Roeper Review

ISSN: 0278-3193 (Print) 1940-865X (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uror20

After Six Decades of Systematic Study of

Creativity: What Do Teachers Need to Know About
What It Is and How It Is Measured?

Ahmed M. Abdulla & Bonnie Cramond

To cite this article: Ahmed M. Abdulla & Bonnie Cramond (2017) After Six Decades of
Systematic Study of Creativity: What Do Teachers Need to Know About What It Is and How It Is
Measured?, Roeper Review, 39:1, 9-23, DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398

Published online: 07 Nov 2016.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1801

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 9 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=uror20
Roeper Review, 39:9–23, 2017
Copyright © The Roeper Institute
ISSN: 0278-3193 print / 1940-865X online
DOI: 10.1080/02783193.2016.1247398

EXAMINING CREATIVITY

After Six Decades of Systematic Study of Creativity:

What Do Teachers Need to Know About What It Is and
How It Is Measured?
Ahmed M. Abdulla and Bonnie Cramond

With creativity now being emphasized in schools, it is important for teachers to understand
what it is and how it is measured. This review of the literature is an attempt to make sense of
the many definitions and measures of creativity. As a result, this comprehensive review shows
that most definitions agree that there are at least two criteria to judge whether a person or a
product is creative or not, originality and usefulness. Organized according to Rhodes’s 3 P
conceptualization of creativity—person, process, product, and press—more than 40 assess-
ments used in creativity research were reviewed. Familiarity with the definitions, views of, and
measurement of creativity can help teachers recognize and foster creativity in their students.
Keywords: creative person, creative press, creative process, creative product, creativity,
creativity definitions, creativity measures

More than 60 years ago, Guilford (1950) talked about the
lack of interest in studying one of the most important aspects
of human intellectual ability—creativity. He called for more
efforts in order to understand this psychological construct
(Guilford, 1950). Since that time, many things have changed
in the creativity field, and creativity now has become one
of the most studied phenomena in psychology and other
disciplines, including economics (Florida, 2012), medicine
(Devi, 2015; Natrielli, Silva, & Natrielli, 2013), engineering
(D. H. Cropley, 2015), and mathematics (Sriraman & Lee,
2011). Thus, it should not be surprising that creativity is now
being pushed into the K–12 curriculum. For example, cre-
ativity is one of the components of the 21st century’s 4 C’s
skills, which also include critical thinking, communication,
and collaboration (Trilling & Fadel, 2009).
With recent reports from IBM (2012) and Adobe (2012)
showing that employers are looking for creative think-
ing in their new hires, it is natural that schools should
begin to examine how well they prepare students for future
Accepted 30 April 2016.
Address correspondence to Ahmed M. Abdulla, Road 2904, Building
293, Manama 329, Bahrain-Arabian Gulf University, Bahrain. E-mail:
ahmedcreatv@gmail.com
employment. Indeed, several states have begun to develop
creativity indexes to assess the creativity taught in schools
(Robelen, 2012). Yet, most U.S. teachers came through an
education system that did not emphasize creativity, so how
can they be expected to teach it? In fact, the Adobe (2012)
study found that of the young professionals they surveyed,
education majors were the most likely to say that creativity
is an innate skill, whereas biological science and engineering
majors were more likely to say that creativity can be learned.
What should teachers know about the nature and assessment
of creativity as a basis for developing it?
Creativity is viewed as a syndrome or complex (Runco,
2014); however, there is not complete agreement on what
creativity is. One important area of emphasis in the last
6 decades has been on two constructs related in one way or
another to creativity: divergent thinking and problem solving
(Guilford, 1967; Runco, 2014). This is a workable defini-
tion for educators, because divergent thinking and problem
solving are processes that can be taught. However, there is
much evidence that creativity is more than divergent think-
ing (Runco, 2008) and problem solving (Runco, 2014). Thus,
this review of literature explores how creativity is defined
and how it is measured in the creativity research in ways that
are additionally useful to educators.
10 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
This review answers three primary questions of import to
educators: What is creativity? How does the view of creativ-
ity relate to the way it is developed in schools? How does the
measurement of creative components relate to the fostering
of creativity?
WHAT IS CREATIVITY?
A review of studies on creativity revealed that there is
a consistency between theory and practice regarding what
creativity is. Most of the studies reviewed agree that cre-
ativity requires both originality and appropriateness (Acar &
Runco, 2015; Brophy, 1998; Charyton & Snelbecker, 2007;
Davidovitch & Milgram, 2006; Dietrich, 2004; Fasko, 2001;
Kharkhurin & Samadpour Motalleebi, 2008; Milgram &
Hong, 1999; Mumford & Simonton, 1997; Pohlman, 1996;
Rudowicz, 2003; Runco, Illies, & Eisenman, 2005; Runco
et al., 2011; Scott, Leritz, & Mumford, 2004; Simonton,
2012; Sowden, Pringle, & Gabora, 2015; West, Tateishi,
Wright, & Fonoimoana, 2012; Zha, Walczyk, Griffith-Ross,
Tobacyk, & Walczyk, 2006). However, in addition to orig-
inality, other divergent thinking abilities were used in cre-
ativity research in order to define creativity, such as flu-
ency, flexibility, and elaboration (e.g., Benedek, Fink, &
Neubauer, 2006; Fontenot, 1993; Runco, 1986a, 1986b;
Runco & Albert, 1986; Runco et al., 2011; West et al., 2012).
In addition, there is a considerable amount of research that
treated creativity as a kind of problem finding and solving
(Basadur, Runco, & Vega, 2000; Chand & Runco, 1993;
Csikszentmihalyi & Getzels, 1970, 1971; Dow & Mayer,
2004; Han, Hu, Liu, Jia, & Adey, 2013).
For example, Runco and Chand (1995) stated, “Thinking
is creative if it leads to original and adaptive ideas, solutions,
or insights” (p. 244). Scott et al. (2004) stated, “Creativity
ultimately involves the production of original, potentially
workable, solutions to novel, ill-defined problems of rela-
tively high complexity” (p. 362). Davidovitch and Milgram
(2006) defined creative thinking as “a cognitive process of
original problem solving by means of which original prod-
ucts are generated” (p. 385). Zha et al. (2006) concluded
that “intellectual creativity is the ability to view what is
ordinary in a novel or atypical way; the ability to detect
problems that others may not recognize; or the ability to gen-
erate original, exceptional, adaptive, or effective solutions
to problems” (p. 355). Runco (1996) stated, “Creativity is
manifested in the intentions and motivation to transform the
objective world into original interpretations, coupled with
the ability to decide when this is useful and when it is not”
(p. 4). Getzels (1975) suggested,
Thinking may be called creative if: 1) the product has novelty
and value either for the thinker or the culture, 2) the think-
ing is unconventional, 3) it is highly motivated and persistent
or of great intensity, and 4) the problem was initially vague
and undefined so that part of the task was to formulate the
problem itself. (p. 328)
Finally, Han et al. (2013) defined problem finding as “a kind
of intellectual trait or ability that is demonstrated in the pro-
cess of producing and expressing new-found questions in a
unique, novel and useful and purposeful way, using existing
contexts and experience” (p. 249).
Summary of Creativity Definitions
It can be concluded that most of the definitions found
in empirical studies confirmed Runco and Jaeger’s (2012)
standard definition of creativity as bipartite, requiring both
originality and effectiveness. Yet, some suggested a third
criterion, such as Simonton’s (2012) surprise, a criterion
used by the U.S. Patent Office in order to evaluate creative
products. One might ask whether these theoretical criteria
are consistent with how creativity is viewed and fostered in
schools. In order to make creativity applicable in schools, the
view of creativity as a cognitive process involved in problem
solving has been used. This view allows some of these cogni-
tive processes to be measured; thus, it is also a psychometric
view. However, this process view encapsulates just one of the
4 Ps of creativity described by Rhodes (1961). By includ-
ing the other 3 Ps, process, product, and press, educators can
envision a more complete approach to fostering creativity.
HOW DOES THE VIEW OF CREATIVITY
RELATE TO THE WAY IT IS FOSTERED IN
SCHOOLS?
Several theories and definitions have emerged since the
1960s. One that is applicable to education is considered
a problem-solving or psychometric view (Guilford, 1968;
Torrance, 1962a; Wallach & Kogan, 1965) because it asserts
that creative abilities can be described as cognitive processes
distinct from intelligence quotient (IQ; Kozbelt, Beghetto,
& Runco, 2010) that can be measured. Guilford (1967), for
example, distinguished between two kinds of intellectual
abilities in his Structure of Intellect (SOI) model: diver-
gent thinking versus convergent thinking. Guilford (1968)
asserted that divergent thinking was an essential component
of creativity. Thus, he and other psychologists developed
a number of divergent thinking tests in order to assess
divergent thinking abilities.
However, before assessing creativity, Guilford, Torrance,
and others had to define what creativity is. Guilford defined
creativity in terms of problem solving. According to Guilford
(1967), “There is something creative about all genuine prob-
lem solving, and creative production is typically carried out
as a means to the end of solving some problems” (p. 312).
 CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 11

Torrance also considered the role that problem solving plays
in creativity. According to Torrance (1988), his briefest defi-
nition is the one he called his survival definition: “When a
person has no learned or practiced solution to a problem,
some degree of creativity is required.” (p. 57). However,
Torrance (1988) offered a kind of comprehensive definition
of creativity that takes into consideration other cognitive
and noncognitive abilities in what he called his research
definition:
I tried to describe creative thinking as the process of sens-
ing difficulties, problems, gaps in information, missing ele-
ments, something askew; making guesses and formulating
hypotheses about these deficiencies; evaluating and testing
these guesses and hypotheses; possibly revising and retesting
them; and finally communicating the results. (p. 47)
product” (p. 309). However, it should be noted that judg-
ing whether a product is creative or not is not as objective
as measuring height or gravity, which can be measured
accurately with appropriate instruments (D. H. Cropley &
Cropley, 2011). Thus, teachers who wish to encourage cre-
ative products should consider the methods reviewed in the
second part of this article in evaluating them for creativity.
The fourth P, creative press, refers to “the relationship
between human beings and their environment. Creative pro-
duction is the outcome of certain kinds of forces playing
upon certain kinds of individuals as they grow up and
as they function” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 308). It is important
for educators to understand the role of the environment in
encouraging creativity and the ways in which they can affect
the environment to nurture creativity in their students.

