5-point scale for quality and originality of
solutions. After a brief discussion to iron out discrepancies,
T wo scoring keys are available, one yielding a score for
Artistic Creativity, the other for Scientific Creativity.
In a study of students in the last three years of high school the
inter-rater reliabilities of .84 and .81 were achieved for quality
authors concluded that the scale discriminates significantly
and originality respectively. When Category Combination
between creative adolescents and members of matched control
scores were compared with a criterion consisting of originality
groups, the criterion of creativity being teachers' ratings of
of solutions to simulated management and advertising prob-
products produced by the students. They reported a validity of
lems correlations of .32 and .40 were achieved. Similar coeffi-
.64 for the artistic subscale and .35 for the scientific. The test
cients were obtained for Problem Construction, Information
correctly identified 96% of the students whose products were
Encoding and Category Selection with the same criteria. When
rated by teachers as artistically creative, although 34% of the
Problem Construction, Information Encoding, Category Selec-
noncreative were falsely selected (false positives). It selected
tion, and Category Combination scores were combined in a
46% of the scientifically creative (10% false positives).
regression approach, the multiple correlations with originality
of the solutions to the advertising task was .45, with originality More recenly, Michael and Colson (1979) developed the
of the management task .61. Life Experience Inventory (LEI). The 100-item inventory
concentrates on factual information (e.g., number of changes
A problem-solving test that adopts a novel approach is
the Creative Reasoning Test (CRT) (Doolittle, 1990).
This test has two levels, Level A for Grades 3-6 and Level B
of address in childhood, composition of family, education,
hobbies and recreation). As the authors pointed out, this
approach enhances reliability. In an initial study of 100 electri-
for secondary and college level. There are two forms of each cal engineers who had also been classified as creative or non-
level (Form 1 and Form 2), each with 20 items. A novel aspect creative on the basis of whether or not they held patents, 49
of this test is that the problems to be solved are presented in items differentiated between creative and noncreative partici-
the form of riddles. At Level A, for instance, these take the pants. An intuitive grouping of these items by the authors indi-
form of four-line rhymes, in which some animal or object cated that they cover four areas: self-striving or self-improve-
gives clues to its identity, and respondents must work out what ment (e.g., enjoying competition, displaying curiosity, being
the animal or object is. An example in the style of this test committed to an area of interest), parental striving (parental
would be: I grow in the park, / where I stand tall and green./ emphasis on getting ahead, perceived need to do well in order
For birds I am home./ When the wind blows I lean. Respon- to satisfy parents), social participation and social experience

