INTELLIGENCE 4, 25~10 (1980)

Intelligence, Divergent Thinking,

and Creativity*

DENNIS HOCEVAR
University of Southern California

Guilford's Alternate Uses, Plot Titles, and Consequences tests were given to 94
university students along with the Concept Mastery Test, a traditional measure of
verbal intelligence. These measures were correlated with an inventory of creative
activities and accomplishments. A composite index of ideational fluency
correlated with four creativity indices: Crafts, Performing Arts, Math-Science,
and Total Creativity, while the Concept Mastery Test correlated with three indices:
Art, Literature, and Total Creativity. With the exception that verbal intelligence
was a better predictor of creativity in literature, no statistical difference between
the predictive accuracies of ideational fluency and verbal intelligence were found.
The need to re-examine the widely accepted association of divergent thinking with
creativity was discussed.

Most of the research on creativity in the last twenty-five years has been
strongly influenced by J. P. Guilford's Structure of the Intellect model
(Guilford, 1962, 1966, 1968). Guilford hypothesized that creative individuals
possess abilities which he labeled divergent thinking (ideational fluency,
flexibility, original thinking, etc.). Further, Guilford argued that traditional
intelligence tests do not measure these abilities.
Guilford's hypotheses have had considerable impact on the study of
creativity. Torrance (1974) has developed an extensive battery of divergent
thinking tests which are scored according to a number of dimensions
suggested by Guilford, namely fluency, flexibility, originality, and
elaboration. Wallach and Kogan's (1965) theory also parallels the work of
Guilford. They conceptualize creativity as the production of ideas that are
abundant (i.e., ideational fluency) and unique (i.e., originality), and their
creativity tests are scored on these two dimensions.
The rationale for the widespread use of these assessment devices is
implicitly based on two assumptions. First, divergent thinking is related to

*An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1978 Convention of the Western
Psychological Association. The assistance of Richard Ripple, Jason MiUman, and Susan Page
Hocevar is gratefully acknowledged. Requests for reprints should be sent to Dennis Hocevar,
Department of Educational Psychology, WPH-600, University of Southern California, Los
Angeles, California, 90007.

25
26 HOCEVAR

real life creative behavior. The need for research on this assumption has been
frequently suggested (Butcher, 1972; Crockenberg, 1972; Davis & Belcher,
1971; Dellas & Gaier, 1970; Lytton, 1971; McNemar, 1964; Nicholls, 1972;
Vernon, 1967). A second assumption associated with the use of divergent
thinking tests is that divergent thinking is more strongly associated with real-
life creative behavior than more traditional measures of intelligence.
Although measures of divergent thinking and intelligence have been included
in several studies as predictors of creative activity and achievement, no
investigator has yet provided a statistical comparison of their relative
accuracy in predicting creative accomplishments.
The main purpose of this study will be to test these two assumptions. Since
the validity of these assumptions may depend on the specific area of
creativity, several dimensions will be considered: Arts, Crafts, Performing
Arts, Math-Science, Literature, and Music. The importance of considering
the area of creative endeavor has been stressed in several instances (Hudson,
1966; Lytton, 1971; McNemar, 1964; Thorndike, 1966), but there has been
little effort in this direction.
In addition, only one aspect of divergent thinking will be investigated,
namely ideational fluency. There are several reasons for limiting the
investigation in this manner. In the first place, ideational fluency is included
in most theories of creative thinking (e.g., Guilford, 1968; Torrance, 1974;
Wallach & Kogan, 1965). Second, ideational fluency is logically unrelated
and statistically uncorrelated with intelligence (see Wallach, 1970, 1971, for
reviews). Finally, Hocevar (1979b) has reviewed a number of studies which
demonstrate that tests of divergent thinking are unidimensional. Specifically,
when the various dimensions of divergent thinking (e.g., fluency, flexibility,
and originality) are tested by a multitrait-multimethod matrix or a factor
analysis, the results indicate that the dimensions are not conceptually distinct.
Hocevar (1979a) has also demonstrated that when the effects of ideational
fluency are partialed out of the originality scores for the Alternate Uses, Plot
Titles, and Consequences, the scores are unreliable and the three tests are not
positively related. Concomitant with this finding, the flexibility and
originality scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking are unreliable
when the effects of ideational fluency are partialed (Hocevar, in press).
A secondary goal of this study is to investigate the hypothesis that real-life
creative behavior is a function of the interaction of ideational fluency abilities
and intelligence. To date, there has been little research in this direction.