In sum, this problem-solving/psychometric theory of cre- Summary of the Views of Creativity

ativity focuses on what Rhodes (1961) called the creative
process, and such a theory defined creativity as kind of prob-
lem solving that requires using divergent thinking abilities
such as fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.
However, Rhodes (1961) included four other Ps in his
description of creativity in addition to process—creative per-
sonality, creative product, and creative press. According to
Rhodes (1961), the term creative person “covers information
about personality, intellect, temperament, physique, traits,
habits, attitudes, self-concept, value systems, defense mech-
anisms, and behavior” (p. 307). A number of studies, both
implicit and explicit (e.g., Chan, 2011; Runco, 2007, 2011;
Sternberg, 2011), have been conducted on the creative per-
son and found common characteristics (see Table 1) that
distinguish creative individuals. Knowing that these char-
acteristics, both positive and negative, are indicative of the
creative personality can help teachers recognize creativity in
their students. Such knowledge can help them develop their
own qualitative understandings of creative individuals and
their needs.
The third aspect of creativity emphasizes creative prod-
ucts, which are original, useful, and even surprising
(Simonton, 2012). According to Rhodes (1961), “When an
idea becomes embodied into tangible form it is called a
TABLE 1
Examples of Characteristics That Distinguish Creative Individuals
Creativity is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon that
can be studied and fostered through different angles. In addi-
tion, it can be concluded that there is no exact agreement on
what creativity is; the literature suggests that there are at least
two criteria that distinguish something as creative: original-
ity and usefulness. The four main approaches for measuring
creativity are based on the Rhodes (1961) framework of
4 Ps—person, process, product, and press.
HOW DOES THE MEASUREMENT OF
CREATIVE COMPONENTS RELATE TO THE
FOSTERING OF CREATIVITY?
If creativity measures correspond to the definitions found,
they should assess both originality and usefulness. Because
there are different approaches by which creativity is mea-
sured, this part consists of four sections reflecting Rhodes’
(1961) 4 Ps framework: creative process, creative person,
creative product, and creative press. Educators interested
in identifying creative students, encouraging creative pro-
cesses, evaluating creative products, and establishing cre-
ative environments would be well served to know about these
assessments and how to use them.

Active Dreamy Intrinsic Creative Process

Adaptable Energetic Intelligent
Adventurous Enterprising Inventive It can be said that creativity research started by assessing
Aesthetic Enthusiastic Motivated the creative process or potential. Through his SOI model,
Alert Flexible Original Guilford (1967) distinguished between divergent and con-
Ambitious Imaginative Progressive vergent production and created some measures that aimed to
Autonomous Impulsive Questioning
assess four main components of divergent production called
Artistic Independent Resourceful
Capable Individualistic Risk-taking fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. This section
Clever Industrious Self-confident reviews the main measures that assess divergent thinking
Curious Innovative Humorous with a brief description of each. Table 2 lists additional
Daring Inquisitive Unorthodox assessments in each category.
12 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
TABLE 2
Examples of Creativity Measures According to Rhodes’s (1961) 4 Ps Framework
4 Ps Definition
Person “The term creative person covers information about
personality, intellect, temperament, physique,
traits, habits, attitudes, self-concept, value
systems, defense mechanisms, and behavior.”
(Rhodes, 1961, p. 307)
Process “The term process applies to motivation, perception,
learning, thinking, and communicating.” (Rhodes,
1961, p. 308)
Product “When an idea becomes embodied into tangible form
it is called a product.” (Rhodes, 1961, p. 309)
Press “The term creative press refers to the relationship
between human beings and their environment.
Creative production is the outcome of certain
kinds of forces playing upon certain kinds of
individuals as they grow up and as they function.”
(Rhodes, 1961, p. 308)
Guilford’s Tests of Creativity
A pioneer of creativity research, Guilford developed a
number of divergent thinking tests that are still used to date.
Guilford developed many divergent thinking (DT) tests that
assess different dimensions of his SOI model. Some of these
tests are figural, such as Sketches and Figure Production,
which ask the participants to draw many objects or add lines
to create new figures (Kaufman, Plucker, & Baer, 2008),
and Making Objects (S. Gardner, Gershon, Merrifield, &
Examples
The Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory (Khatena & Torrance,
1976)
Gough’s CPS (Gough, 1979)
Openness Scale of the NEO Personality Inventory (Costa, McCrae, Stanton,
Jonassaint, Williams, & James, 2010)
Creativity Scale of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Indicator (Nassif &
Quevillon, 2008)
SRBCSS (Renzulli, Siegle, Reis, Gavin, & Sytsma Reed, 2009)
CBI (Hocevar, 1979)
RIBS (Runco, Plucker, & Lim, 2001)
Creative Behavior Disposition Scale (Taylor & Fish, 1979)
KAI (Kirton, 1976)
CSQ-R (Pollick & Kumar, 1997)
Style of Learning and Thinking (Torrance, McCarthy, Kolesinski, & Smith,
1988)
Creative Problem Solving Profile (Basadur, Graen, & Wakabayashi, 1990)
HDYT (Davis, 1975)
Group Inventory for Finding Interests (Davis & Rimm, 1982)
How Creative Are You? (Gattis & Raudsepp, 1969)
Guilford’s Tests of Creativity: Sketches, Figure Production, Making Objects,
Consequence, Alternate Uses, Match Problems (Berger & Guilford, 1965;
Christensen, Guilford, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1965a; S. Gardner et al., 1965)
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking–Verbal Form, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking–Figural Form,
Torrance’s Abbreviated Test for Adults, Thinking Creatively in Action and
Movement, Thinking Creatively with Sounds and Words (Goff & Torrance,
2000; Khatena & Torrance, 1988; Torrance, 1966, 1981)
Wallach and Kogan Creativity Tests: Instances, Similarities, Pattern Meanings,
Line Meanings (Wallach & Kogan, 1965)
Mednick’s Remote Association Test (Mednick, 1968)
Creativity Assessment Packet (Williams, 1993)
Runco’s Creativity Assessment Battery (Runco & Jaeger, 2011)
Creative Product Semantic Scale (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006)
SPAF (Reis & Renzulli, 1991)
Creative Product Inventory (Taylor & Sandler, 1972)
Test of Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (Urban & Jellen, 1996)
CAT (Amabile, 1983)
Assessing the Climate for Creativity (KEYS; Amabile, 1995)
Creative Climate Questionnaire (Ekvall, 1996)
Situational Outlook Questionnaire (Isaksen, Lauer, & Ekvall, 1999)
Team Climate Inventory (Anderson & West, 1994)
Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation (Siegel & Kaemmerer, 1978)
Creative Environment Perceptions Scale (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2010)
Work Environment Inventory (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989)
Guilford, 1965), in which subjects are asked to construct
objects using a given set of shapes, such as a circle, rectangle,
and square.
In addition, Guilford developed several verbal creativity
tests such as the Consequence test (Christensen, Merrifield,
& Guilford, 1965), which asks participants about the con-
sequences of hypothetical events such as, “What would be
the results if people no longer needed or wanted sleep?”
The Alternate Uses test (Christensen et al., 1965) requires