74/Roeper Review, Vol. 23, No. 2

 (membership of organizations, helping other students with
their schoolwork), and independence training (being allowed
as children to choose their own friends, being allowed to set
their own standards in judging their own accomplishments). In
a cross-validation study based on real-life achievements of 98
engineers, a validity coefficient of .62 was obtained (criterion
= possession or not of patents). No less than 83% of the engi-
neers above the cutoff point on the inventory were indeed cre-
ative according to the criterion (i.e., correctly identified),
although 29% of those not identified were, according to the
criterion, actually creative (false negatives).
R unco (1987) developed the Creative Activities Check-
list, suitable for use with children in Grades 5 to 8.
The test simply asks participants to indicate how frequently
they have participated in recent times in real-life activities in
six areas: literature, music, drama, arts, crafts, and science.
Scoring can be carried out by simply adding the number of
instances of participation in, for instance, the last year (e.g.,
writing a story or poem, playing at a school, church or club
concert, acting in a school play, participating in a science fair,
and so on). In some studies respondents merely list their three
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
most creative achievements to date. These can then be rated for
degree of creativity. Runco (1987) reported inter-rater reliabili-
ties in excess of .90 for such ratings. Very recently, Russ,
Robins & Christiano (1999) reported alpha coefficients of
about .90 for reliability of the total scale and from about .50-
.85 for the various areas.
Special personal properties
A second approach to the study of the creative person
involves identifying personal characteristics whose presence is
thought to increase the likelihood of creativity or even to be
essential for its appearance. The Creativity Checklist (CCL)
(Johnson, 1979) can be used for rating people at all age levels,
including adults in work settings. On a 5-point scale ranging
from never to consistently, observers rate the behavior of the
people being assessed on eight dimensions: In addition to the
cognitive dimensions Fluency, Flexibility, and Constructional
Skills, personal properties such as Ingenuity, Resourcefulness,
Independence, Positive Self-Referencing, and Preference for
Complexity are assessed. Inter-rater reliabilities ranged from
.70 to .80, and the test correlated between .51 (RAT) and .56
(TTCT) with other tests.
The Creative Behavior Inventory (Kirschenbaum, 1989)
also involves ratings by observers. It has two forms, CBI1 for
Grades 1-6 and CBI 2 for Grades 7-12. The test contains 10
items, with ratings ranging from 1-10, according to the fre-
quency with which the child behaves in the way indicated: e.g.,
This child notices and remembers details. The ratings yield
scores on five dimensions: Contact, Consciousness, Interest,
Fantasy, and Total Score. The first four are thought to be
aspects of a phase of preparation in the process of creative
thinking. The author reported an alpha coefficient of .93 for the
test, and showed that it distinguished well between children
who produced creative products in the course of an enrichment
program and those who did not.
S ome scales in this area involve self-ratings. An exam-
ple is the Group Inventory for Finding Creative Tal-
ent (GIFT) (Rimm & Davis, 1980) and its upward extension
the Group Inventory for Finding Interests (GIFFII and
GIFFIII) (Davis & Rimm, 1982). The authors describe these
scales as measuring attitudes and interests associated with cre-
ativity. There are three levels of GIFT: a 32-item scale for
kindergarten to grade 2, a 34-item scale for grades 3-4, and a
33-item scale for grades 5-6. GIFFI has two levels (I for
junior high school and II for senior high school), which each
contain 60 items. As the names imply, the tests can be admin-
istered in a group setting. Children rate themselves by answer-
ing Yes or No to statements such as, "I like to make up my
own songs," or "Easy puzzles are the most fun." The tests
yield scores for traits like curiosity, originality, independence,
flexibility, or risktaking. Davis and Rimm reported internal
consistencies of .80-.88 and a test-retest reliability of .56 for
GIFT and .88 and .94 for GIFFI I and GIFFI II respectively.
In various studies with GIFT validity was measured by corre-
lating test scores with teacher ratings, judged creativity of
drawings and judged creativity of stories. The resulting coeffi-
cients ranged from .07-.54, but were in the main in the area
.30-.40. In the case of GIFFI I and GIFFI II, correlations
with teachers' ratings ranged from .21 to .68.
Kumar, Kemmler and Holman's (1997) Creativity Styles
Questionnaire (CSQ) measures seven dimensions: Belief in
Unconscious Processes; Use of Techniques; Use of Other Peo-
ple; Final Product Orientation; Environmental Control; Super-
stition; Use of Senses. Participants rate themselves on 76 items
(e.g., "Creative ideas occur to me without even thinking about
them," "When I get a new idea, I get completely absorbed by
it," or "I typically create new ideas by combining existing
ideas"), using a 5-point scale ranging from "Strongly agree" to
"Strongly disagree." The authors reported alpha coefficients
for the seven subscales ranging from .45-.83. Another recent
self-rating scale is the Abedi-Schumacher Creativity Test
(O'Neil, Abedi & Spielberger, 1994), a multiple choice test on
which students rate themselves on 60 questions regarded as
indicators for fluency, flexibility, originality, or elaboration
(e.g., "How do you approach a complex task?"). Auzmendi,
Villa and Abedi (1996) reported internal reliabilities of .61 to
