The relationship of selection criteria and sex to measured creativity for mentally gifted minors

PDF

Download

Open document

Flip pages

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Request accessible transcript

Transcript (if available)

Content INFORMATION TO USERS
This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While
the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document
have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original
submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand
markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction.
1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document
photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing
page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages.
This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent
pages to insure you complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it
is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have
moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a
good image of the page in die adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being
photographed the photographer followed a definite method in
"sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper
left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to
right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is
continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until
complete.
4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value,
however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from
"photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver
prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing
the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and
specific pages you wish reproduced.
5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as
received.
Xerox University Microfilms
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
75-28,622
FAIRBANKS, Mary Kathleen, 1945-
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTION CRITERIA
AND SEX TO MEASURED CREATIVITY FOR MENTALLY
GIFTED MINORS.
University of Southern California, Ph.D., 1975
Education, psychology
i Xerox University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106
© Copyright by
MARY KATHLEEN FAIRBANKS
1975
THIS DISSERTATION HAS BEEN MICROFILMED EXACTLY AS RECEIVED.
THE RELATIONSHIP OF SELECTION CRITERIA
AND SEX TO MEASURED CREATIVITY
FOR MENTALLY GIFTED MINORS
by
Mary Kathleen Fairbanks
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Education)
June 1975
U N IV E R S IT Y O F S O U T H E R N C A L IF O R N IA
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY PARK
LOS ANGELES. CALI FORNIA 9 0 0 0 7
This dissertation, w ritten by
.......MARY _ .K^.TH L E EN _ _ P AIRBANK S.....
under the direction of k.& F... Dissertation Com
mittee, and approved by a ll its members, has
been presented to and accepted by The Graduate
School, in p a rtial fulfillm ent of requirements of
the degree of
D O C T O R O F P H IL O S O P H Y
Dean
DISSERTATION COMMITTEE
Chairman
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Special recognition is due several individuals who
made the culmination of this doctoral study possible.
I wish to acknowledge and thank all of my graduate
professors, especially those on my Dissertation Committee,
who influenced my scholarly efforts through their demon
strated interest and responsive advice. In particular,
Dr. Newton Metfessel, Committee chairman, provided sus
tained support, inspiration, and insightful direction,
which motivated and guided me throughout my doctoral
studies.
To Mrs. Jane Rateaver, whose efficient secretarial
services were indispensable, I would like to express my
warmest thanks.
My appreciation is offered to Dr. John Martois for
the accurate and expert manner in which he completed the
computer data analysis for the study.
Finally, I wish to communicate heartfelt thanks to
my parents for their enthusiastic encouragement throughout
my doctoral studies and the positive influence which they
have brought to bear upon my entire life.
ii
TABLE OP CONTENTS
Page
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS..................................... ii
LIST OP TABLES..................................... v
LIST OP PIGURES....................................... viii
Chapter
I. THE PROBLEM................................. 1
Introduction
Area of Concern
Purpose of the Study
Questions To Be Explored
Statement of Hypotheses
Assumptions
Definitions of Terms
Limitations and Delimitations
Procedures
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
II. REVIEW OP THE LITERATURE.................... 23
Nature of Giftedness and Criteria
for Identification
Nature of Creativity and Assessment
of Creative Potential
Developmental Age and Sex Differences
in Creative Potential
Relationships between Intelligence,
Achievement, and Creativity
Relationship between Self-Perception
and Creativity
Chapter Summary
III. PROCEDURES................................... 127
Description of the Sample
Description of Evaluative Instruments
Collection of the Data
Statistical Analysis of Data
Chapter Summary
Chapter Page
IV. FINDINGS.................................... 157
Descriptive Statistics
Analyses of Variance
Pearson Product-Moment Correlations
Limitations of the Findings
Chapter Summary
V. SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . 232
Summary
Conclusions
Recommendations
REFERENCES . .
APPENDICES . .
Appendix A:
Appendix B:
Appendix C:
Appendix D:
Descriptive Statistics:
Means and Standard Deviations
by Selection Criteria and Sex Group,
Analyses of Variance: Means and
Standard Deviations for Creativity
Subtests and Total Creativity . . .
The Group Test of Creativity . . . ,
Stick-Figure Self-Perception
Rating: Project Potential Interpre
tive Guide on Self-Perception,
Rating Scale ......................