METHOD
Sample
Ninety-four undergraduate students (65 females and 29 males) in an
educational psychology course were used in this study.
 DIVERGENT THINKING 27

Procedure

All tests were administered to subjects in groups of approximately twenty

each. In one 45-minute session, three measures of ideational fluency were
administered. These measures were: Alternate Uses (Christensen, Guilford,
Merrifield, & Wilson, 1960), Plot Titles (Berger & Guilford, 1969), and a
shortened, five-item form of Consequences (Christensen, Merrifield, &
Guilford, 1958). Respectively, these tests involve generating unusual uses for
objects, suggesting titles for two stories, and describing consequences to new
and unusual situations. Ideational fluency scores were derived by counting
the total number of responses given in a particular test. A total fluency score
was computed by summing the scores for the three tests.
In another 45-minute session, the Concept Mastery Test (Terman, 1973)
was administered to the subjects. The Concept Mastery Test is a measure of
verbal intelligence consisting of two parts: identifying synonyms and
antonyms, and completing analogies. The concepts in the Concept Mastery
Test deal with a wide variety of fields such as science, history, literature,
music, etc. Scores were based on the number of correct responses with a
correction for guessing. Three scores were derived for this test: synonyms-
antonyms, analogies, and a total score based on the sum of the scores for the
two parts.
An inventory of creative activities and achievement, similar to the one
developed by Holland and Nichols (1964) but more extensive, was given in a
third testing session. A detailed description of the inventory is given in
Hocevar (1979c). The inventory was scored for creativity in six areas: Art,
Crafts, Performing Arts, Math-Science, Literature, and Music. A total
creativity score was computed by converting all subscales to z-scores and
summing the z-scores. This conversion to standardized scores was used to
represent each area of creativity equally.
The coefficient alpha reliabilities for all measures segregated by sex are
shown in Table 1. Except for the Math-Science subscale, the reliabilities are
moderately high and suitable for research purposes. The following analyses
will include the Math-Science subscale, but this scale's unreliability should be
kept in mind.

RESULTS

The means and standard deviations for all variables are shown in Table 2.
Females scored significantly higher on the Crafts scale, t(92)= 4.18,
p < .001; and males scored significantly higher on the Math-Science scale,
t(92) -- 3.85, p < .001. The sex differences on all other creativity scales were
not significant. The only significant sex difference on the remaining scales was
that males scored higher on the Analogies subtest of the Concept Mastery
Test, t(92) = 2.08, p < .05.
 TABLE 1
Coefficient Alpha Reliabilities

Males Females

Ideational fluency
Alternate uses .89 .87
Plot titles .92 .82
Consequences .92 .89
Total ideational fluency .94 .90

Intelligence
Analogies .70 .85
Synonyms-antonyms .88 .80
Total intelligence .92 .90

Creativity
Art .78 .81
Crafts .89 .88
Performing Arts .83 .78
Math-Science .48 .40
Literature .86 .71
Music .74 .61
Total creative behavior .85 .89

Note: N = 65 females and 29 males.

TABLE 2
Means and Standard Deviations

Males Females

Standard Standard
Mean Deviation Mean Deviation

Ideational Fluency
Alternate uses 35.24 9.81 33.32 7.85
Plot titles 13.31 7.25 13.69 4.65
Consequences 3 i .62 9.97 34.05 9.93
Total ideational
Fluency 80.17 24.28 80.06 i 8.57

Intelligence
Analogies 40.76 9.72 35.57 11.73
Synonyms-antonyms 39.65 19.12 37.80 16.01
Total intelligence 80.41 27.72 73.37 26.05

Creativity Scales
Art 5.76 4.42 6.14 4.80
Crafts 14.86 10.10 24.78 10.86
Performing Arts 3.24 4.36 4.54 4.59
Math-Science 4.31 2.75 2.33 2.06
Literature 10.10 7.46 9.03 5.14
Music 5.96 5.41 5.08 4.09
Creativity total -.03 3.53 .01 3.94

Note: For males and females, respectively, N = 29 and N = 65.