.75 (average = .66) for the four subscales when a Spanish ver-
sion of the test was administered to over 2,200 children. Scores
on the subscales correlated only between .02 and .32 with
teachers' ratings of creativity (average correlation = .24) and
scores on the TTCT (average correlation =.11). The reliabili-
ties also fell short of customary levels. Despite this, Auzmendi,
Villa and Abedi concluded that further refinement of the scale
would easily deal with this shortcoming. These authors also
reported data on a further self-rating scale, the Villa and Auz-
mendi Creativity Test, which consists of a list of 20 adjectives
such as imaginative, or flexible, on which students rate them-
selves using a 5-point scale ranging from very to not at all.
This test also yields scores for fluency, flexibility, originality,
and elaboration. Internal consistencies for the subscales ranged
from .14 to .69 (average = .41). Subscale scores correlated
from between .20 and .55 with subscales of the Abedi-Schu-
macher test.
lolangelo, Kerr, Huesman, Hallowell and Gaeth's
'(1992) developed the Iowa Inventiveness Inventory,
initially by studying inventors who held industrial or agricul-
tural patents. The final instrument consists of 61 statements
(e.g., Whenever I look at a machine, I look at a machine, I can
see how to change it.) with which respondents indicate level of
agreement on a 5-point scale. The inventory distinguished sig-
nificantly between acknowledged creative individuals and
other people, for instance sorting into the expected older
acknowledged inventors, young inventors rated as inventive by
teachers, and noninventive academically-talented adolescents.
The test-retest reliability of the inventiveness score reported by
Colangelo et al was .66 and internal consistency was .70.
December, 2000, Roeper Review/75
 Motivation and attitudes
Directly related to the role of motivation in creativity is
Williams's (1972) How Do You Really Feel About Yourself?
test, which measures curiosity, imagination, risk-taking and
preference for complexity. This test has been used with school-
children in grades 6 to 12. More recent is Williams's (1980)
Creativity Assessment Packet. This scale is designed for use
with children in grades 3-12. It includes 12 partially complete
figures that are completed by the child and scored for fluency,
flexibility, originality and elaboration. These are flanked by a
self-rating scale involving 50 multiple-choice items that are
scored for divergent feelings (curiosity, risk-taking, desire for
complexity, and imagination). There is also a rating scale for
use by parents or teachers on which they rate the frequency of
behaviors indicating the presence of the traits just mentioned.
The test manual reports test-retest reliabilities over 10 months
'in the .60s', and unspecified validity coefficients of .71-.76.
Test scores were also reported to correlate from .59-.74 with
adult ratings of the children's creativity. Presumably, inter-
rater reliabilities and internal consistencies were higher than
.60+, as the validity coeficients just mentioned would other-
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
wise be impossible
T he Creatrix Inventory (C & RT) (Byrd, 1986) is of
considerable interest, because it integrates both cogni-
tive (thinking) and noncognitive (motivation) dimensions of
creativity. It is based on the concept of idea production, the
ability to produce unconventional ideas, creativity being
regarded as the result of an interaction between creative think-
ing and the motivational dimension of risk-taking. The test
consists of two blocks of 28 self-rating or attitude statements,
one block measuring creative thinking, the other risk-taking.
These are answered using a 9-point scale ranging from com-
plete disagreement to complete agreement (e.g., "I often see
the humorous side when others do not," "Daydreaming is a
useful activity"). Scores on the items of each dimension are
summed and the total score for the dimension rated as high,
medium, or low. Each person's scores are then plotted on a
two-dimensional matrix (creativity versus risk-taking) and the
person assigned to one of eight styles: Reproducer, Modifier,
Challenger, Practicalizer, Innovator, Synthesizer, Dreamer,
and Planner. The innovator is high on both creative thinking
and risktaking, the reproducer low on both, the challenger high
on risktaking but not creativity, the dreamer high on creativity
but not risktaking, and so on. Byrd reported a one-week test-
retest reliability of .72 for this scale. He argued that the scale
possesses face validity, but provided no data on other forms.
Kirton's (1989) Adaptation-Innovation Inventory (KAI)
does not mention creativity in its title, but is frequently cited in
creativity research. This test distinguishes between people who
seek to solve problems by making use of what they already
know and can do (adaptors), and people who try to reorganize
and restructure the problem (innovators). Kirton's view is that
both adapting and innovating are involved in creative problem-
solving, but the innovative style (which is accompanied by
greater motivation to be creative, higher levels of risktaking,
and greater self-confidence) leads to higher productivity. The
scale consists of 32 items (e.g., Will always think of something
when stuck, Is methodical and systematic, Often risks doing
things differently) on which respondents rate themselves, indi-
cating how difficult it would be for them to be like this on a
5-point scale (very easy - very hard). The procedure yields an
overall score and scores on three subscales: Originality,
Conformity, and Efficiency. Kirton himself reported KR20
reliabilities of from .76-.82 for the subscales and .88 for the