test-takers to list nonobvious uses for a common object, and
the Match Problems test (Berger & Guilford, 1965) instructs
individuals to remove a specific number of matches to create
a new configuration. Four creative indices are scored in those
tests: fluency (the number of responses produced), flexibility
(the ability to go beyond tradition, habits, and the obvious),
originality (uncommon, remote, and clever ideas), and elab-
oration (the ability to work out the details of an idea or
solution; Christensen, Guilford, & Wilson, 1957; Guilford,
1973; Wilson, Guilford, & Christensen, 1953).
Guilford’s creativity tests have been used in many stud-
ies since the 1960s (e.g., Batey & Furnham, 2009; Benedek
& Neubauer, 2013; Bowers, 1967; A. J. Cropley, 1972;
Eisenstadt, 1966; Furnham, Crump, Batey, & Chamorro-
Premuzic, 2009; González & Gilbert, 1979; Hocevar, 1979,
1980; Khaleefa, Erdos, & Ashria, 1996; Piers, Daniels, &
Quackenbush, 1960; Runco & Dow, 2004; Silvia, 2011).
However, Guilford’s tests are not used as much in schools
because he did not develop extensive guidelines for the
scoring of the tests beyond the descriptions of the creative
indices.
For example, Guilford (1957) distinguished four kinds
of fluency: word, associational, ideational, and expressional,
and two kinds of flexibility: spontaneous and adaptive.
Regarding originality, although Guilford (1957) mentioned
one general factor of originality, he and his colleagues
(Wilson et al., 1953) defined originality in different ways:
(a) The uncommonness of response, which is defined opera-
tionally as “the ability to produce ideas that are statistically
infrequent for the population of which the individual is a
member” (p. 363), (b) the remoteness of associations, which
is defined as “the ability to make remote or indirect asso-
ciations” (p. 366), and (c) cleverness, which is defined as
“the ability to produce responses that are rated as clever by
judges” (p. 367). Because the definitions provide the only
guidelines for scoring and there are not the norms and statis-
tical qualities that are required for school decisions, many
educators have opted for the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking instead.
Torrance’s Tests
Torrance was influenced by Guilford’s extensive work
with divergent thinking (Makel & Plucker, 2008; Plucker,
Waitman, & Hartley, 2011). Prior to publishing the official
and first version of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(TTCT; known as the Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking
in 1966), Torrance had already published many articles that
were concerned with measuring creativity (Torrance, 1962a,
1962b, 1962c, 1964). However, it is important to mention
that Torrance’s interest in measuring creativity was not his
ultimate goal. Rather, the TTCT was designed as a means
to an end, not an end in itself. Torrance stated, “I have
always been interested in empowering children, releasing
CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 13
their creative potential. But first I had to measure that poten-
tial. So I have a reputation as a psychometrician, but all along
I have worked with the development of creativity” (cited in
Cramond, 1994, p. 231).
Influenced by some creativity tests, such as Guilford’s
Structure of Intellect (Guilford, 1965), Torrance created his
own creativity test in 1966. However, Torrance had his own
vision of the definition of creativity, which reflected the way
or method he measured creativity. What distinguished the
TTCT from other creativity or divergent thinking tests was
not only how Torrance perceived or defined creativity but
also how he made it fun; easy to use, score, and interpret;
and applicable for diverse populations and cultures. Torrance
emphasized principles that creativity tests should meet. He
stated:
It had to be (a) a natural, everyday process; (b) suitable for
all ages and educational levels, kindergarten through gradu-
ate and professional school; (c) easy enough for the young or
disabled to make a creative response, yet difficult enough to
challenge the most able; (d) unbiased with regard to gender
and race, and open-ended to allow for responses from differ-
ent experiential backgrounds; and (e) fun. (cited in Hébert,
Cramond, Neumeister, Millar, & Silvian, 2002, p. 14)
Another aspect that distinguished the TTCT from other cre-
ativity tests was the administration processes for the tests—
more specifically, the test instructions. Unlike Guilford’s
SOI tests (Guilford, 1965), Torrance believed that students
should receive clear instructions regarding any tasks they
would face in order to show their best performance.
In addition, the TTCT contains both verbal and figural
activities, with two parts (A and B) for each form in order
to create equivalent forms of the tests. In the Figural form
of the TTCT, examinees face three figural activities: (a)
Picture Construction, (b) Picture Completion, and (c) Lines
(form A)/Circles (form B). The Figural battery assesses stu-
dents’ fluency, originality, abstractness of titles, elaboration,
and resistance to premature closure abilities in addition to
13 creative strengths, including expressions of emotion, sto-
rytelling, motion, colorful or rich imagery, humor, fantasy,
synthesis, and unusual or internal visualization. The Verbal
form of the TTCT consists of six different types of activities:
(a) asking, (b) guessing causes, (c) guessing consequences,
(d) product improvement, (e) unusual uses, and (f) just sup-
pose. The TTCT Verbal Battery assesses students’ fluency,
flexibility, and originality abilities.
Over 50 years of research, including studies of reliability
and validity, have made the TTCT the most used and famous
creativity measure in the world (Baer, 2010; Plucker et al.,
2011; Runco, 2010). According to Millar (2002), the TTCT
has been proved for both components for the last 6 decades
through application in over 2,000 studies throughout the
world in more than 35 languages.
14 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND

Wallach and Kogan Creativity Tests on them. However, there are other tests that are con-
cerned with measuring the creative process. Examples
In their book, Modes of Thinking in Young Children,
of those tests are Mednick’s Remote Association Test
Wallach and Kogan (1965) reviewed some of their research
(Mednick, 1968), Torrance’s Abbreviated Test for Adults
on creativity in which they utilized some divergent thinking
(Goff & Torrance, 2000), Thinking Creatively in Action
tests. In chapter 2, they described their research concerning
and Movement (Torrance, 1981), Thinking Creatively With
the relationship between creativity and intelligence in which
Sounds and Words (Khatena & Torrance, 1988), Creativity
they have used the Instances test or game as they described
Assessment Packet (Williams, 1993), and Runco’s Creativity
it. An example of the Instances test is, “Name all the round
Assessment Battery (Runco & Jaeger, 2011).
things you can think of,” and “Name all the things you can
think of that will make a noise” (Wallach & Kogan, 1965,
p. 29). Another test developed by Wallach and Kogan is the Creative Person
Similarities test. This test asks participants to generate possi-
Due to the large number of scales, inventories, and ques-
ble similarities between two verbally specified objects, such
tionnaires that fall under the creative person umbrella, the
as “Tell me all the ways in which a potato and a carrot are
measures of a creative person were classified into four main
alike,” and “Tell me all the ways in which a cat and a mouse
categories: creative personality measures, creative behavior
are alike.” Such a test is even used in some IQ tests such
measures, creative styles measures, and attitude and values
as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (Wechsler,
measures. This section will shed light on studies that targeted
2003). In addition to the verbal divergent thinking tests,
creative individuals and offer some examples of the measures
Wallach and Kogan developed some figural DT tests, such as
used in order to assess individuals’ creativity.
Pattern Meanings and the Line Meanings (Wallach & Kogan,
1965). In the Pattern Meanings test, the participant is asked
Creative Personality
to generate possible meanings or interpretations for each of
a number of abstract visual designs, and in the Line Meaning The Khatena-Torrance Creative Perception Inventory
test the participant is confronted with one or another kind of (Khatena & Torrance, 1976) consists of two separate tests
line and asked to generate meanings or interpretations rele- of creative self-perception: What Kind of Person Are You?
vant to the form of line in question (Wallach & Kogan, 1965). (WKOPAY) and Something About Myself (SAM; Khatena
In all of those tests, each participant is scored on the number & Torrance, 1976). According to Khatena and Torrance
and uniqueness of ideas. According to Wallach and Kogan (1976), WKOPAY and SAM measure different dimensions
(1965), of the creative personality and thus they could be used inde-
pendently. WKOPAY and SAM can be used individually
The variable number is defined as the total number of or in groups with children and adolescents from Grades
responses given by a child to a particular item, and the vari- 4–12 and with adults above high school. WKOPAY con-
able uniqueness is defined as follows: For each item in a sists of 50 statements that come in pairs and require each
procedure, a frequency distribution is constructed indicating examinee to choose one of each pair that best describes
the number of children in the total sample who give a partic- him or herself. WKOPAY assesses five personality fac-
ular response to that item. Any response to a given item that
tors: (a) acceptance of authority, (b) self-confidence, (c)
is offered by only 1 of the total sample is defined as a unique
inquisitiveness, (d) awareness of others, and (e) disciplined
response. (p. 30)
imagination. SAM consists of 50 single statements that ask
the examinee to determine whether or not the statements
The problems with using the Wallach and Kogan tests in edu-
describe him or her. If the statement does not describe the
cation are the same as with the Guilford tests—there are no
examinee, he or she will leave it blank. SAM assesses six
clear directions for scoring the tests and no national norms
personality factors: (a) environmental sensitivity, (b) initia-
to compare scores. Therefore, they are useful for research
tive, (c) self-strength, (d) intellectuality, (e) individuality,
and exploration purposes but not for placement decisions that
and (f) artistry (Khatena & Torrance, 1976). The Khatena-
require high reliability and validity.
Torrance Creative Perception Inventory has been employed
in several studies (e.g., Gallucci, Middleton, & Kline, 2000;
Other Tests That Measure the Creative Process Houtz et al., 2003; Kaltsounis, 1979; Montgomery, Hodges,
& Kaufman, 2004; Palaniappan, 1996).
The divergent thinking tests of Guilford, Torrance, and
Another example of creative personality measures is
Wallach and Kogan were reviewed in detail because those
Gough’s Creative Personality Scale (CPS; Gough, 1979),
tests dominate creativity research, especially research that
which was developed based on the Adjective Check List
deals with the creative process or potential. Another rea-
(Gough & Heilbrun, 1965). The CPS consists of 30 items or
son for the weight given to those tests is that many
adjectives: 18 items indicative of creativity: capable, clever,
other divergent thinking tests developed later were based