28
 DIVERGENT THINKING 29

The intercorrelations for the intelligence and ideational fluency measures

are shown in Table 3. For both males and females, it is readily apparent that
intelligence and ideational fluency are distinct since the correlations within
traits are high while the correlations between traits are negligible.
Table 4 shows the intercorrelati0ns between the creative activity and
accomplishment indices and the measures of intelligence and ideational
fluency for males, females and the total sample. Correlations for the total
sample were computed by averaging the correlations for males and females
using a Fisher's Z-transformation.
From top to bottom, Table 4 shows the intercorrelations for males, females
and total sample, respectively. The difference in correlations between males
and females was tested by means of Fisher's Z-transformation (Glass &
Stanley, 1970). A significant difference between males and females is found
on only one comparison. The correlations of the Math-Science scale with
Consequences is significantly greater for females, z = 1.98, p < .05.
In the combined sample, significant (i.e., p < .05) relationships are found
between Alternate Uses and four of the seven creativity scales: Art, Crafts,
Performing Arts, and Total Creativity. The Consequences test is also
significantly correlated with four of the seven creativity scales: Crafts,
Performing Arts, Math-Science, and Total Creativity. On the other hand,
Plot Titles is not significantly correlated with anything. Total Ideational
Fluency correlates with four creativity scales: Crafts, Performing Arts,
Math-Science, and Total Creativity.
Table 4 also shows that the Synonyms-Antonyms subtest of the Concept
Mastery Test is significantly correlated with the Literature and Total
Creativity scales. Both the Analogies subtest and the Total Intelligence index
are significantly related to Art, Literature, and Total Creativity Scales.
The hypothesis that ideational fluency measures and intelligence measures
are different with respect to accuracy in predicting creative activity and
accomplishment was evaluated by the method described by Glass and Stanley
(1970). The test statistic is a z-score which is interpreted in the usual manner.
The z-scores for selected contrasts are shown in Table 5. Positive z-scores
indicate that the measure of ideational fluency was the more accurate
predictor. Table 5 demonstrates that there is little difference between
measures of ideational fluency and measures of intelligence in their accuracy
in predicting creative activity and accomplishment. Of 49 comparisons, a
significant difference (i.e.,p < .05) in the predictive accuracy of the two kinds
of intellectual abilities occurs only twice, and these differences favor
intelligence tests rather than the ideational fluency tests. Specifically, both the
Synonyms-Antonyms subtest and the Analogies subtest predict creativity in
literature significantly better than the Plot Titles test.
In order to assess the additive and interactive predictive accuracy of the
indices of ideational fluency and intelligence, the two total composites were
regressed on the creativity scales. For this analysis, all data were initially
 TABLE 3
Intercorrelations between Creative Thinking and Intelligence

Total
Alternate • Plot Ideational Synonyms- Total
Uses Titles Consequences Fluency Analogies Antonyms Intelligence

Alternate
uses .72** .62** .90** .18 .03 .08
Plot
titles .44** .81"* .85** -.02 -.08 -.06
Consequences .54** .5 i ** .90** -.09 -.13 -.12
Total
ideational
fluency .8 1** .80** .84"* .05 -.07 -.04
Analogies .13 .02 .22 .18 .83** .92**
Synonyms-
antonyms .04 .11 .17 .14 .78** .98**
Total
intelligence .08 .08 .21 .16 .92** .96**

Note: Correlations for Males (N = 29) are above the diagonal and correlations for females (N = 65) are below the diagonal.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
 TABLE 4
Correlations between Creative Activity and Accomplishment Indices
and Measures of Intelligence and Ideational Fluency

Performing Math- Total

Art Crafts Arts Science Literature Music Creativity

Alternate
uses .05 .27 .32 -.01 .33 .15 .33
Plot
titles .09 .27 .29 -. 19 .14 -.01 .18
Consequences -.03 .38" .22 .02 .04 .16 .24
Total
ideational .04 .35 .30 -.05 .19 .12 .28
fluency
Analogies .18 -.05 .13 .27 .40* .00 .27
Synonyms-
antonyms .11 -. 15 .08 .17 .35 .06 .19
Total
Intelligence .14 -.12 .10 .21 .38* .04 .22

Alternate
uses .27* .33** .16 .11 .07 -. 11 .20
Plot
titles .00 .14 -.08 .10 -. 12 -.02 .00
Consequences .07 .24 .23 .45** .08 .16 .29*