76/Roeper Review, Vol. 23, No. 2
total score, and test-retest reliability over seven months of .82
for the total score. Puccio, Treffinger and Talbot (1995) report-
ed alpha reliabilities for the total score of .86-.88, and from
.61-.83 for the subscales. The same authors reported correla-
tions ranging from about .25 to .47 for the subscale Originality
with the rated originality of products.
B; 1 asadur and Hausdorf (1996) emphasized a somewhat
' different aspect of the personal correlates of creativi-
ty: attitudes favorable to creativity (e.g., placing a high value
on new ideas; believing that creative thinking is not bizarre).
The 24-item Basadur Preference Scale consists of statements
with which respondents express their degree of agreement/dis-
agreement on a 5-point scale ranging from strong agreement to
strong disagreement. Items include "Creative people generally
seem to have scrambled minds," "New ideas seldom work
out," or "Ideas are only important if they impact on major pro-
jects." Factor analysis yielded three dimensions when the scale
was administered to university students and young adults
working in business settings: Valuing New Ideas, Creative
Individual Stereotypes, and Too Busy for New Ideas. Test-
retest reliabilities of the three dimensions ranged from .58-.63,
while alpha coefficients ranged from .58-.76. Basadur and
Hausdorf reported validity coefficients involving correlations
with other creativity tests of about .25.
Procedures Based on the
Adjective Check List
The Adjective Check List (ACL) (Gough & Heilbrun,
1983) can be used for both self-ratings and also for ratings by
observers. In an early application to measuring creativity
Smith and Schaefer (1969) developed a 27-item subset of
adjectives that discriminated significantly between groups of
high school students judged by their teachers to be more or
less creative, as well as between scientists and engineers
judged on the basis of a biographical inventory to be creative
and others judged to be less creative. This scale also possessed
a certain degree of construct validity, the scores of business
undergraduates correlating .63 with the originality subscale of
Kirton's Adaptor-Innovator Scale (see above), .41 with self-
ratings of creativity, and .48 with colleagues' ratings. Domino
developed a 59-item subscale of the ACL, the Domino Cre-
ativity Scale, that also discriminated between several groups of
more and less creative college students, when used by instruc-
tors to rate the students (Domino, 1994). The criterion of cre-
ativity involved either instructors' ratings or choice of a cre-
ative course (e.g., dance, music, cinematography).The scale
also discriminated significantly between inventors and nonin-
ventors. Other assessments of validity yielded values of up to
.65 (correlations with other creativity scales), .63 (self-ratings
of creativity), .55 (colleagues' ratings), or .34 (instructors' rat-
ings). The Schaefer and Domino scales correlate about .90
with each other, scarcely surprising when it is borne in mind
that they have 19 common items. Domino reported internal
reliability of .88-.91 for his scale.
I ough himself developed the 30-item Creative Person-
G: (ality Scale (Cps) (Gough, 1992; Gough & Heilbrun,
1983), largely because both the Schaefer and Domino scales
showed little or no correlation with the rated creativity of
mature scientists, despite their usefulness with schoolchildren
and college students. This subscale, which has become a rou-
tine element of the scoring of the ACL, involves 18 adjectives
that receive a positive weight (e.g., clever wide interests, origi-
 nal) and 12 that receive a negative weight (e.g., sincere.conven-
tional, commonplace). Its scores differentiate between creative
and less creative adults in many, but not all, studies. Reported
reliability coefficients for the Cps are often about .80, although
Gough and Heilbrun themselves reported an internal consisten-
cy coefficient of .63, and test-retest reliabilities of about .70,
depending on gender. It correlates moderately with scores on
Guilford tests of divergent thinking (about .25) and with mea-
sures of openness, as well as with self-assessments (.41) and
peer assessments (.48) of creativity, while correlations with cre-
ativity at work, in university studies (as rated by faculty mem-
bers), and in biographical inventories are about .40.
Overview
The creativity tests reviewed here define creativity in a
multifaceted way (products, processes and personal factors).
An overview of these facets is given in Table 1.
Table 2 summarizes the data on reliability and validity
presented in this article. For ease of reference, the coeffi-
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
eral picture. The table does not reflect nonnumerical findings
unsupported by relevant coefficients, such as statements in
some studies that creativity tests were good predictors of
adult creativity.
A Stocktaking
Inter-rater reliabilities in excess of .90 are frequently
reported for creativity tests, while internal consistencies com-
monly reach .80, and test-retest reliabilities range from .60-.80.
Thus, the dimensions they measure can be assessed with high
agreement among raters, people taking the tests behave in a
consistent manner within a single testing, and scores are rea-
sonably stable over time. A comparison with data for the high-
ly respected Wechsler intelligence scales shows that the fig-
ures for creativity tests are better than some critics have
suggested. For the subtests of the WISC-R Sattler (1992) listed
split-half reliabilities (these are usually higher than test-retest
coefficients) ranging from .70-.86 (Mdn = .77).
In the case of validity, the fact that the highest coefficients