252
272
274
277
290
300
iv
LIST OP TABLES
Table Page
1. Definitions of Giftedness .................... 40
2. Early Creativity Research Centers
in the United States..................... 66
3. Current Creativity Research Centers
in the United States..................... 67
4. Definitions of Creativity .................... 73
5. Tests of Creativity.......................... 94
6. Non-Test Indicators of Creative Potential . . . 110
7. Composition of the Student Sample
by District, Grade, and Sex............... 131
8. Composition of the Student Sample by Grade,
Sex, and Selection Criteria............... 133
9- Description of GTOC Subtests................ 136
10. Composition of Data Collected................ 152
11. Means and Standard Deviations for
Raw Score Data by Grade Level............. 158
12. Means and Standard Deviations for
Raw Score Data for Total Sample........... 160
13. Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Fourth Grade)....................... 168
14. Analysis of Variance: Sensitivity to
Problems (L.A. Fourth Grade) ............. 168
15. Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Fourth Grade)....................... 169
16. Analysis of Variance: Flexibility of
Thinking (L.A. Fourth Grade) ............. 169
v
Table Page
17. Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Fourth Grade)........................ 170
18. Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Fourth Grade)........................ 170
19. Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Fourth Grade)........................ 171
20. Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Fifth Grade) ........................ 174
21. Analysis of Variance: Sensitivity to
Problems (L.A. Fifth Grade) ................ 174
22. Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Fifth Grade)........................ 175
2 3. Analysis of Variance: Flexibility of
Thinking (L.A. Fifth Grade) ................ 175
24. Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Fifth Grade) ........................ 176
2 5. Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Fifth Grade)........................ 176
2 6. Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Fifth Grade) ........................ 177
2 7. Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Sixth Grade) ........................ 183
28. Analysis of Variance: Sensitivity to
Problems (L.A. Sixth Grade) ................ 183
2 9. Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Sixth Grade) ........................ 185
3 0. Analysis of Variance: Flexibility of
Thinking (L.A. Sixth Grade) .............. ; 185
31. Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Sixth Grade) ........................ 188
3 2. Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Sixth Grade) ........................ 188
vi
Table Page
33. Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Sixth Grade)............................189
3 4. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores* Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(L.A. Fourth Grade) . ..................... 192
35- Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(L.A. Fifth Grade)............................ 193
3 6. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(L.A. Sixth Grade)............................ 195
37. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(P.V. Fifth Grade)............................ 196
3 8. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(All Selected by Test Lata)...................198
39- Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(All Selected by Judgment)................... 199
40. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Boys) ............................... 201
41. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Girls) ............................. 202
42. Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelli
gence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Sample) ............................. 204
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. Model of the Structure-of-Intellect ........... 75
2. Basic Statistical Model ....................... 153
3. Intercorrelation Model ....................... 155
4. Plot of Significant Interaction for
Elaboration for Fourth Grade .............. 172
5. Plot of Significant Interaction on Sensi
tivity to Problems for Fifth G r a d e ...........179
6 . Plot of Significant Interaction for
Flexibility for Fifth Grade ................ 180
7. Plot of Significant Interaction for Total
Creativity for Fifth Grade ................ l8l
8 . Plot of Significant Interaction on Sensi
tivity to Problems for Sixth G r a d e ...........186
9. Plot of Significant Interaction on Flexi
bility for Sixth Grade.......................187
viii
CHAPTER I
THE PROBLEM
Introduction
Growing awareness of the complexity of our present !
technological society and our equally-complicated national
and local problems--urban violence* overcrowding, energy
shortages, racial and ethnic conflicts, international
rivalry, economic and political pressures, industrial
demands-~has surely been a significant impetus behind the
j
current generation of interest in the areas of giftedness
and creativity.