(continued)
t-~

TABLE 4 (continued)

Performing Math- Total

Art Crafts Arts Science Literature Music Creativity

Total
ideational .15 .30* .17 .31 * .04 .03 .24
fluency
Analogies .29* .21 .20 .09 .26* .27* .31 *
Synonyms-
antonyms .19 .13 .12 .08 .26" .14 .22
Total
Intelligence .25* .17 .17 .09 .27" .21 .28"

Alternate
uses .21" .31"* .21' .07 .15 -.03 .24*
Plot
titles .03 .18 .03 .01 -.04 -.02 .05
Consequences .04 .28** .23* .33** .07 .16 .28*
Total
ideational .12 .32** .21 * .21 * .09 .06 .25*
fluency
Analogies .26* .13 .18 .15 .30** .19 .30**
Synonyms-
antonyms .17 .05 .l ! .11 .29** .12 .21"
Total
Intelligence .22* .08 .15 .13 .30** .16 .26*

Note: In order, the correlations for males (N = 29), females (N = 65), and total sample (N = 94) are shown in the top, middle, and
bottom sections. Correlations for the total sample were derived using the Fisher Z-transformation.
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
 TABLE 5
Statistical Comparison of the Relative Accuracy of Measures of Ideat;onal Fluency and Intelligence in Predicting
Creative Activities and Accomplishments

Measures I n v o l v e d
in the Statistical Performing Math- Total
Comparison Arts Crafts Arts Science Literature Music Creativity

A l t e r n a t e uses
versus .29 1.90 .72 -.28 -1.02 - i .06 .22
synonyms-antonyms
A l t e r n a t e uses
versus -. 39 1.40 .23 -.60 - 1.17 - 1.67 -.47
analogies
Plot titles
versus - 1.00 .93 -. 57 -. 71 -2.43 * -. 99 - 1.15
synonyms-antonyms
Plot titles
versus - 1.64 .35 - 1.05 -.98 -2.46* - 1.48 - 1.80
analogies
Consequences
versus -.94 i.71 .88 1.66 -1.64 .29 .53
synonyms-antonyms
Consequences
versus -1.67 !.15 .38 1.40 -1.76 -.23 -.16
analogies
Total
i d e a t i o n a l fluency
versus -.74 1.81 .45 .59 -1.58 -.73 -.08
t o t a l intelligence

Note: The difference between the predictive a c c u r a c y of the four i d e a t i o n a l fluency m e a s u r e s a n d the three intetligence m e a s u r e s
was tested in the m a n n e r described in Glass a n d Stanley (1970). The test statistic is a z-score, a n d positive z-scores indicate t h a t the
~a
i d e a t i o n a l fluency m e a s u r e was more accurate.
*p < .05.
 TABLE 6
Regression of Intelligence, Ideational Fluency, and Their Interaction on Creativity Criteria

a b c d e f g
F-test
R 2 increment
F-test (backward F-test
r R R2 AR 2 /3 R 2 increment solution) final R

Art
Intelligence .207 .207 .043 .043 .191 4.09* 3.43
Fluency .109 .226 .05 ! .008 .109 .79 1.07
Interaction -.068 .239 .057 .006 -.078 .55 .55 1.81
Crafts
Intelligence .028 .028 .001 .001 -.007 .08 .00
Fluency .285 .284 .081 .080 .307 7.94** 8.78**
Interaction -.031 .301 .090 .009 -.099 .92 .92 2.98*
Performing arts
Intelligence .128 .128 .016 .• I fi .092 1.63 .83
Fluency .211 .238 .057 .041 .244 3.96* 5.54*
Interaction -. 140 .300 .090 .033 -. 188 3.28 3.28 2.96*
 Math-science
Intelligence .172 .172 .030 .030 .163 2.79 2.47
Fluency .144 .215 .046 .016 .124 1.58 1.36
Interaction .043 .2 i 7 .047 .001 .028 .06 .06 1.48
Literature
Intelligence .321 .321 .103 .103 .299 10.68"* 9.09**
Fluency .111 .332 .110 .007 .119 .71 1.37
Interaction -. 151 .364 .132 .022 -. 154 2.32 2.32 4.57**
Music
Intelligence .152 .152 .023 .023 .134 1.41 1.66
Fluency .073 .163 .027 .004 .090 .34 .72
Interaction -.120 .206 .043 .016 -. 130 1.50 1.50 1.34
Total creativity
Intelligence .265 .265 .070 .070 .230 7.40** 5.45*
Fluency .245 .346 .120 .050 .261 5.22 * 6.75 *
Interaction -.123 .381 .145 .025 -.163 2.65 2.65 5.09 **