cients cited in the table have been rounded up or down by were for correlations of divergent thinking tests with each
placing only 0 or 5 in the second decimal place, as well as other (up to .70) is scarcely surprising, since these tests focus
being bunched by omitting outlier values that distort the gen- on the cognitive aspect of creativity and thus embody the most

Test defined elements of creativity

PRODUCT PROCESS MOTIVATION PERSONALITY/ABILITIES
• Originality • "Uncensored" perception and • Goal-directedness • Active imagination
• Relevance encoding of information • Fascination for a task or area • Flexibility
• Usefulness • Fluency of ideas (large number • Resistance to premature • Curiosity
• Complexity of ideas) closure • Independence
• Understandability • Problem recognition and • Risk-taking • Acceptance of own
p n n loll
UUI Q t nUvLIUI
if^tinn1
• Pleasingness • Preference for asymmetry differentness
• Unusual combinations of ideas
• Elegance/Well-craftedness • Preference for complexity • Tolerance for ambiguity
(remote associates, category
• Germinality combination, boundary • Willingness to ask many • Trust in own senses
breaking) (unusual) questions • Openness to sub-conscious
• Construction of broad • Willingness to display results material
categories (accommodating) • Willingness to consult other • Ability to work on several ideas
• Recognizing solutions people (but not simply to carry simultaneously
(category selection) out orders) • Ability to restructure problems
• Transformation and • Desire to go beyond the • Ability to abstract from the
restructuring of ideas conventional concrete
• Seeing implications
• Elaborating and expanding
ideas
• Self-directed evaluation of
ideas

Table 1

Psychometric properties of creativity tests

Reliability Validity

Aspect of Creativity Internal Test-Retest Inter-rater Ratings Other Tests Real Life
Creative Products .70-.90+ .70-.90+
Creative Thinking .70-.90+ .60-.75 .65-.90+ .25-70 up to .70 .30-.70

The Creative Person

- Biographical inventories .50-.90 .90 .60
- Special personal properties .45-.90+ .55-.80+ .70-.90 .20-.70 .20-.60 .30-.40
- Motivation and attitudes .60-.80+ .60-.80 .75+ .60-.70 .20-.55 .25-.50