As our earlier undeveloped, pre-industrial American ■
I
civilization has slowly matured into a modern technological j
nation, the need for gifted and talented individuals with
creative potential has become most apparent. Educator
John W. Gardner (1 9 6 1) spoke of this growing need in his
book Excellence:
The demand for talent is an inevitable consequence
of our stage of development as a society. As such,
it has been rising for a long time. It is not a
recent trend. We can observe societies in the world
today at every stage of development from the most i
primitive to the most advanced, and nothing is
easier to demonstrate than that every step toward
the latter involves a heavier demand for educated
talent, . . . The demand for high-talent manpower
1
is firmly rooted in the level of technological com
plexity which characterizes modern life., and in the
complexity of modern social organization. And more
important than either of these is the rate of inno
vation and change in both technological and social
spheres. In a world that is rocking with change,
we need more than anything else a high capacity for
adjustment to changed circumstances, a capacity for
innovation. (pp. 34-35)
A decade ago Arnold Toynbee (1964) also recognized ;
society's tremendous need for talented individuals with
the capacity for creativity and stressed the importance
of providing opportunities for these creative individuals
to demonstrate their talents and live up to their poten
tial:
To give a fair chance to potential creativity is a
matter of life and death for any society. This is
all-important, because the outstanding creative
ability of a fairly small percentage of the popula
tion is mankind's ultimate asset, and the only one
with which only man has been endowed. (p. 4)
As our nation's expectations continue to rise and
new national problems unceasingly emerge, legislators,
educators, and the public in general are slowly, but
noticeably, responding; they are now reevaluating past and
present national priorities in education and attempting to :
establish new educational priorities more in line with
perceived national needs and cherished democratic ideals.
Clearly, recent interest in the identification and !
education of the gifted— and particularly the overlooked
creatively gifted— is a logical manifestation of the cur
rent educational trends toward realistically viewing the
complexity of the human mind, identifying individual dif
ferences, individualizing instruction, providing equal
access to educational programs for all pupils, and
encouraging the pursuit of excellence through the optimal
development of each child's strengths and potentialities.
I
Indeed, these educational efforts to meet national
needs and to carry out democratic goals have provided a
sound foundation for the recent wave of interest in the
gifted and, In particular, the expansion of the concept of
giftedness. It Is now becoming evident that the multi
faceted nature of giftedness demands a multifaceted
approach to identification of the gifted. According to
Fliegler and Bish (1959)j "Development of creativity is
the crux of educating the gifted" (p. 434). If the goal
of discovering and appropriately educating all talented andj
gifted Individuals, including those with creative poten
tial, Is to be eventually realized, approaches to Identifl-'
cation of the gifted must include valid and reliable
measures of creativity.
Area of Concern
During the past half century, and particularly
during the last two decades, profound changes have occurred
in the definition of giftedness. As the definition of
giftedness has gradually broadened, a new challenge for [
educators has been revealed. That new challenge lies in
the development of selection criteria and identification
procedures of gifted individuals which appropriately cor
respond with the current expanded definition of giftedness.
Traditionally, the term gifted has been narrowly
applied to those individuals demonstrating intellectual or
academic superiority. Until recently, the primary cri
terion— and frequently the sole criterion— in determining
intellectual or academic superiority has been the score on
a mental or intelligence test.
Mental or intelligence testing became institution
alized in America more than a half century ago during a
period when both society and the educational system dif
fered in several significant ways from that of the present
day (Tyler, 197^0 ■ Intelligence testing was originally
devised as a means of selecting and sorting students; this
original function of the intelligence test has persisted in
spite of the fact earlier societal and educational condi
tions have been greatly altered over time. Formerly,
educational opportunities were rationed in a manner that
would conform to a social structure which provided only a
limited number of positions for the occupational elite.
However, the critical task today is no longer to sort
students and ration out educational opportunities, but
rather to seek out talented students and to encourage them
to develop their talents so they might pursue them later In
life through a variety of occupational opportunities.
In particular, the intelligence test was adapted in
1916 by Terman for the primary purpose of selecting or
identifying a population of gifted students in the Cali
fornia public schools. For almost a half century, the
intelligence test continued to hold its honorary status as
the seemingly only valid measure of an individual's native
intelligence and consequently was generally used as the
only official standard of giftedness. Indeed, the validity
of the intelligence test in identifying giftedness went
unquestioned for several decades.
Following the Supreme Court decision on school
segregation in 1 9 5^* the civil rights movement gained
momentum and stimulated demands for equal access to educa
tional programs for the disadvantaged and minority group
members. Prior to this time, the disadvantaged and minori
ties had only been infrequently included among those
identified as gifted and allowed to participate in special
educational programs for mentally gifted minors.
During the past decade, intelligence testing as a
means of measuring an individual's capabilities and de
termining placement in special educational programs has
increasingly become a controversial issue. Just recently,
a very significant California court decision banned the
6
use of intelligence tests as the sole or predominant meas
ure of a student's mental capacity for the purpose of
placement in a special program for the mentally retarded.
