Creativity Testing: Different Perspectives and Challenges | Part II

...Creativity tests, thus, would have oppressed the same criterion that they wished to measure (Cropley, 1997; Wallach, 1976). Another problem with the TTCT is that it sounds general[1]. For instance, a test that uses the exercise of producing the most number of different pictures using shapes and circles does not necessarily transfer to other problems in other domains. Not to mention that these problems are not of meaning and interest to the solver (Houtz, 1994; Treffinger et al., 1971). The test is not “anchored to real-world activity” (Brown, 1989; Cropley, 2000). It is also timed. Many argued that 5 minutes are not enough to judge the children’s creativity (Hattie, 1980; Parnes, 1961; Wallach, 1976), and even Torrance himself (1969) found that children who were allowed 24 hours to come up with novel ideas scored higher in his test compared to those given only 5 minutes. However, this idea was criticized by Guilford (1971), who clearly stated that the test should be timed because when the examinees “are given liberal time on a test… some of them will use that time to invent strategies that may unduly facilitate their performance” (p. 79). Speaking of the Torrance test atmosphere, it is given in a test-like atmosphere, which, for some children, can seem intimidating and oppressive. However, if the test was given under relaxed conditions, the children have yielded in higher scores than those given under more rigid conditions (Crockenberg, 1972; Torrance, 1969; Treffinger et al., 1971). 

The TTCT-Figural[2] is most widely used in the identification of children for gifted programs. It is very helpful because it measures the achievements in the specific areas driven by verbal and quantitative content (Torrance, 1977). However, an alternative to standardized testing is an expert’s opinion for identifying gifted students (Baer, 1993).  Cramond (1994) argues that experts have not identified geniuses like Van Gogh, Einstein, and Edison when they were children. Experts may identity a gifted child who is already succeeding in their field, but it is more challenging to discover one. When it comes to the educational setting, research has found that teachers qualify as gifted children those who are achievers and teacher-pleasers rather than creative students who may be unconventional (Davis & Rimm, 1994; Oliphant, 1986; Rimm & Davis, 1976; Ritchie, 1980; Robinson, 1980). Some very creative students’ potential might be neglected because they are viewed by their teachers as troublesome (Cramond, 1994). Finding gifted students who do not necessarily score well in creativity tests sure is challenging; however, educators should understand that one’s creativity cannot be only tested through tests, and it would benefit students greatly if educators include various methodologies into gifted programs when approaching the multifaceted faculty of creativity (Lemons, 2001). 

While creativity assessments might have limitations, it is worthwhile to include them as part of a general battery. Traditional IQ or achievement tests may not tap all of a person’s potential. Divergent thinking may help give a more comprehensive understanding of a person’s overall abilities. In addition, if a test taker has a learning disability that may affect their scores on a traditional ability or achievement measure, creativity tests can add valuable information. 

[1] According to the TTCT manuals of 1966 and 1974, the test-retest reliability coefficients have ranged from .50 to .93. Torrance (1974) indicated that motivational conditions affect the measurement of creative functioning. Treffinger (1985) concluded that the TTCT can be seen as having reasonable reliability for group and research applications. 

[2] In terms of construct validity, studies on the TTCT have shown conflicting results regarding its dimensionality (Chase, 1985; Clapham, 1998; Dixon, 1979). Guilford (1962) conceptualized divergent thinking as multidimensional, and many researchers have hypothesized that creativity consists of several independent psychological factors. Torrance (1974) also encouraged the use of individual scale scores and warned that using a single score may be misleading.