confident, egotistical, humorous, individualistic, informal,
insightful, intelligent, interests–wide, inventive, original,
reflective, resourceful, self-confident, sexy, snobbish, uncon-
ventional, and 12 contradictive items: affected, cautious,
commonplace, conservative, conventional, dissatisfied, hon-
est, interests–narrow, mannerly, sincere, submissive, and sus-
picious (Kaduson & Schaefer, 1991). The CPS has also been
used in several studies (e.g., Carson, Peterson, & Higgins,
2003; Dollinger, Urban, & James, 2004; Ee, Seng, & Kwang,
2007; Meneely & Portillo, 2005; Patnoe, 1985; Sheldon,
1995; Sung Eun Chung & Meneely, 2012).
Creative Behavior
Based on Renzulli’s (1977) three-ring conception of gift-
edness, Renzulli and Hartman (1971) developed the first ver-
sion of the Scales for Rating the Behavior Characteristics of
Superior Students (SRBCSS), which consisted of 10 scales,
one of which measures creativity. The newest version of the
SRBCSS consists of 14 scales (Renzulli et al., 2009).
The Creativity Scale includes 10 items with a 6-point
Likert scale. Unlike other creative behavior scales, the
SRBCSS is considered as an assessment by others, which is
filled out by teachers, not the students or participants them-
selves. The SRBCSS has been used in many creativity and
giftedness studies (e.g., Chan, 2000; Chan & Chan, 2007;
Jarosewich, Pfeiffer, & Morris, 2002; Kim & Hull, 2012;
Kim & VanTassel-Baska, 2010).
Hocevar (1979) developed the Creativity Behavior
Inventory (CBI), which asks participants to rate their engage-
ment in various creative activities on a scale from 0 (never
did this) to 3 (did this more than five times). Different forms
of the CBI were found in the literature; some used the
original form, which consists of 90 items and others used
short forms that differ in the number of items used. Several
studies have used some form of the CBI (Dollinger, 2007;
Lee & Kemple, 2014; Nassif & Quevillon, 2008; Plucker
& Dana, 1998; Silvia, Wigert, Reiter-Palmon, & Kaufman,
2012; Wakefield, 1989).
Another scale that assesses creative behavior is the Runco
Ideational Behavioral Scale (RIBS; Runco et al., 2001). The
RIBS is a self-report instrument designed to assess DT with
a Likert format (Runco et al., 2001). The RIBS is based on
the belief that ideas can be treated as the products of original,
divergent, and creative thinking (Runco et al., 2001). There
are two versions of the RIBS: the short form, which con-
sists of 19 items, and long form, which consists of 74 items
(Runco et al., 2014). The RIBS uses a 0–4 Likert scale as
follows: 0 (never), 1 (approximately once a year), 2 (once
or twice each month, approximately), 3 (once or twice each
week, approximately), and 4 (just about every day, sometimes
more than once each day; Runco et al., 2014). A number of
studies have demonstrated that the RIBS is useful as a cri-
terion of original and divergent thinking (Ames & Runco,
2005; Plucker, Runco, & Lim, 2006). Although the RIBS is a
CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 15
relatively new measure of creative behavior, it has been used
in many studies in the last 15 years (e.g., Kim & Hull, 2012;
Kim & VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Kuan Chen, 2015; Pannells
& Claxton, 2008; Plucker et al., 2006).
Of these measures, teachers are most likely to find the
Renzulli SCRBSS to be the most user friendly because it was
specifically designed to be used by teachers observing stu-
dents in classroom situations. It is also helpful for reminding
teachers of the characteristics of creative students.
Creative Style, Attitudes, Interests, and Values
Educators and researchers are not only concerned with
identifying creative individuals according to their unique
personality characteristics and behaviors, but they may also
be concerned with looking at how creative individuals pro-
cess information and deal with different kinds of tasks.
According to Zhang (2015), intellectual styles refers to peo-
ple’s preferred ways of processing information and dealing
with tasks. Thus, in order to assess individuals’ creative
styles, a number of measures have been developed and used
since the 1960s. In addition, according to Clapham (2011),
“Attitude and interest inventories are based on the belief
that creative individuals tend to have attitudes and inter-
ests that distinguish them from less creative individuals”
(p. 461). This section reviews four measures that assess
creative individuals’ styles, attitudes, interests, and values.
One of the famous creativity style measures used in
research and practice is the Kirton Adaption–Innovation
Inventory (KAI; Kirton, 1976). The Kirton Adaption–
Innovation Inventory scale was developed to assess the
two distinct cognitive styles that people exhibit in cre-
ative endeavors. Kirton (1976) argued that “everyone can be
located on a continuum ranging from an ability to ‘do things
better’ to an ability to ‘do things differently’ and the ends of
this continuum are labeled adaptive and innovative, respec-
tively” (p. 622). The KAI consists of 32 items self-report
assessing three components or factors: originality, efficiency,
and rule/group conforming (Kirton, 1976). There are sev-
eral examples of creativity studies that used the KAI (Dew,
2009; Engle, Mah, & Sadri, 1997; Fischer & Freund, 2014;
Goldsmith, 1984; Isaksen & Puccio, 1988; Jacobson, 1993;
Loo & Shiomi, 1997; Skinner, 1996). Because Kirton’s
(1976) research has indicated that successful teams need
both kinds of creativity, teachers might find this scale useful
with students who are old enough to complete it in assigning
students to working groups.
Another example of a creativity style measure is the
Creativity Style Questionnaire–Revised (CSQ-R; Pollick &
Kumar, 1997). The CSQ-R contains 76 items that measure
beliefs and strategies for going about being creative in every-
day life using self-report items. The CSQ-R consists of seven
subscales: (a) Belief in the Unconscious Process, (b) Use
of Techniques, (c) Use of Other People, (d) Final Product
Orientation, (e) Superstition, (f) Environmental Control, and
16 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
(g) Uses of the Senses (Pollick & Kumar, 1997). The
CSQ was also used in a number of creativity studies (e.g.,
DeMoss, Milich, & DeMers, 1993; Keller, Lavish, & Brown,
2007; Lack, Kumar, & Arevalo, 2003; Pollick & Kumar,
1997).
Davis (1975) developed the How Do You Think (HDTY)
Test in order to assess creative attitudes and interests. The
items of the HDYT, presented in a 5-point Likert-type
scale format, cover a variety of areas, including energy
level, originality, interests, activities, self-confidence, sense
of humor, flexibility, risk taking, and playfulness (Davis,
1975). According to Runco (2014), the HDYT contains many
good examples of both supportive and inhibitive attitudes.
Several studies have used the HDYT (Al-Sabaty & Davis,
1989; Bender, Nibbelink, Towner-Thyrum, & Vredenburg,
2013; Clapham, 2004; Davis, Subkoviak, Runco, Ebersole,
& Mraz, 1991; K. G. Gardner & Moran, 1990; Runco,
Ebersole, & Mraz, 1991; Smith & Tegano, 1992; Zysberg
& Schenk, 2013).
Basadur developed three scales to measure divergent
thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving: (a)
Valuing New Ideas, (b) Belief that Creativity Is Not Only
for a Select Few, and (c) Not Feeling Too Busy for New
Ideas. These scales use a 5-point Likert-type rating scale
with responses ranging from strongly agree to strongly dis-
agree (Basadur & Finkbeiner, 1985; Basadur & Hausdorf,
1996; Basadur, Taggar, & Pringle, 1999). These scales have
been used to assess divergent thinking attitudes in a number
of studies (e.g., Baer & Oldham, 2006; Basadur, Runco, &
Vega, 2000; Basadur, Wakabayashi, & Takai, 1992).
Creative Product
We might not need to use divergent thinking or personality
tests when a person demonstrates his or her creative abili-
ties through a novel and useful product. However, reaching
the “productivity” level, in addition to talent, needs time.
Renzulli (2005), for example, differentiated between two
kinds of giftedness, schoolhouse giftedness, a kind most
easily measured by IQ or other cognitive ability tests, and
creative–productive giftedness, a kind of giftedness shown
when individuals compose music, do works of art, write
novels, design scientific experiments, come up with new
advertising campaigns, create new management structures,
and so on (Renzulli, 2005; Sternberg, Jarvin, & Grigorenko,
2010). Renzulli (2005) emphasized the importance of the
latter kind, which is more observable with older students:
History tells us it has been the creative and productive people
of the world, the producers rather than consumers of knowl-
edge, the reconstructionists of thought in all areas of human
endeavor, who have become recognized as “truly gifted”
individuals. History does not remember persons who merely
scored well on IQ tests or those who learned their lessons
well but did not apply their knowledge in innovative and
action-oriented ways. (p. 256)
Just as in the creative process and creative person, there is
more than one way to assess the creative product. Searching
creativity studies that defined creativity in terms of a product
revealed two main approaches: (a) studies employing quanti-
tative measures (e.g., inventories, questionnaires and scales)
and (b) the consensual assessment technique.
Quantitative Assessments
A number of instruments have been developed to eval-
uate the creativity of a product. For example, the Creative
Product Semantic Scale, which is based on the creative
product analysis model (Besemer & Treffinger, 1981), was
developed to assess three dimensions in products: (a) nov-
elty, (b) resolution, and (c) elaboration and synthesis. The
novelty dimension includes “consideration of new materials,
new processes, new concepts and other elements of newness
in the product or the idea.” The resolution refers to “how well
the product does what it is supposed to do,” and elaboration
and synthesis refers to “how the product presents itself to the
customer” (O’Quin & Besemer, 2006, p. 35). Many studies
employed the Creative Product Semantic Scale in order to
assess creativity in products, especially in business and mar-
keting (Besemer, 1998; Besemer & O’Quin, 1986; Storme &
Lubart, 2012; White, Shen, & Smith, 2002; White & Smith,
2001).
Reis and Renzulli (1991) developed the Student Product
Assessment Form (SPAF), which was designed to eval-
uate students’ creative products in gifted programs. The
SPAF provides ratings of nine creative product traits: (a)
early statement of purpose; (b) problem focusing; (c) level
of resources; (d) diversity of resources; (e) appropriate-
ness of resources; (f) logic, sequence, and transition; (g)
action orientation; (h) audience; and (i) overall assess-
ment (originality of the idea; achieved objectives stated
in the plan; advanced familiarity with the subject; qual-
ity beyond age/grade level; care and attention to detail;
time, effort, and energy; and original contribution; Reis &
Renzulli, 1991). The SPAF has been used in several studies
designed to assess students’ products (e.g., Newman, 2005;
Reis & Renzulli, 1991; Renzulli & Reis, 2007). This mea-
sure, which is available free in the article or for download
from this link: http://gifted.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/
sites/961/2015/02/spaf.pdf, would be most useful to educa-
tors because it is designed for school use.
The Consensual Assessment Technique
The consensual assessment technique (CAT) is a tech-
nique used to evaluate creative products through the con-
sensual agreement of judges. The CAT was proposed by
Amabile in 1983 and is used in a large number of studies
in the creativity field. According to Hennessey, Amabile,
and Mueller (2011), “Consensual Assessment is a tech-
nique used for the assessment of creativity and other aspects