Tests of intelligence have frequently been described as
heavily biased toward white, middle-class individuals and
discriminating against disadvantaged minority group mem
bers. The question which has appropriately accompanied the
growing number of attacks on intelligence tests is how
could equal access to educational programs be provided for
disadvantaged minorities if this access is dependent almost
entirely upon performance on mental tests whose content,
form, and vocabulary are unfamiliar to and inappropriate
for disadvantaged minority group members.
Once it became apparent that the sanctity of the
intelligence test was questionable in satisfactorily meas
uring the capabilities of all individuals and, in particu
lar, those of disadvantaged minority group members, the
intelligence test was placed under greater scrutiny; sub
sequently, other limitations of the intelligence test were
discerned.
During the past two decades, human aptitude studies
by educators and psychologists have paved the way for
:greater understanding of the complexity of the human mind
iand the range of human abilities. It has now become quite
evident that the range of types of abilities assessed by
7:
the typical Intelligence test is relatively narrow compared!
to the variety of abilities and talents demonstrated by the
great variety of individuals making up a student population.
More specifically, it is questionable whether the
intelligence test adequately measures an individual's
creative abilities. The role that divergent thinking plays
in the process of creativity is considerable. However, the,
tasks incorporated into an intelligence test are primarily
those requiring convergent thinking rather than divergent
thinking. Furthermore, the creative thinker is frequently
penalized if he provides too many unusual, out-of-the-
ordinary but creative answers on an intelligence test.
Identifying giftedness, particularly in the area of
exceptional creative potential, among the disadvantaged and;
minorities has been seriously hindered by the scarcity of ;
tests and screening procedures which provide opportunities
for these children and youth to perform in a gifted manner.;
Necessarily, a second type of criterion— judgment, usually
that of a student's teacher— has been relied upon fre
quently for identifying potentially gifted underachievers
from disadvantaged backgrounds. As in the case of the
intelligence test, the use of teacher judgment in deter
mining giftedness has been criticized by various educators
as being inadequate as a criterion in identifying crea- j
S
tively gifted pupils since it is a debatable matter whether:
teachers are typically able to perceive the abilities of
highly divergent children realistically (Getzels & Jackson*
1962; Merz & Rutherford* 1972; Stauts, 1973)• It is under
standable how the highly creative student* who frequently
asks numerous questions* differs in learning style, and
provides unusual responses, might be regarded as a class
disturbance or behavioral problem rather than a creatively
gifted child. Whether teacher judgment* with its built-in
limitation of subjectivity* does actually have validity as
one type of criterion in identifying the gifted* including
the creatively gifted* continues to be a question which
deserves the attention of investigators.
Since the recent redefining of giftedness* edu
cators have endeavored to discover* new, valid* and reli
able criteria for identifying giftedness* especially the
potential for outstanding creativity among those from
diverse backgrounds. Several investigators (Guilford*
1 9 67b; Metfessel & Risser* 1 9 65a; Torrance* 1 9 6 6) inter
ested in finding more effective means of identifying high
creative potential have focused their research on develop
ing and validating empirical measures of creative poten
tial. These measures, called tests of creativity* differ
from traditional intelligence tests in that they purport
to assess primarily divergent thinking rather than conver
gent thinking and include tasks which give disadvantaged
children an equal chance to demonstrate their creative
potential. These measures of creativity differ from sub
jective teacher judgments in that they offer greater
objectivity in selecting creatively gifted students.
The expansion of the concept of giftedness to
include exceptional creative potential and talent in a
variety of media neccesitates the development of selection :
criteria which adequately assess all types of abilities of
individuals from diverse backgrounds. It seems probable
that the multidimensional concept of giftedness demands
input from various types of selection criteria rather than :
from a single criterion. Which criteria are most reliable
and valid in identifying the gifted, and in particular the ‘
overlooked creatively gifted, is a moot point at this time.'
To assist in resolving this point at issue, research which
compares the adequacy of the two primary types of criteria—
intelligence test scores and teacher judgments— to that of
empirical measures of creativity— tests of creativity— in
identifying creatively gifted pupils is essential if these
individuals with outstanding creative potential are ever
to have equal access to mentally gifted minor programs
which can provide educational experiences commensurate with;
their potentially high creative abilities. |
i
Sex differences In the performance of boys and ]
I
girls on various types of tests, Including intelligence j
tests, have been well substantiated by earlier research
(Anastasi, 1 9 6 8; Guilford,, 1 9 6 7b). In an era of women's
liberation and equal opportunities for both sexes, the
consideration of sex differences in creative thinking
abilities for those selected for mentally gifted minor
programs by diverse kinds of criteria Is a timely matter of
concern. Although some investigators have begun to examine
developmental age and sex patterns in creative potential
and productions, findings regarding systematic age and sex
differences In creative thinking abilities have not been
consistent (Kogan, 197^)• Consequently, further research
regarding the question of developmental age and sex trends
in creativity is essential.