Adjective Check Lists .65-.90 .70 — .30-.50 .25-.65 .40-.50

Table 2

December, 2000, Roeper Review/77

 unitary definition of it. Measures of creative person correlate
lower at about .50 with other similar tests. These validity coef-
ficients can be compared with construct validity coefficients
(correlations with other intelligence tests) for WISC-R Verbal
and Performance IQs ranging from .26-.75 (Mdn = .61) report-
ed by Sattler. The IQs are composites obtained by summing
six subtests, so that the validity coefficients are enhanced by
combining information from several sources. Lower correla-
tions among tests of personal properties than among cognitive
tests would be expected if individual tests measure different
aspects of the creative person. Table 1 suggests that this is the
case. Because of the multifaceted nature of creativity as mea-
sured by tests, Davis and Rimm (1998) recommended that
assessments should be based on several different tests.
T he tests' ability to predict achievements in real life,
sometimes years later, also involved coefficients
around .50. By contrast, IQs frequently correlate about .70
with school grades, although much lower with gifted achieve-
ments in adult life (e.g., Gibson & Light, 1967). One possible
explanation for the lower predictive validity of creativity tests
is that their tasks do not resemble real-life creative behavior
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
(questionable face validity), whereas the contents of intelli-
gence tests are rather like school tasks. It also seems likely that
real-life creative achievement requires more than creativity,
with other psychological factors also playing a major role.
Convergent thinking has already been mentioned. Further fac-
tors were identified in a recent 30 year longitudinal study on
college women by Helson (1999): Youthful openness and
unconventionality (typical characteristics emphasized in tests
of the creative person) are strongly predictive of adult creative
achievement when they are associated with depth, commitment
and self-discipline, but when accompanied by unresolved iden-
tity problems, lack of persistence, self-defeating behavior, or
overt psychopathology they are not. Consequently, a number
of authors (e.g., Kitto, Lok & Rudowicz, 1994; Helson,1999)
suggested that creativity tests are best thought of as tests of
creative potential, not of creativity.
Some writers have suggested that there is no need for a
separate concept creativity at all. Carroll (1993) argued that
cognitive tests do not measure a separate ability but Broad
Retrieval (Fluency). Wallach (1976, p. 57) concluded that tests
tell us little about talent, Milgram (1990) asked whether cre-
ativity is a concept whose time has come and gone, and Czik-
szentmihalyi (1996) argued that creativity is simply a diffuse
category of positive judgment in the mind of critics. Nonethe-
less, Hocevar (1981) concluded that children's degree of par-
ticipation in creative activities out of school is a defensible
way of assessing their creativity, and Baldwin (1985) conclud-
ed that dedicated pursuit of an interest is the best indicator in
minority and disadvantaged children. Kumar, Kemmler and
Holman (1997) emphasized that self-rating scales have a cer-
tain phenomenological authenticity, since respondents describe
themselves.
A mong tests of creative thinking the TTCT-DP has
much to recommend it. It is based on a more general
theory of creativity than the relatively ad hoc test-derived
models centering on divergent thinking (Torrance) or diver-
gent production (Guilford), and encompasses both thinking
and personality. My own experience confirms that it is also
suitable for administration to people over a very wide age
range, is readily accepted by respondents, is easy to administer
and score, and can be used for counseling purposes (see for
instance Cropley & Cropley, 2000). The scores can be used
either at the differentiated level of the 13 dimensions suggest-
78/Roeper Review, Vol. 23, No. 2
ed in the handbook (Urban & Jellen, 1996) or by combining
subtest scores to form the three more-complex dimensions
Productivity, Novelty and Unconventionality that have been
demonstrated factor-analytically (e.g., Cropley & Cropley,
2000). Focus on a multidimensional concept of creativity, on
assessment of potential and on the use of tests as a basis for
differentiated counseling suggests that creativity tests are
worth using.
REFERENCES
Auzmendi, E., Villa, A., & Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a newly construct-
ed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 89-96.
Baldwin, A. Y. (1985). Programs for the gifted and talented: Issues concerning minority
populations. In F. D. Horowitz & M. O'Brien (Eds.), The gifted and talented:
Developmental perspectives (pp.223-250). Washington, D.C.: American Psychologi-
cal Association,
Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to
creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal,
9, 21-32.
Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative Product Analysis Matrix: Testing the model structure and
a comparison among products-three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11,
333-346.
Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1987). Creative product analysis: Testing a model by
developing a judging instrument. In S. G. Isaksen (Ed.), Frontiers of creativity
research: Beyond the basics (pp. 367-389). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.
Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor Creative Product
Analysis Model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287-296.
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring and enhancing individual creative prob-
lem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 123-150.
Byrd, R. E. (1986). Creativity and risk-taking. San Diego, CA: Pfeiffer International Pub-
lishers.
Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Huesman, R., Hallowell, N., & Gaeth, J. (1992). The Iowa Inven-
tiveness Inventory: Toward a measure of mechanical inventiveness. Creativity
Research Journal, 5, 157-164.
Conoley, J. C., & Kramer, J. J. (Eds.). (1989). The 11th Mental Measurements Yearbook.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 25, 194-204.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2000). Fostering creativity in engineering undergradu-
ates. High Ability Studies, 12.
Csikszentmihalyi; M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and
invention. New York: Harper Collins.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1982). Group Inventory for Finding Interests (GIFFI) I and
II: Instruments for identifying creative potential in junior and senior high school.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 16, 50-57.