Note." r = simple correlation; R = multiple correlation; R 2 = total percentage of the variance accounted for; AR 2 = additional percentage of the
variance accounted for by that variable; B : standardized beta weight for final equation; the F ratio in column "f'(df = 1,90) tests the hypothesis that the
AR 2 is significant; the F ratio in column "g" (df = 1,90) tests the hypothesis that the AR 2 is significant if that variable were entered in the equation last (Nie,
Hull, Jenkins, Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975); the F ratio in column ~h" (df = 3,90) tests the hypothesis that the final R is significantly different from zero.
*p < .o5.
**p < .01.

t..o
Ltl
36 HOCEVAR

converted to standard scores with males and females combined. Since

ideational fluency is a new variable, it was entered into the regression
equation following intelligence. Actually, their order makes little difference
since they are independent (r = .08).
A product variable was taken to represent the interaction of fluency and
intelligence (see Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973, for rationale and description of
this procedure). This variable was computed by multiplying the two variables;
and it was entered into the equation last because it is a more complex
interpretation of the data.
The results for each successive step of the regression equation for each
separate dependent variable are shown in Table 6. The test statistic used for
the final multiple correlation (R) is an F ratio (Nie, Hull, Jenkins,
Steinbrenner, & Bent, 1975). These are shown in column"h" of Table 6. Four
of the seven multiple R's are significantly different from zero, but the
proportion of variance accounted for (R 2 in column "c") is not particularly
impressive since it never exceeds 15%.
The F test (Nie et al., 1975) for the R 2 increments are shown in column"f '~
Of particular interest here is whether or not ideational fluency and tl~:
interaction term produce increments (shown in column "d") that are
significant and meaningful. For three scales, Crafts, Performing Arts, and
Total Creativity, the increment due to ideational fluency is significant with
ideational fluency accounting for 8, 4, and 5 percent (from column "d") of the
variance in the creativity scales over and above the proportion of the variance
accounted for by intelligence. On the other hand, the interaction is not
significant in any of the seven equations. The data were reanalyzed with the
interaction term being entered into the regression equation first, but its
overall significance was not changed.

DISCUSSION

Results indicate that the ideational fluency composite is significantly

correlated with four creative activity and accomplishment indices: Crafts,
Performing Arts, Math-Science, and Total Creativity. While the composite
did not correlate with creativity in art, a significant relationship was obtained
between Alternate Uses and artistic creativity. On the other hand, none of the
ideational fluency measures predicts creativity in either literature or music.
Since prior research has incorporated different criteria of creativity, it is
difficult to compare the results of this study to other studies (for a general
discussion of this problem, see Hocevar, 1979d). However, two similar studies
do provide some comparative data.
Wallach and Wing (1969) administered the Wallach and Kogan (1965) tests
to a sample of 336 college students and correlated the results with creativity
indices based on activities and accomplishments in leadership, art, social
 DIVERGENT T H I N K I N G 37