The goal of effective and accurate identification
of mentally gifted minors with outstanding creative abili
ties is more likely to become reality once the nature of
creativity is clearly defined. Several important theo
retical Issues and methodological problems ensue directly
from the complexity of creativity as a psychological
construct. Clarification of the relationships between
creative thinking abilities and other constructs or vari
ables, such as intelligence, achievement, and self-
perception, will surely help to shed light on the crea
tivity construct and its essential nature.
Purpose of the Study
The major purpose of the study was to investigate
the relationship between California's state selection
criteria utilized in identifying mentally gifted minors and
empirically-measured creativity of these pupils. More
specifically, the primary objective was to compare the
usefulness of intelligence test data and teacher judgment
as selection criteria for identifying mentally gifted
pupils with high creative potential. A second objective of
the study was to investigate the existence of sex differ
ences in creative potential of mentally gifted minors
identified through use of different selection criteria.
Other objectives of the research included further inquiry
into the relationships between measured creativity and
intelligence, achievement, and self-perception.
Questions To Be Explored
Specifically, the study was designed to explore the
following questions: !
1. What is the effect of selection criteria on
measured creativity for mentally gifted pupils? .
2. What is the effect of sex on measured crea- :
tivity for mentally gifted pupils?
3. What is the interaction effect between selec- |
I
tion criteria and sex on measured creativity for mentally j
i
gifted pupils? i
12
4. What Is the correlation of each factor of
creativity with every other factor of creativity and total
creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
5. What is the relationship between intelligence
and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
6 . What is the relationship between reading
achievement and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
7. What is the relationship between self
perception and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
Statement of Hypotheses
The following hypotheses were tested in the study:
HOi
There are no significant differences on any of the
specific empirically-measured factors of creativi
ty or total creativity between those individuals
identified as mentally gifted pupils by intelli
gence test data criteria and those identified by
judgment criteria.
There are no significant differences on any of the
specific empirically-measured factors of creativity
or total creativity between gifted boys and gifted
girls.
There is no significant interaction effect
between selection criteria and sex on any of the
specific empirically-measured factors of crea
tivity or total creativity for mentally gifted
pupils.
There are no significant correlations between
any of the specific empirically-measured factors
of creativity or total creativity for mentally
gifted pupils.
There is no significant correlation between
intelligence and specific empirically-measured
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
There is no significant correlation between
reading achievement and specific empirically-
measured factors of creativity or total crea
tivity for mentally gifted pupils.
14
Ho?
There Is no significant correlation between self
perception and specific empirically-measured
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
Assumptions
The following assumptions were made in the study:
1. The students selected represented an adequate
sample of mentally gifted pupils in the fourth, fifth, and
sixth grade classes of the Los Angeles Unified School
District and in the fifth grade classes of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District.
2. Creativity is an entity that is present in all
persons; individual differences are reflected in the degree
and kind of creative abilities in each person.
3. The Group Test of Creativity was a reliable and
valid measure of creative potential.
4. The Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills, Reading
and the Stanford Achievement Test, Reading were both
reliable and valid measures of reading achievement.
5- The Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (L-M),
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), and Leiter
International Performance Scale were all reliable and valid
measures of intelligence.
6. The Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating Scale
was a reliable and valid measure of self-perception.
7. Data recorded on cumulative records were reli
able and accurate.
Definitions of Terms
Terms used in the study were operationally defined
as follows:
Creativity. A characteristic related to scores on
the Group Test of Creativity (GTOC), which was originally
designed by Metfessel and Risser ( 1965a) and recently
revised by Metfessel., Risser, Fridley, and Hammond (1972a).
The GTOC provides a total score and six subtest scores
indicating creative potential. Each of the subtests is an
empirical measure of one of the six primary factors of
creativity: (l) redefinition, ( 2) sensitivity to problems,
( 3) fluency of thinking, (4) flexibility of thinking, ( 5)
originality, and ( 6) propensity for elaboration. These
six factors of creativity are described in greater detail
in Chapter III.