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. B. (1998). Education of the gifted and talented. Needham
Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Domino, G. (1994). Assessment of creativity using the ACL: A comparison of four scales.
Creativity Research Journal, 7, 21-23.
Doolittle, J. H. (1990). Creative Reasoning Test. Pacific Grove, CA: Midwest Publica-
tions/Critical Thinking Press.
Facaoaru, C. (1985). Kreativität in Wissenschaft und Technik [Creativity in science and
technology]. Bern: Huber.
Gibson, J., & Light, P. (1967). Intelligence among university scientists. Nature, 213, 441-
443.
Gough, H. G. (1992). Assessment of creative potential in psychology and the develop-
ment of a creative temperament scale for the CPI. In J. C. Rosen & P. McReynolds
(Eds.), Advances in psychological assessment (Vol 8, pp. 225-257). New York:
Plenum.
Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1983). The Adjective Check List Manual (2nd. ed,).
Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, I. P. (1976). Creativity Tests for Children. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological
Services.
Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in women. Creativity
Research Journal, 12, 89-102.
Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the
relationships between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 7, 193-208.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Person-
ality Assessment, 45, 450-464.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in
the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-76). New York: Plenum.
Johnson, D. L. (1979). The Creativity Checklist. Wood Dale, IL: Stoelting.
Kaltsounis, B., & Honeywell, L. (1980). Instruments useful in studying creative behavior
and creative talent. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, NNNNN56-67.
Kasof, J. (1997). Creativity and breadth of attention. Creativity Research Journal, 10,
303-315.
Kirschenbaum, R. J. (1989). Understanding the creative activity of students. Mansfield,
CT: Creative Learning Press.
Kirton, M. J. (Ed.). (1989). Adaptors and innovators: Styles of creativity and problem-
solving (pp. 56-78). London: Routledge.
Kitto, J., Lok, D., & Rudowicz, E. (1994). Measuring creative thinking: An activity-based
approach. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 59-69.
Kogan, N. (1983). Stylistic variation in childhood and adolescence: Creativity, metaphor,
and cognitive styles. In P. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology, Vol. 3 (pp.
631-706). New York: Wiley.
 Kramer, J. J., & Conoley, J. C. (Eds.). (1989). The 11th Mental Measurements Yearbook
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Kumar, V. K., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The Creativity Styles Question-
naire-Revised. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 51-58.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological
Review, 69, 220-232.
Meeker, M. (1985). Structure of Intellect Learning Abilities Test. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Michael, W. B., & Colson, K. R. (1979). The development and validation of a life experi-
ence inventory for the identification of creative electrical engineers. Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 39, 463-470.
Milgram, R. M. (1990). Creativity: An idea whose time has come and gone? In M. A.
Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 215-233). Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Milgram. R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gift-
ed adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishments in young adults: A longitu-
dinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77-88.
Mumford, M. D., Marks, M. A., Connelly, M S., Zaccaro, S. J., & Johnson, J. F. (1998).
Domain-based scoring of divergent-thinking tests: Validation evidence in an occupa-
tional sample. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 151-163.
Mumford, M. D., Supinski, E. P., Baughman, W. A., Costanza, D. P., & Threlfall, K. V.
(1997). Process-based measures of creative problem-solving skills: V. Overall predic-
tion. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 73-85.
O'Neil, H. F., Abedi, J., & Spielberger, C. D. (1994). The measurement and teaching of
creativity. In H. F. O'Neil & M. Drillings (Eds.), Motivation: Theory and research
(pp. 245-263). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance's (1958 to pre-
sent) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103-114.
Puccio, G. J., Treffinger, D. J., & Talbot, R. J. (1995). Exploratory examination of rela-
tionships between creativity styles and creative products. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 8, 157-172.
Downloaded by [Western Kentucky University] at 03:55 03 May 2013
Russ, S. W., Robins, A. L., & Christiano, B. A. (1999). Pretend play: Longitudinal predic-
tion of creativity and affect in fantasy in children. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
129-139.
Sattler, J. M. (1992). Assessment of children. San Diego, CA: Author.
Schaefer, C. E., & Anastasi, A. (1968). A biographical inventory for identifying creativity
in adolescent boys. Journal of Applied Psychology, 52, 42-48.
Schaefer, C. I. (1971). The Creative Attitude Survey. Jacksonville, IL: Psychologists and
Educators Inc.
Smith, J. M., & Schaefer, C. E. (1969). Development of a creativity scale for the Adjec-
tive Check List. Psychological Reports, 25, 87-92.
Sternberg, R. J. (1997). Intelligence and lifelong learning. What's new and how can we
use it? American Psychologist, 52, 1134-1139.
Sweetland, R. C., & Keyser, D. J. (1991). A comprehensive reference for assessment in
psychology, education and business. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Taylor, A. (1975). An emerging view of creative actions. In I. A. Tylor, & J. W. Getzels
(Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 297-325). Chicago: Aldine.
Taylor, C. W., & and Ellison, R. L. (1968). The Alpha Biographial Inventory. Greens-
boro, NC: Prediction Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1999). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms and technical manual.
Beaconville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23,
136-45.
Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Review of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Ninth Mental
Measurements Yearbook (pp. 1632-1634). Lincoln, NB: University of Nebraska
Press.
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for Creative Thinking - Drawing Production
(TCT-DP). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets and Zeitlinger.
Vosburg, S. K. (1998). Mood and quantity and quality of ideas. Creativity Research Jour-
nal, 11, 315-324.
Wallach, M. A. (1976, January—February). Tests tell us little about talent. American Sci-
entist, 57-63.