of products, relying on the independent subjective judg-
ments of individuals familiar with the domain in which
the products were made” (p. 253). The main idea is that
the best individuals to judge whether the product (e.g.,
composing music, writing a story or novel, performing a
dance) are experts who are familiar with such a prod-
uct. Amabile (1983) proposed a consensual definition of
creativity:
A product or response is creative to the extent that appropri-
ate observers independently agree it is creative. Appropriate
observers are those familiar with the domain in which the
product was created or the response articulated. Thus, cre-
ativity can be regarded as the quality of products or responses
judged to be creative by appropriate observers, and it can also
be regarded as the process by which something so judged is
produced. (p. 1001)
Unlike the majority of creative process measures, which treat
creativity as domain general, the CAT considers the domain-
specific aspect of creativity, which emphasizes that being
creative in one domain does not necessarily predict creativ-
ity in other unrelated domains (Baer, 2015). According to
Baer (2011), “The domain specificity theory argues that the
skills, traits, or knowledge that underlie creative performance
in a given domain are largely unrelated to the skills, traits,
or knowledge that underlie or creative performance in other
domains” (p. 404). However, this (i.e., domain general vs.
domain specificity) is beyond the scope of this article and
more about this can be found in other sources (e.g., Baer,
2010, 2011, 2015).
A number of studies employed such a technique, even
before Amabile proposed the CAT. In their seminal study
on problem finding, Csikszentmihalyi and Getzels (1971),
for example, examined the significance of the problem for-
mulation stage of creativity. In order to evaluate the value,
originality, and craftsmanship of the artworks performed by
31 advanced art students, they assigned a panel, which con-
sisted of art experts. The CAT is used in evaluating different
kinds of products such as art (Chen et al., 2002; Hennessey,
1994), music (Barbot & Lubart, 2012), design (Lu & Luh,
2012), and poetry (Cheng, Wang, Liu, & Chen, 2010).
This is an effective method because it emulates what hap-
pens in real life; when one completes a creative product
or performance, it is judges from the field who determine
its worth. However, this method is less useful for educators
because it requires a large number of expert judges to eval-
uate the products in order to get good interrater reliability
(e.g., 8–10 to judge collages; Hennessy & Amabile, 1999),
and most schools would have difficulty assembling such a
panel on a regular basis. Schools that use judges with prod-
ucts, such as with science fairs, social studies fairs, invention
conventions, and the like, usually find that the use of a cri-
terion rating sheet, a method proscribed with the CAT, helps
ensure that judges focus on relevant factors and can reach
agreement.
CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 17
Creative Press
The research on places or “press” is especially useful in
defining such interactions between persons and environ-
ments. There are individual differences in terms of preferred
environments, but again also general tendencies: Creativity
tends to flourish when there are opportunities for exploration
and independent work, and when originality is supported and
valued. (Kozbelt et al., 2010, p. 25)
Regardless of how creative you are according to your scores
on a divergent thinking test or a personality scale, you will
always need an environment that is encouraging and psycho-
logically safe, an environment that offers you opportunities,
and, most important, an environment that values creativ-
ity and creative thinking. Indeed, there are many creative
individuals who did not have these characteristics in their
environments and still created original and useful ideas and
products. However, creativity research designed to examine
the influence of the creative environment demonstrated that
environment plays a major role in the lives and productivity
of creative individuals.
Although teachers do not always have control over the
size of, and resources in, a classroom, they have a strong
influence on the psychological environment they create
(Cramond, 2005). Although the majority of research on and
development of creative environment measures has been
in business organizations, most of the same principles of
creative environment apply to any organizational situation.
Knowledge about establishing a creative environment may
enable teachers to promote creativity more effectively than
using specific creative strategies.
The question that this section answers is, What kind
of environment enables creativity? This question has been
addressed by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004), who reviewed
a number of instruments used in assessing the cre-
ative environment within organizations. In their review,
five instruments were assessed: (a) KEYS: Assessing the
Climate for Creativity, (b) Creative Climate Questionnaire,
(c) Situational Outlook Questionnaire, (d) Team Climate
Inventory, and (e) Siegel Scale of Support for Innovation.
Each instrument was reviewed and examined in terms of the
instrument aim, the psychometric characteristics, the avail-
ability for research and commercial use, and whether or not
the instrument has been described in an international journal
(Mathisen & Einarsen, 2004). They concluded, “Work envi-
ronment quality does seem to affect the level of creativity
and innovation in groups and organizations” (p. 138). They
also concluded, “The instruments may be used to serve sev-
eral purposes, not only to assess the degree to which a work
environment promotes creativity and innovation, but also to
measure the effects of environmental improvement efforts”
(p. 138).
Since these five measures have been described in
detail by Mathisen and Einarsen (2004), they will only
18 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
be briefly described here. Mayfield and Mayfield (2010)
developed the Creative Environment Perceptions Scale,
which consists of nine items assessing three compo-
nents: creativity resource, work characteristics, and creativ-
ity blocks. The Creative Environment Perceptions Scale
asks each participant to evaluate to what degree the
environment he or she is in supports creativity using
a 5-point Likert scale (Mayfield & Mayfield, 2010).
Another example of a creative press measure is the Work
Environment Inventory (Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989),
which consists of eight scales assessing Organizational
Encouragement, Supervisory Encouragement, Work Group
Supports, Challenging Work, Workload Pressure, Freedom,
Organizational Impediments, and Sufficient Resources
(Amabile & Gryskiewicz, 1989).
For teachers, it is probably most important to know that
promoting creativity in the classroom means fostering psy-
chological safety (it is okay to have a strange idea or be
wrong), encouraging intrinsic motivation (students can pur-
sue some of their own interests), and providing opportunities
for both stimulation and quiet reflection (times to take in
information and times to reflect upon it; Cramond, 2005).
Ideally, there are also comfortable places to work, a variety
of materials, and an attractive, well-lit space, but the physical
environment is less important than the psychological one.
HOW CREATIVITY IS MEASURED:
A SUMMARY
In order to examine the consistency between how creativ-
ity is defined and how it is assessed, more than 40 measures
were reviewed. It could be concluded that most of these
measures assess the two criteria of creativity: originality
and usefulness, but some terms were used interchangeably
in the creativity research. For example, some researchers
use the term novelty to refer to originality, and others
use appropriateness and effectiveness to refer to usefulness.
Others have added other descriptors that are related, such
as Simonton’s surprising (Simonton, 2012) and Clapham’s
purposeful (Clapham, 2011).
In addition, it should be noted that this review of litera-
ture focused on how creativity is defined and measured in
creativity research, with an eye to what is most applicable to
educators. It does not cover all of the issues related to creativ-
ity definitions and assessments such as DT and time-on-task,
online testing, the reliability and validity issues, and the pros
and cons of each approach of assessment discussed (e.g., cre-
ative process, person, product, and press). More about these
issues can be found in Beaty & Silvia (2012), Hass (2015),
Kaufman et al. (2008), Preckel, Wermer, and Spinath (2011),
and Runco and Pritzker (2011).
In conclusion, this review of the literature attempted to
address the complexity of creativity definitions, views, and
assessment in an intellectually honest way but in a way
that can be used by educators to understand and address
the needs of creative students in their classes. Through deep
understanding of what creativity is, what creative people are
like, how creative products can be evaluated, and how cre-
ative environments can be created, educators may be better
enabled to understand and serve the creativity in all of their
students.
REFERENCES
Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2015). Thinking in multiple directions:
Hyperspace categories in divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics,
Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 41–53. doi:10.1037/a0038501
Adobe. (2012, November 7). Creativity and education: Why it mat-
ters. Retrieved from https://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/
pdfs/Adobe_Creativity_and_Education_Why_It_Matters_study.pdf
Al-Sabaty, I., & Davis, G. A. (1989). Relationship between creativity and
right, left, and integrated thinking styles. Creativity Research Journal, 2,
111–117. doi:10.1080/10400418909534304
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York, NY:
Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M., & Gryskiewicz, N. D. (1989). The Creative Environment
Scales: Work Environment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2,
231–253. doi:10.1080/10400418909534321
Ames, M., & Runco, M. A. (2005). Predicting entrepreneurship from
ideation and divergent thinking. Creativity & Innovation Management,
14, 311–315. doi:10.1111/caim.2005.14.issue-3
Anderson, N. R., & West, M. A. (1994). The Team Climate Inventory:
Manual and user’s guide. Windsor, England: ASE/NFER-Nelson Press.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain-specific? In J. C. Kaufman & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 321–341). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Baer, J. (2011). Domains of creativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 404–408). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press/Elsevier.
Baer, J. (2015). The importance of domain-specific expertise in creativity.
Roeper Review, 37, 165–178. doi:10.1080/02783193.2015.1047480
Baer, M., & Oldham, G. R. (2006). The curvilinear relation between
experienced creative time pressure and creativity: Moderating effects of
openness to experience and support for creativity. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 91, 963–970. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.963
Barbot, B., & Lubart, T. (2012). Creative thinking in music: Its nature
and assessment through musical exploratory behaviors. Psychology of
Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 6, 231–242. doi:10.1037/a0027307
Basadur, M., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985). Measuring preference for ideation
in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral
Science, 21(1), 37–49. doi:10.1177/002188638502100104
Basadur, M., Graen, G., & Wakabayashi, M. (1990). Identifying individ-
ual differences in creative problem solving style. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 24, 111–131. doi:10.1002/jocb.1990.24.issue-2
Basadur, M., & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking atti-
tudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management.
Creativity Research Journal, 9, 21–32. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0901_3
Basadur, M., Runco, M. A., & Vega, L. A. (2000). Understanding how cre-
ative thinking skills, attitudes and behaviors work together: A causal pro-
cess model. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 77–100. doi:10.1002/
j.2162-6057.2000.tb01203.x
Basadur, M., Taggar, S., & Pringle, P. (1999). Improving the measurement
of divergent thinking attitudes in organizations. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 33, 75–111. doi:10.1002/jocb.1999.33.issue-2
Basadur, M. S., Wakabayashi, M., & Takai, J. (1992). Training effects
on the divergent thinking attitudes of Japanese managers. International
Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 329–345. doi:10.1016/
0147-1767(92)90056-Z