Intelligence. A characteristic related to a score
on one of three individually administered intelligence
tests, the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale (L-M), the
16
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC), and the
Letter International Performance Scale.
Mentally gifted minor. Defined in the manner the
California Education Code, Article 24 of Chapter 6, Section
6421 defines ''mentally gifted minor": that is, a minor
enrolled in a public primary or secondary school in Cali
fornia who demonstrates such general intellectual capacity
as to place him within the top 2 percent of all students
having achieved his school grade throughout the state or
who is otherwise Identified as having such general intel
lectual capacity but for reasons associated with cultural
disadvantages has underachieved scholastically.
Program for mentally gifted minor. As described by
the California Education Code, Article 14 of Chapter 6,
Section 6421, a special educational program for mentally
gifted children including the identification of such chil
dren, which meets the standards approved by the California
Superintendent of Public Instruction.
Reading achievement. A characteristic related to a
score on the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS),
Reading for the sampled mentally gifted pupils from the
Los Angeles City Unified School District and a score on the
Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), Reading for the sampled
17
mentally gifted pupils from the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District.
Self-perception. A characteristic related to a
total score on the Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating
scale, developed by Metfessel (19 65b) of the University of
Southern California’s Project Potential.
Selection criteria. Based on definitions in the
California Administrative Code, Title 5j Chapter 2, Sec
tions 382O-3 8 2 2, which describes identification of mentally
gifted minors. Selection criteria, that is, evidence to be
studied in identifying mentally gifted minors, were divided
into two categories for the purposes of the study:
1. Test criteria. Selection based on evidence of
intellectual ability as demonstrated by a score
at or above the 9&th percentile on a full scale
individual intelligence test, such as the
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale or WISC;
described under California Administrative Code,
Title 5j Chapter 2, Section 3^21.
2. Judgment criteria. Selection based primarily
on the judgments or recommendations of teachers,
familiar with the demonstrated ability or
potential of a student, in conjunction with
psychologists and administrators. The
18
California Administrative Code, Title 5* Chapter
2, Section 3821, Part "C" states that In any-
given school district, judgment criteria alone
can be used to Identify up to 5 percent of the
pupils identified under Section 3821, which
describes evidence to be studied except for
culturally disadvantaged, underachieving pupils.
The California Administrative Code, Title 5,
Chapter 2, Section 3822 describes separate cri
teria, used in identifying culturally disadvan
taged, underachieving mentally gifted minors,
which are based primarily upon the judgments of
teachers, in conjunction with psychologists and
administrators; minors identified under Section
3822 must not exceed 2 percent of the culturally
disadvantaged within the school district.
Limitations and Delimitations
The results of the study may be interpreted only
within the confines of the following limitations and
delimitations which were in effect:
1. The sample was drawn from and limited to those
students identified as mentally gifted pupils in the
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades of the Los Angeles Unified
School District and the fifth grade of the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District.
2. The GTOC* the primary instrument used in the
study* is an experimental research instrument still under
going the processes of norming and standardization caution
must be exercised in the interpretation of results from
any such experimental instrument* in terms of normative
data.
3. The Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating scale
is also considered an experimental research instrument; its
results must be interpreted accordingly.
Procedures
The study was conducted primarily in nine elemen
tary schools in a very large metropolitan school district*
the Los Angeles City Unified School District* during the
spring semester* 1 9 7 3- The nine elementary schools par
ticipating in the study from the Los Angeles City Unified
School District were randomly selected from all the
district’s elementary schools conducting programs for
mentally gifted minors; the sample was considered repre
sentative of the district since the.selected schools were
distributed geographically across the district and included
various racial* economic* and social subgroups. The
student sample from this district Included 129 identified
mentally gifted minors in the fourth* fifth* and sixth
grades.
A smaller sample of 83 fifth-grade identified
mentally gifted minors from nine elementary schools in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District was also
included in the study. Although relatively large compared
to many school districts in California* the Palos Verdes
Peninsula Unified School District is much smaller in size
and much narrower in socioeconomic range than the sprawling'
Los Angeles City Unified School District.
The test of creativity and self-perception rating
scale were administered in small group settings to all
fourth* fifth* and sixth grade gifted students in the
sample from the Los Angeles City Unified School District
by the investigator and two other examiners, all of whom
had been previously trained- in the appropriate test
administration procedures. The test of creativity only
was administered at an earlier date in small group settings
to all fifth-grade students in the sample from the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School District by two trained
examiners.