service, literature, dramatic arts, and science. Significant relationships were

found in all but two areas--drama and music. In a similar study of 145 Israeli
high school seniors (Milgram & Milgram, 1970), the Wallach-Kogan test
correlated with creative accomplishment in leadership, science, art and
writing, but again, not in drama or music. The present results are generally
consistent although two major inconsistencies are noted. First, ideational
fluency did not correlate with creativity in literature in the present study.
Second, ideational fluency did correlate with creativity in drama (i.e.,
performing arts). The inconsistency concerning drama is explanable in that
unlike the present study, the Wallach and Wing and Milgram and Milgram
studies did not include dance items in their drama indices. The inconsistency
concerning creativity in literature is more difficult to reconcile but
possibilities include differences in the sample, measure of divergent thinking,
and criteria of creativity.
Whereas there are a number of significant correlations between divergent
thinking and real-life creativity in this and prior studies, the correlations
generally do not exceed .30. Two steps could be taken to increase validity
coefficients in future research. First, as pointed out earlier, present measures
of divergent thinking are limited to ideational fluency. Second, tests of
divergent thinking seldom provide instructions emphasizing qualitative
rather than quantitative test-taking strategies (Harrington, 1975).
Harrington's research suggests that instructions to "be creative" enhance the
predictive validity of the Unusual Uses test. If steps were taken to carry out
these recommendations, perhaps the predictive validity of divergent thinking
tests would be enhanced. Additionally, multivariate analyses could be
directed toward this end.
A second issue raised in this study is whether tests of divergent thinking are
significantly better than intelligence tests as predictors of real-life creativity.
The results indicate they are not. To date, there has been little prior research
on this question, and no previous study has offered statistical comparisons.
Nevertheless, inspection of the data from several studies (Cropley, 1972;
DiUehunt, 1973; Getzels & Csikszentmihalyi, 1964; Kogan & Pankove, 1974;
Skager, Klein, & Schultz, 1967; Torrance, 1972; Wodtke, 1964) suggests that
tests of divergent thinking are not better than intelligence tests as predictors of
real-life creativity.
However, there are two studies where the investigators reach the opposite
conclusion although no actual statistical comparisons of the correlation
coefficients are included (Milgram & Milgram, 1976; Wallach & Wing, 1969).
A possible explanation is that these studies both involve the Wallach and
Kogan (1965) creativity tests which are administered in a "game-like" testing
atmosphere without time limits. Consequently, "overachievers" are more
likely to spend more time with the Wallach and Kogan tasks (thus scoring
higher). These "overachievers" may be the same individuals who are likely to
38 HOCEVAR

be motivated to pursue creative excellence, thus producing a significant

correlation between the Wallach and Kogan measures and real-life creativity.
Since motivation is more uniform for intelligence tests, the relationship
between intelligence and real-life creativity is less likely to be spuriously
inflated.
In summary, the findings of this study provide at least two reasons to re-
examine the widely accepted association of divergent thinking with creativity.
First, tests of divergent thinking are no better at predicting creativity than a
traditional and simple measure of verbal intelligence. This is ironic in that
intelligence tests have been criticized because they fail to identify creative
individuals (Guilford, 1968; Torrance, 1962; Wing & Wallach, 1971). A
second problem is that in instances where tests of divergent thinking do
predict real-life creativity, the ability seldom accounts for more than 10
percent of the variance. Obviously, high scorers on these tests are not
necessarily creative people. Yet, divergent thinking has been conceptualized
as synonymous with creativity.
Because of the assumed synonymous relationship of divergent thinking and
creativity, tests of divergent thinking have often been mistaken as a criterion
rather than a correlate of creativity. To illustrate, many researchers who
purport to study the creative personality choose tests of divergent thinking as
their criterion (e.g., Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Torrance, 1963; Wallach &
Kogan, 1965). Further, Torrance's (1972) review of 142 studies which
evaluate the effects of programs designed to enhance creativity indicates that
the vast majority of studies incorporate tests of divergent thinking as their
criterion rather than a measure of creativeness in the real world.
Finally, it is interesting to speculate why tests of mental ability do predict
creative activities and accomplishment in certain instances. Most researchers
assume that the tests measure some ability which is a necessary prerequisite
for creative behavior. On the other hand, it could be that the tests contain
items that are related to the area that they are supposed to predict. For
example, Alternate Uses may predict creativity in the crafts because some of
the test items refer to objects useful in craft work; or an intelligence test may
predict creativity in science because the test contains analogies that deal with
science or the history of science. If this hypothesis is true, it may be that a high
score on a test of mental ability reflects previous achievement rather than
creative potential.

REFERENCES

Berger, R. M., & Guilford, J. P. Plot Titles. BeverlyHills, California: Sheridan Psychological
Services, 1969.
Butcher, H. J. Divergent thinking and creativtty. In W. D. Wall, & V. P. Varma (Eds.),
Advances in educationalpsychology Vol. 1. London: Universityof London Press, Ltd., 1972.
 DIVERGENT THINKING 39

Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P. Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. Alternate Uses. Beverly
Hills, Califonia: Sheridan Psychological Services, 1960.
Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. Consequences. Beverly Hills, Califonia:
Sheridan Psychological Services, 1958.
Crockenburg, S. B. Creativity tests: A boon or boondoggle for education. Review of
Educational Research, 1, 42, 27-45.
Cropley, A. J. A five-year longitudinal study of the validity of creativity tests. Developmental
Psychology, 1972, 6, 119-124.
Davis, G. A., & Belcher, T. L. How shall creativity be measured? Torrance tests, RAT, Alpha
Biographical and IQ. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1971, 5, 153 161.
Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. Identification of creativity: The individual. Psychological Bulletin,
1970, 73, 55-73.
Dillehunt, H. Q. Creativity in children: A comparison of creativity tests and naturalistic
measures of creativity, anxiety, achievement motivation. Doctoral dissertation, California
School of Professional Psychology, 1972. Dissertation Abstracts International 1973, 33,
3282B. (University Microfilms No. 72-33,286).
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students.
New York: Wiley, 1962.
Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. Creative thinking in art students: An exploratory study.
Cooperative Research Project No. E-008. Office of Education, U.S. Department of Health,
Education and Welfare, University of Chicago, 1964.
Glass, G. V., & Stanley, J. C. Statistical methods in education and psychology. Englewood
Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1970.
Guilford, J. P. Factors that aid and hinder creativity. Teachers College Record, 1962, 63,
380-392.
Guilford, J. P. Intelligence: 1965 model. American Psychologist, 1966, 21, 20-26.
Guilford, J. P. Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. San Diego,
California: Robert R. Knapp, 1968.
Harrington, D. Effects of explicit instructions to "be creative" on the psychological meaning of
divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 1975, 43, 434-454.
Hocevar, D. The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth grade children. ChildStudy
Journal, in press.
Hocevar, D. Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1979, 71, 191-96. (a)
Hocevar, D. Dimensionality of divergent thinking. Paper presented at the 1979 conference of
the Western Psychological Association, San Diego, California, 1979. (b)
Hocevar, D. The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI). Paper presented at the
1979 conference of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association, Las Vegas, Nevada,
1979. (c)
Hocevar, D. Measurement of creativity. Review presented at the 1979 conference of the Rocky
Mountain Psychological Association, Las Vegas, Nevada, 1979. (d)
Holland, J. L.,&Nichols, R. Predictionofacademicandextracurricularachievementincollege.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 1964, 55, 55-65.
Hudson, L. Contrary imaginations. New York: Schocken Books, Inc., 1966.
Kerlinger, F. N., & Pedhazur, E.J. Multiple regression in behavioral Research. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston, 1973.
Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. Long-term predictive validity of divergent thinking tests: Some
negative evidence. Journal of Education Psychology, 1974, 66, 802-810.
Lytton, H. Creativity and education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1971.
McNemar, Q. Lost: Our intelligence? Why? American Psychologist, 1964, 19, 871-882.
Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1976, 68, 255-259.
40 HOCEVAR

Nicholls, J. G. Creativity in the person who will never produce anything original and useful: The
concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait. American Psychologist, 1972, 27,
717-727.
Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. C., Steinbrenner, K., & Bent, D. SPSS: A statisticalpackage
for the social sciences (2nd ed.), New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.
Skager, R. W., Klein, S. P., & Schultz, C. B. The prediction of academic and artistic
achievement at a school of design. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1967, 4, 105-117.
Terman, L. M. Concept Mastery Test: 1956 manual. New York: The Psychological
Corporation, 1973.
Thorndike, R. L. Some methodological issues in the study of creativity. In A. Anastasi (Ed.),
Testing problems in perspective. Washington, D.C.: American Council on Education, 1966.
Torrance, E. P. Education and the creative potential Minneapolis: University of Minnesota
Press, 1963.
Torrance, E. P. Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual Princeton, N.J.:
Personnel Press/Ginn and Company, 1974.
Torrance, E. P. Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 1972, 6, 236-252.
Vernon, P. E. Psychological studies of creativity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,
1967, 8, 153-164.
Wallach, M.A. Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's manual ofchildpsychology (3rd
ed.). New York: Wiley, 1970.
Wallach, M. A. The intelligence/creativity distinction. New York: General Learning Press,
1971.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-
intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston, 1965.
Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence
distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1969.
Wing, C. W., & Wallach, M. A. College admissions and the psychology of talent. New York:
Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1971.
Wodtke, K. H. Some data on the reliability and validity of creativity tests at the elementary
school level. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24, 399~08.