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2009). The relationship between creativity,
schizotypy and intelligence. Individual Differences Research, 7, 272–284.
Beaty, R. E., & Silvia, P. J. (2012). Why do ideas get more creative across
time? An executive interpretation of the serial order effect in divergent
thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6,
309–319. doi:10.1037/a0029171
Bender, S. W., Nibbelink, B., Towner-Thyrum, E., & Vredenburg, D.
(2013). Defining characteristics of creative women. Creativity Research
Journal, 25, 38–47. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.752190
Benedek, M., Fink, A., & Neubauer, A. C. (2006). Enhancement of
ideational fluency by means of computer-based training. Creativity
Research Journal, 18, 317–328. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_7
Benedek, M., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Revisiting Mednick’s model on
creativity-related differences in associative hierarchies. Evidence for a
common path to uncommon thought. The Journal of Creative Behavior,
47, 273–289. doi:10.1002/jocb.35
Berger, R. M., & Guilford, J. P. (1965). Match problems. Lincoln: University
of Nebraska Press.
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. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1104_7
Besemer, S. P., & O’Quin, K. (1986). Analyzing creative products:
Refinement and test of a judging instrument. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 20, 115–126. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1986.tb00426.x
Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products:
Review and synthesis. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158–178.
doi:10.1002/jocb.1981.15.issue-3
Bowers, P. G. (1967). Effect of hypnosis and suggestions of reduced
defensiveness on creativity test performance. Journal of Personality, 35,
311–322. doi:10.1111/jopy.1967.35.issue-2
Brophy, D. R. (1998). Understanding, measuring, and enhancing individ-
ual creative problem-solving efforts. Creativity Research Journal, 11,
123–150. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_4
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2003). Decreased latent
inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-
functioning individuals. Journal of Personality Processes And Individual
Differences, 85, 499–506.
Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students
by teacher ratings: Parent ratings and student self-reports in Hong Kong.
High Ability Studies, 11(1), 69–82. doi:10.1080/713669176
Chan, D. W. (2011). East vs. west. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.),
Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 415–421). San Diego, CA: Academic
Press/Elsevier.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (2007). Creativity and drawing abilities of
Chinese students in Hong Kong: Is there a connection? New Horizons
in Education, 55(3), 77–95.
Chand, I., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Problem finding skills as components in
the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 155–162.
doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90185-6
Charyton, C., & Snelbecker, G. E. (2007). Engineers’ and musicians’
choices of self-descriptive adjectives as potential indicators of creativ-
ity by gender and domain. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the
Arts, 1, 91–99. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.1.2.91
Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue,
G. (2002). Creativity in drawings of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural
examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Cross-
Cultural Psychology, 33, 171–187. doi:10.1177/0022022102033002004
Cheng, Y., Wang, W., Liu, K., & Chen, Y. (2010). Effects of associa-
tion instruction on fourth graders’ poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creativity
Research Journal, 22(2), 228–235.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1965a).
Alternate Uses—Form A. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 19
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., & Wilson, R. C. (1957). Relations of cre-
ative responses to working time and instructions. Journal of Experimental
Psychology, 53(2), 82–88. doi:10.1037/h0045461
Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1965b). Consequence.
Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Clapham, M. (2011). Testing/measurement/assessment. In M. A. Runco
& S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 458–464). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Clapham, M. M. (2004). The convergent validity of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking and creativity interest inventories.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 828–841. doi:10.1177/
0013164404263883
Costa, P. J., McCrae, R. R., Stanton, M. V., Jonassaint, C. R., Williams,
R. B., & James, S. A. (2010). NEO Personality Inventory—Revised.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 72, 141–147.
Cramond, B. (1994). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From cre-
ation through establishment of predictive validity. In R. F. Subotnik & K.
D. Arnold (Eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of
giftedness and talent (pp. 229–254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cramond, B. (2005). Fostering creativity in gifted students. Waco, TX:
Prufrock Press.
Cropley, A. J. (1972). A five-year longitudinal study of the validity of
creativity tests. Developmental Psychology, 6, 119–124. doi:10.1037/
h0032228
Cropley, D. H. (2015). Creativity in engineering: Novel solutions to complex
problems. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2011). Aesthetics and creativity. In M.
A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 24–28).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1970). Concern for discovery: An
attitudinal component of creative production. Journal of Personality, 38,
91–105. doi:10.1111/jopy.1970.38.issue-1
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behav-
ior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47–52. doi:10.1037/h003
1106
Davidovitch, N., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Creative thinking as a predictor
of teacher effectiveness in higher education. Creativity Research Journal,
18, 385–390. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_12
Davis, G. A. (1975). In frumious pursuit of the creative person. The Journal
of Creative Behavior, 9, 75–87. doi:10.1002/jocb.1975.9.issue-2
Davis, G. A., & Rimm, S. (1982). Group Inventory for Finding Interests
(GIFFI) I and II: Instruments for identifying creative potential in the
junior and senior high school. The Journal Of Creative Behavior, 16(1),
50–57.
Davis, G. A., Subkoviak, M. J., Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz,
W. (1991). How Do You Think Test. Journal of Social Behavior and
Personality, 6, 161–167.
DeMoss, K., Milich, R., & DeMers, S. (1993). Gender, creativity, depres-
sion, and attributional style in adolescents with high academic abil-
ity. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 21, 455–467. doi:10.1007/
BF01261604
Devi, G. (2015). Creativity in medicine. Neurology, 84(8), e53–e54.
doi:10.1212/WNL.0000000000001298
Dew, R. (2009). Cognitive style, creativity framing and effects. The Journal
of Creative Behavior, 43, 234–261. doi:10.1002/(ISSN)2162-6057
Dietrich, A. (2004). The cognitive neuroscience of creativity. Psychonomic
Bulletin & Review, 11, 1011–1026. doi:10.3758/BF03196731
Dollinger, S. J. (2007). Creativity and conservatism. Personality and
Individual Differences, 43, 1025–1035. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.02.023
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and open-
ness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity
Research Journal, 16, 35–47. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_4
20 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
Dow, G. T., & Mayer, R. E. (2004). Teaching students to solve
insight problems: Evidence for domain specificity in creativity training.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 389–398. doi:10.1080/1040041040953
4550
Ee, J., Seng, T. O., & Kwang, N. A. (2007). Styles of creativity: Adaptors
and innovators in a Singapore context. Asia Pacific Education Review, 8,
364–373. doi:10.1007/BF03026466
Eisenstadt, J. M. (1966). Problem-solving ability of creative and non-
creative college students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 30, 81–83.
doi:10.1037/h0022902
Ekvall, G. (1996). Organizational climate for creativity and innovation.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 5, 105–123.
doi:10.1080/13594329608414845
Engle, D. E., Mah, J. J., & Sadri, G. (1997). An empirical comparison
of entrepreneurs and employees: Implications for innovation. Creativity
Research Journal, 10, 45–49. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1001_5
Fasko, D. (2001). Education and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13,
317–327. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_09
Fischer, S., & Freund, P. A. (2014). The professional context as a pre-
dictor for response distortion in the Adaption–Innovation Inventory—
An investigation using mixture distribution item response theory
models. International Journal of Testing, 14, 218–244. doi:10.1080/
15305058.2013.862250
Florida, R. L. (2012). The rise of the creative class: Revisited. New York,
NY: Basic Books.
Fontenot, N. A. (1993). Effects of training in creativity and creative problem
finding upon business people. The Journal of Social Psychology, 133(1),
11–22. doi:10.1080/00224545.1993.9712114
Furnham, A., Crump, J., Batey, M., & Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2009).
Personality and ability predictors of the “Consequences” Test of
Divergent Thinking in a large non-student sample. Personality and
Individual Differences, 46, 536–540. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.12.007
Gallucci, N. T., Middleton, G., & Kline, A. (2000). Perfectionism and
creative strivings. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 135–141.
doi:10.1002/jocb.2000.34.issue-2
Gardner, K. G., & Moran, J. D. (1990). Family adaptability, cohesion,
and creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 281–286. doi:10.1080/
10400419009534361
Gardner, S., Gershon, A., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1965). Making
objects. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Gattis, M., & Raudsepp, E. (1969). How creative are you? Writer’s Digest,
4961.
Getzels, J. W. (1975). Creativity: Prospects and issues. In I. A. Taylor & J.
W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 326–344). Chicago, IL:
Aldine.
Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2000). Abbreviated Torrance Test for adults.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Goldsmith, R. E. (1984). Personality characteristics associated with
adaption–innovation. The Journal of Psychology, 117, 159–165.
doi:10.1080/00223980.1984.9923672
González, J. M., & Gilbert, O. (1979). Measurement of creativity:
Development of an instrument and study of its reliability. Revista
Latinoamericana de Psicología, 11, 363–381.
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.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454.
doi:10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1957). Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review,
64, 110–118. doi:10.1037/h0048280
Guilford, J. P. (1965, August/September). Frames of reference for cre-
ative behavior in the arts. Paper presented at the Conference on Creative
Behavior in the Arts, Los Angeles, CA.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence, and their educational impli-
cations. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Guilford, J. P. (1973). Characteristics of creativity. Springfield: Illinois
State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction, Gifted Children
Section.
Han, Q., Hu, W., Liu, J., Jia, X., & Adey, P. (2013). The influence of
peer interaction on students’ creative problem-finding ability. Creativity
Research Journal, 25, 248–258. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.813754
Hass, R. W. (2015). Feasibility of online divergent thinking assess-
ment. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 85–93. doi:10.1016/
j.chb.2014.12.056
Hébert, T. P., Cramond, B., Neumeister, K. L. S., Millar, G., & Silvian,
A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy.
Storrs: The University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on
the Gifted and Talented (NRC/GT).
Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An
examination of the relationship between ratings of product and pro-
cess creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193–208. doi:10.1080/
10400419409534524
Hennessy, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment tech-
nique. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Prtizker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(Vol. 1, pp. 347–359). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T., & Mueller, J. (2011). Consensual assess-
ment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(pp. 253–260). San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the mea-
surement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191–196.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.191
Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity.
Intelligence, 4(1), 25–40. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5
Houtz, J. C., Selby, E., Esquivel, G. B., Okoye, R. A., Peters, K. M., &
Treffinger, D. J. (2003). Creativity styles and personal type. Creativity
Research Journal, 15, 321–330. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1504_2
IBM. (2012). Leading through connections: Highlights of the Global Chief
Executive Officer Study. Somers, NY: IBM Global Business Services.
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., & Ekvall, G. (1999). Situational Outlook
Questionnaire: A measure of the climate for creativity and change.
Psychological Reports, 85, 665–674. doi:10.2466/pr0.1999.85.2.665
Isaksen, S. G., & Puccio, G. J. (1988). Adaption–innovation and the
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: The level-style issue revisited.
Psychological Reports, 63, 659–670. doi:10.2466/pr0.1988.63.2.659
Jacobson, C. M. (1993). Cognitive styles of creativity: Relations of scores
on the Kirton Adaption–Innovation Inventory and the Myers-Briggs
Type Indicator among managers in USA. Psychological Reports, 72,
1131–1138. doi:10.2466/pr0.1993.72.3c.1131
Jarosewich, T., Pfeiffer, S. I., & Morris, J. (2002). Identifying gifted stu-
dents using teacher rating scales: A review of existing instruments.
Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 20, 322–336. doi:10.1177/
073428290202000401
Kaduson, H. G., & Schaefer, C. E. (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
Kaltsounis, B. (1979). Black students’ personality traits associated
with originality and elaboration. Psychological Reports, 44, 83–87.
doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.44.1.83
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity
assessment. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Keller, C. J., Lavish, L. A., & Brown, C. (2007). Creative styles and gen-
der roles in undergraduates students. Creativity Research Journal, 19,
273–280. doi:10.1080/10400410701397396
Khaleefa, O. H., Erdos, G., & Ashria, I. H. (1996). Gender and creativity in
an Afro-Arab Islamic culture: The case of Sudan. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 30, 52–60. doi:10.1002/jocb.1996.30.issue-1