Cumulative records were analyzed to: (a) determine
selection criteria used in identifying each mentally gifted
minor; (b) verify the sex of each identified mentally
21
gifted minor; (c) obtain an individual intelligence test
score for each identified mentally gifted minor; (d) obtain
data related to reading achievement for each identified
mentally gifted minor.
The major hypotheses of the study were investigated,
through use of a 2 x 2 factorial design and an intercorre
lation model. The data collected were treated statisti
cally through analysis of variance and Pearson product-
moment correlation.
A detailed description of the procedures used is
presented in Chapter III.
Organization of the Remainder
of the Study
Chapter II presents a review of the literature in
the following selected areas: (a) nature of giftedness and
criteria for identification; (b) nature of creativity and
assessment of creative potential; (c) developmental age and
sex differences in creative potential; (d) relationships
between intelligence, achievement, and creativity; (e)
relationship between self-perception and creativity; and
(f) chapter summary.
Chapter III describes the procedures used in the
study. The chapter includes a discussion of sample selec
tion, the evaluative instruments, data collection, and
statistical treatment of the data.
22
Chapter IV reports the findings of the study.
Descriptive statistics and pertinent findings related to
the stated hypotheses are presented.
Chapter V presents a summary, conclusions, and
recommendations resulting from the research.
References and appendix conclude the dissertation.
CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Nature of Giftedness and Criteria
for Identification
Giftedness is a subject which has simultaneously
intrigued and perplexed philosophers, psychologists, and
educators for centuries. The degree of importance attached
to the concept of giftedness by Americans has wavered over
the years as national concerns and priorities have shifted
dramatically. Tannenbaum (1972) provided a pragmatic view
of the situation:
A social critic once compared America to a rocking
chair always in motion but going nowhere. As cruel
and fanciful as this characterization may be, it
suggests something of the to and fro movement which
we approach and retreat from our deepest concerns.
We thrust forward and confront a national problem,
stay with it for a while, and then move backwards
as though we've lost interest before we've even
found a solution, only to return once again another
day. Such has been the case in our dealings with
the education of the gifted. (p. 14)
Historical Developments
Historically, the concept of giftedness can be
traced back at least several centuries to the days of the
early Greek philosophers, such as Plato. The term "genio"
seems to have been used first during the middle of the
23
24
sixteenth century to refer to the great* but not unique,
abilities of great artists. Historical accounts indicate
that the concept of genius began to assume some of its
modern meanings, including creative attributes, around the
end of the seventeenth century. Evidence of interest in
genius was apparent in writings from the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries, the term usually carrying an aura of
the mystical (Albert, 1 9 6 9).
Toward the end of the nineteenth century, a few
investigators, recognizing the importance of scientific
research on aptitude, began to seek valid means of measur
ing and understanding such phenomena as genius. Scientific
interest in those characteristics now commonly designated
as "giftedness" can be traced back to Galton's (1 8 6 9)
pioneer biographical study of the intellectual traits of
eminent deceased men of genius. He reported his findings
that mental ability is inherited in his famed book Heredi
tary Genius (1 8 6 9).
Acceptance of Galton's untimely ideas about genius
was not widespread and the concept of genius continued to
bear a mystical flavor during the rest of the nineteenth
century and the beginning of the twentieth century.
Unfortunately, the term genius was frequently used to
anchor the extreme points for both intelligence and crea
tivity and was applied indiscriminately to those indi-
25
viduals considered mad or distinctly peculiar (Albert,
1969).
Beyond these very early considerations of the
enigma of the genius, little effort was devoted to syste
matically analyzing or defining the phenomenon of gifted
ness before the end of the first quarter of the twentieth
century. The first major wave of interest in the concept
of giftedness corresponded with the initiation of Terman's
( 1 9 2 5) monumental analyses of historical geniuses and
longitudinal studies of 1,000 gifted children in Califor
nia. Describing the characteristics of these gifted
children through intelligence and achievement testing, as
well as supplemental studies of family and activities,
Terman published his early research efforts in a volume
entitled Genetic Studies of Genius (1 9 2 5) and continued to
follow their progress into later life.