Rickards, T. J. (1994). Creativity from a business school perspective: Past, present and
future. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.),
Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 155-176).
Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rimm, S., & Davis, G. A. (1980). Five years of international research with GIFT: An
instrument for the identification of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 14, 35-46.
Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students'creativ-
ity. Psychological Reports, 61, 1009-1010.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Williams, F. E. (1972). A total creativity program for individualizing and humanizing the
learning process. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications.
Williams, F. E. (1980). The Creativity Assessment Packet. Chesterfield, MO: Psycholo-
gists and Educators Inc.

Conferences
Arkansas for Gifted and Talented North Carolina Association of Gifted World Council for Gifted and Talented
(AGATE) NCAGT/PAGE July 31-August 4, 2001
February 21-23, 2001 March 15-17, 2001 Barcelona, Spain
Hot Springs, Arkansas Contact: Wesley Guthrie, 910-326-8463 Contact: WorldGT@eaarthlink.net
Contact: Bonnie Haynie: 501 847-5642 Dr. Juan Alonso: 34-983-3413-82
The Association for the Education of
Gifted Underachieving Students
Nebraska Association for the Gifted (AEGUS) Annemarie Roeper Symposium 2001
Annual Conference March 30-31, 2001 September 21-23, 2001
February 22-23., 2001 Becker College Chicago, Illinois
Lincoln, Nebraska Worcester, Massachusetts Contact: Betty Meckstroth
Contact: Kay Grimminger Contact: Gail Herman, 301-387-9597 BetMeck@aol.com
kgrimmin @ esu 10.org gnherman @ mail2.gcnet.net
Kansas Association for Gifted Education
Kentucky Association for Gifted Pennsylvania Association For Gifted October 4-6,2001
Education - 21st Conference Education PAGE Topeka, Kansas
February 22-23, 2001 April 27-28, 2001 Contact: Bev Crowe
Lexington, Kentucky Marriott City Center bcrowe @ usd266.com
Contact: 270-745-4301, kagc@wku.edu Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
Contact: Dee Weaver, 412-831-5873
mweaver@nb.net Gifted Education Association of Missouri
California Association for the Gifted October 14-16, 2001
March 1-3, 2001 Lake of the Ozarks, Missouri
Palm Springs, California Hollingworth Center Conference Contact: Donna Pfautsch 816-380-2412
Contact: CAG 310 215 1898 April 27-29, 2001 pfautsch@sky.net
Newton, Massachusetts
Contact: Kathy Kearney
Georgia Association for Gifted Children kkearney @ midcoast.com NAGC
March 8-10, 2001 November 7-11,2001
University of Georgia, Athens Cincinnati, Ohio
Contact: Dany Ray: danymray@cs.com Contact: www.nagc.org

December, 2000, Roeper Review/79