Kharkhurin, A. V., & Samadpour Motalleebi, S. N. (2008). The impact of
culture on the creative potential of American, Russian, and Iranian col-
lege students. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 404–411. doi:10.1080/
10400410802391835
Khatena, J. J., & Torrance, E. P. (1976). Khatena-Torrance Creative
Perception Inventory. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Khatena, J. J., & Torrance, E. P. (1988). Thinking creatively with sounds and
words. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Kim, K. H., & Hull, M. F. (2012). Creative personality and anticreative
environment for high school dropouts. Creativity Research Journal, 24,
169–176. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.677318
Kim, K. H., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativ-
ity and behavior problems among underachieving elementary and high
school students. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 185–193. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2010.481518
Kirton, M. (1976). Adaptors and innovators: A description and mea-
sure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 61, 622–629. doi:10.1037/
0021-9010.61.5.622
Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity.
In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of
creativity (pp. 20–47). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Kuan Chen, T. (2015). Assessing a Chinese version of the Runco Ideational
Behavior Scale. Social Behavior & Personality: An International Journal,
43, 1111–1122. doi:10.2224/sbp.2015.43.7.1111
Lack, S. A., Kumar, V. K., & Arevalo, S. (2003). Fantasy proneness, cre-
ative capacity, and styles of creativity. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 96(1),
19–24. doi:10.2466/pms.2003.96.1.19
Lee, I. R., & Kemple, K. (2014). Preservice teachers’ personality traits and
engagement in creative activities as predictors of their support for chil-
dren’s creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 82–94. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2014.873668
Loo, R., & Shiomi, K. (1997). A cross-cultural examination of the Kirton
Adaption–Innovation Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences,
22, 55–60. doi:10.1016/S0191-8869(96)00178-X
Lu, C., & Luh, D. (2012). A comparison of assessment methods and
raters in product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 331–337.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.730327
Makel, M. C., & Plucker, J. A. (2008). Creativity. In S. I. Pfeiffer
(Ed.), Handbook of giftedness in children: Psychoeducational the-
ory, research, and best practices (pp. 247–270). New York, NY:
Springer.
Mathisen, G. E., & Einarsen, S. (2004). A review of instruments
assessing creative and innovative environments within organizations.
Creativity Research Journal, 16, 119–140. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj16
01_12
Mayfield, M., & Mayfield, J. (2010). Developing a scale to measure the cre-
ative environment perceptions: A questionnaire for investigating garden
variety creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 162–169. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2010.481511
Mednick, S. A. (1968). Remote Associates test. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 2, 213–214. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00104.x
Meneely, J., & Portillo, M. (2005). The adaptable mind in design:
Relating personality, cognitive style, and creative performance. Creativity
Research Journal, 17, 155–166. doi:10.1080/10400419.2005.9651476
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in
intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment
in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
77–87. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_1
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Connecticut, NJ: Ablex.
Montgomery, D., Hodges, P. A., & Kaufman, J. S. (2004). An exploratory
study of the relationship between mood states and creativity self-
perceptions. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 341–344. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2004.9651463
CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 21
Mumford, M. D., & Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creativity in the workplace:
People, problems, and structures. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 1–6.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00776.x
Nassif, C., & Quevillon, R. (2008). The development of a preliminary cre-
ativity scale for the MMPI-2: The C Scale. Creativity Research Journal,
20, 13–20. doi:10.1080/10400410701839918
Natrielli, D. F., Silva, M. E., & Natrielli, D. G. (2013). Medicine and cre-
ativity in medical psychology. São Paulo Medical Journal, 131, 281–282.
doi:10.1590/1516-3180.2013.1314638
Newman, J. L. (2005). Talents and type ills: The effects of the Talents
Unlimited model on creative productivity in gifted youngsters. Roeper
Review, 27, 84–90. doi:10.1080/02783190509554295
O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the Creative Product Semantic
Scale as a metric for results-oriented business. Creativity & Innovation
Management, 15(1), 34–44. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00367.x
Palaniappan, A. K. (1996). A cross-cultural study of creative
perceptions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(1), 96–98. doi:10.2466/
pms.1996.82.1.96
Pannells, T. C., & Claxton, A. F. (2008). Happiness, creative ideation, and
locus of control. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 67–71. doi:10.1080/
10400410701842029
Patnoe, S. (1985). The relationship between selected scales of the
Adjective Check List and musical creativity: A validation study.
Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 23(1), 64–66. doi:10.3758/BF0332
9780
Piers, E. V., Daniels, J. M., & Quackenbush, J. F. (1960). The identifica-
tion of creativity in adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 51,
346–351. doi:10.1037/h0042669
Plucker, J. A., & Dana, R. Q. (1998). Alcohol, tobacco, and marijuana use:
Relationships to undergraduate students’ creative achievement. Journal
of College Student Development, 39, 472–483.
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behav-
ior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity
Research Journal, 18, 55–63. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_7
Plucker, J. A., Waitman, G. R., & Hartley, K. A. (2011). Education and cre-
ativity. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity
(pp. 435–440). San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Pohlman, L. (1996). Creativity, gender and the family: A study of cre-
ative writers. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 1–24. doi:10.1002/
jocb.1996.30.issue-1
Pollick, M. F., & Kumar, V. K. (1997). Creativity styles of supervising
managers. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 260–270. doi:10.1002/
jocb.1997.31.issue-4
Preckel, F., Wermer, C., & Spinath, F. M. (2011). The interrelation-
ship between speeded and unspeeded divergent thinking and reasoning,
and the role of mental speed. Intelligence, 39, 378–388. doi:10.1016/
j.intell.2011.06.007
Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products
in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35,
128–134. doi:10.1177/001698629103500304
Renzulli, J. S. (1977). The enrichment triad model: A guide for developing
defensible programs for the gifted and talented. Mansfield Center, CT:
Creative Learning Press.
Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A develop-
mental model for promoting creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg &
J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed., pp. 246–279).
New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Renzulli, J. S., & Hartman, R. K. (1971). Scale for rating behav-
ioral characteristics of superior students. Exceptional Children, 38,
243–248.
Renzulli, J. S., & Reis, S. M. (2007). A technology based program
that matches enrichment resources with student strengths. International
Journal of Emerging Technologies in Learning, 2(3), 57–64.
22 A. M. ABDULLA AND B. CRAMOND
Renzulli, J. S., Siegle, D., Reis, S. M., Gavin, M. K., & Sytsma Reed,
R. E. (2009). An investigation of the reliability and factor structure
of four new scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of supe-
rior students. Journal of Advanced Academics, 21, 84–108. doi:10.1177/
1932202X0902100105
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42,
305–310.
Robelen, E. W. (2012). States mulling creativity indexes for schools.
Education Week, 31(19), 1–2. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/
articles/2012/02/02/19creativity_ep.h31.html
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: A two way interac-
tion. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273–290.
doi:10.1080/00313830308602
Runco, M. A. (1986a). The discriminant validity of gifted children’s diver-
gent thinking test scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 78–82. doi:10.1177/
001698628603000207
Runco, M. A. (1986b). Predicting children’s creative performance.
Psychological Reports, 59, 1247–1254. doi:10.2466/pr0.1986.59.3.1247
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and developmental
issues. New Directions for Child & Adolescent Development, 1996, 3–30.
doi:10.1002/(ISSN)1534-8687
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, develop-
ment, and practice. Boston, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous
with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2,
93–96. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.93
Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. C.
Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity
(pp. 413–446). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Runco, M. A. (2011). Implicit theories. In M. A. Runco & S. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 641–646). San Diego, CA:
Elsevier.
Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, develop-
ment, and practice. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding
creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted
children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 11, 212–218.
Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1995). Cognition and creativity. Educational
Psychology Review, 7, 243–267. doi:10.1007/BF02213373
Runco, M. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Assessing the accuracy of judgments of
originality on three divergent thinking tests. Korean Journal of Thinking
& Problem Solving, 14(2), 5–14.
Runco, M. A., Ebersole, P., & Mraz, W. (1991). Creativity and self-
actualization. Journal of Social Behavior & Personality, 6, 161–167.
Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, original-
ity, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their
relationships? Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 137–148. doi:10.1002/
j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.x
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. (2011). Products. Advantages of the
rCAB. Athens, GA: Creativity Test Services. Retrieved from http://
creativitytestingservices.com/
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. (2012). The standard definition of
creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.650092
Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T.,
& Yurkovich, J. (2011). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational
fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 23, 376–380. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2011.621859
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psycho-
metric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research
Journal, 13, 393–400. doi:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334_16
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. R. (2011). Encyclopedia of creativity.
Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M.,
& Tripp, S. (2014). The incremental validity of a short form of the
Ideational Behavior Scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative,
and lie scales. Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 185–197. doi:10.1002/
jocb.47
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2004). The effectiveness of
creativity training: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal,
16, 361–388. doi:10.1080/10400410409534549
Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality.
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 25–36. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0801_3
Siegel, S. M., & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived sup-
port for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63,
553–562. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.63.5.553
Silvia, P. J. (2011). Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: Examining
the reliability of unusual uses, instances, and consequences tasks.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 24–30. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.
06.001
Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012).
Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical eval-
uation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34.
doi:10.1037/a0024071
Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S. Patent Office criteria seri-
ously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its
implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.676974
Skinner, N. F. (1996). Behavioral implications of adaption–innovation: II.
Adaption–innovation and motivation for uniqueness. Social Behavior and
Personality, 24, 231–234. doi:10.2224/sbp.1996.24.3.231
Smith, D. E., & Tegano, D. W. (1992). Relationship of scores on two person-
ality measures: Creativity and self-image. Psychological Reports, 71(1),
43–49. doi:10.2466/pr0.1992.71.1.43
Sowden, P., Pringle, A., & Gabora, L. (2015). The shifting sands of cre-
ative thinking: Connections to dual process theory and implications for
creativity training. Thinking and Reasoning, 21(1), 40–60. doi:10.1080/
13546783.2014.885464
Sriraman, B., & Lee, K. (2011). The elements of creativity and giftedness in
mathematics. Rotterdam, The Netherlands: Sense.
Sternberg, R. J. (2011). Componential models of creativity. In M. A. Runco
& S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 415–421). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.
Sternberg, R. J., Jarvin, L., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2010). Explorations in
giftedness. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2012). Conceptions of creativity and rela-
tions with judges’ intelligence and personality. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 46, 138–149. doi:10.1002/jocb.10
Sung Eun Chung, S., & Meneely, J. (2012). Profiling group dynamics
within business and design student teams: Relationships among person-
ality traits, problem-solving styles, and creative performance. Journal of
Interior Design, 37(3), 23–45. doi:10.1111/joid.2012.37.issue-3
Taylor, I. A., & Fish, T. A. (1979). The Creative Behavior Disposition Scale.
Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 11(1), 95–97. doi:10.1037/
h0081577
Taylor, I. A., & Sandler, B. E. (1972, September). Use of a creative product
inventory for evaluating products of chemists. Proceedings of the 80th
Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 7(Pt. 1),
311–312.
Torrance, E. P. (1962a). Assessing the creative thinking abilities. In E. P.
Torrance (Ed.), Guiding creative talent (pp. 16–43). Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1962b). Non-test ways of identifying the creatively gifted.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 6, 71–75.
Torrance, E. P. (1962c). Testing and creative talent. Educational Leadership,
20(1), 7–72.
 CREATIVITY: WHAT IT IS AND HOW IT IS MEASURED 23

Torrance, E. P. (1964). Guide for administrating and scoring Non-verbal
Form B: Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms technical
manual (Research ed.). Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing.
In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psycho-
logical perspectives (pp. 43–75). New York, NY: Cambridge University
Press.
Torrance, E. P., McCarthy, B., Kolesinski, M., & Smith, J. (1988). Style
of learning and thinking—Grades 6–12—Youth form. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Trilling, B., & Fadel, C. (2009). 21st Century skills: Learning for life in our
times. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for creative thinking—Drawing
production (TCT-DP) manual. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.
Wakefield, J. F. (1989). Creativity and cognition: Some implications for
arts education. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 51–63. doi:10.1080/
10400418909534300
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children.
New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart, & Winston.
Wechsler, D. (2003). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Fourth edi-
tion technical and interpretive manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological
Corporation.
West, R. E., Tateishi, I., Wright, G. A., & Fonoimoana, M. (2012).
Innovation 101: Promoting undergraduate innovation through a two-
day boot camp. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 243–251. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2012.677364
White, A., Shen, F., & Smith, B. L. (2002). Judging advertising creativ-
ity using the Creative Product Semantic Scale. The Journal of Creative
Behavior, 36, 241–253. doi:10.1002/jocb.2002.36.issue-4
White, A., & Smith, B. L. (2001). Assessing advertising creativity using the
Creative Product Semantic Scale. Journal of Advertising Research, 41(6),
27–34. doi:10.2501/JAR-41-6-27-34
Williams, F. E. (1993). Creativity assessment packet examiner’s manual.
Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1953). The measure-
ment of individual differences in originality. Psychological Bulletin, 50,
362–370. doi:10.1037/h0060857
Zha, P., Walczyk, J. J., Griffith-Ross, D. A., Tobacyk, J. J., &
Walczyk, D. F. (2006). The impact of culture and individualism–
collectivism on the creative potential and achievement of American and
Chinese adults. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 355–366. doi:10.1207/
s15326934crj1803_10
Zhang, L. (2015). Fostering successful intellectual styles for creativity. Asia
Pacific Education Review, 16, 183–192. doi:10.1007/s12564-015-9378-5
Zysberg, L., & Schenk, T. (2013). Creativity, religiosity, and politi-
cal attitudes. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 228–231. doi:10.1080/
10400419.2013.783761

AUTHOR BIOS

Ahmed M. Abdulla is a faculty member in the Gifted Education Program at the Arabian Gulf University, Manama,
Bahrain. His research interests include creativity, divergent thinking, problem finding, and emotional intelligence. He
has presented a number of workshops on giftedness and creativity in Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and the United
States and has presented papers at national and international conferences. E-mail: ahmedcreatv@gmail.com

Bonnie Cramond, PhD, is a professor of educational psychology at the University of Georgia. She has been the
director of the Torrance Center for Creativity and Talent Development, a board member of the National Association
for Gifted Children, and editor of the Journal of Secondary Education. She is on the advisory board for the American
Creativity Association, the Future Problem Solving Program International, and the Global Center for Gifted and
Talented Children; is a member of the International Creativity Society; is on the review board for several journals;
and has published numerous articles, chapters, and a book (another is in the works). A national and international
speaker, she has visited over 35 countries working toward infusing creativity into classrooms at all levels. She was
honored in 2011 to be invited to give a TEDx Talk on creativity and has gratefully received other international and
national honors. E-mail: bcramond@uga.edu