As the early interest in genius gradually waned
after the first quarter of the twentieth century, interest
in giftedness, as well as creativity, was accelerated,
especially after 195^* Dividing the 1927-1965 period into
pre- and post-World War II eras, Albert (I9 6 9) reported
that the topic of giftedness showed the greatest growth in
publications during the 19^5 -1 9 6 5 period; indeed, 80 per
cent of the publications on giftedness occurred during this
latter period, primarily after the mid-century point.
26
Following the publication of several major academic
papers (Barron, 1955; Guilford, 1950* 1959; Roe, 1953;
Terman, 1954), the study of eminence acquired new import
shortly after the mid-century. Unlike the psychoanalyti-
cally oriented studies prominent prior to the mid-century,
these empirical studies indicated new professional emphases
in defining giftedness and creativity.
In general, public school interest in giftedness
was seriously lacking at the mid-century, as indicated by
the scarcity of special programs for the identification and
education of the gifted which had been initiated by 195°•
During that particular year, the Educational Policies
Commission (1950) published a statement which charged that
those individuals with superior intellect were being seri
ously neglected In the nation's communities and schools:
We should seek on a widespread scale to Identify in
every school and community our gifted children and
to provide for them the opportunities required for
their full development. For we need in the United
States men and women of superior ability as leaders
In business, art, education, journalism, labor and
scientific research. (Educational Policies Commis
sion, 1950* P- 62)
Indeed, the State of California demonstrated early
and continuing leadership In initiating mentally gifted
minors programs in its public school systems. Although
programs for the Identification and education of the gifted
had their real beginnings in 1925 when Terman studied the
27
characteristics of 1,000 gifted children in California, the
first school districts to establish conceptually sound and
comprehensive mentally gifted minors programs were Los
Angeles and San Diego (Sato & Ponce, 1973)- However, by
the early fifties, only a few other school districts had
actually followed this lead and initiated programs for the
identification and education of mentally gifted minors.
With Russia's launching of Sputnik into orbit in
1957 j the general sense of unconcern for giftedness sud
denly changed to an outpouring of widespread interest in
giftedness. The threat of Russian superiority in human
talents resulted in criticism of public education's neglect
of gifted children in America. A massive response to cor
rect this inequity produced a substantial number of new
programs for identification of giftedness and education of
gifted intelligence, particularly in the scientific fields
(Tannenbaum, 1972).
During this period, the California State Legisla
ture sponsored an extensive three-year study (1 9 5 7-1 9 6 0),
"Educational Programs for Gifted Pupils," which evaluated
17 different programs with the intent of researching the
following elements: (a) the characteristics of gifted
children and youth; (b) the effectiveness of programs; and
(c) the cost of programs for the gifted. A major finding
of this study was that special provisions in these programs
28
were beneficial in that the participating gifted students
made significant gains in both academic achievement and
personal-social development (California State Department of
Education, 1971).
Subsequently, the research findings of this three-
year study served as the basis for the recommendation to
the Legislature for state reimbursement of excess expenses
of mentally gifted minors programs. The study recommended
$200 per pupil per year for program expenses and $40 per
pupil for costs incurred in the identification of such
pupils. Assembly Bill 36 1, which the Legislature eventu
ally passed in 1 9 6 1, established only $40 as the total
amount available for both identification and program
expenses. A.B. 361 also established within the State
Department of Education two full-time Consultants in the
Education of the Mentally Gifted to work with local school
districts throughout the state in interpreting legislation
pertaining to gifted programs and in developing guidelines
for districts to use in developing initial programs (Sato
& Ponce, 1973).
The primary significance of A.B. 361 waa that it
not only established funding for mentally gifted programs,
but that for the first time, minimum standards for programs
for mentally gifted minors were established in the Cali
fornia Education Code and California Administrative Code,
29
Title 5. Included in these standards were the state's
definition of what constituted giftedness and the state's
criteria for identification of mentally gifted minors.
Section 199-H of Article 23, subchapter 1 of Chapter 1 of
the California Administrative Code, Title 5j established
the following selection criteria for the identification of
mentally gifted minors:
(a) A score on an individual intelligence test, such
as the Stanford-Binet scale, Form L-M, represent
ing an intelligence quotient of I30 or above . . .
or
(b) A score at or above the 9 8th percentile on a
group test of mental ability and a score at or
above the 9 8th percentile on a standardized test
of reading achievement or arithmetic achieve
ment . . .
or
(c) The judgments of teachers, psychologists, and
school administrators and supervisors who are
familiar with the demonstrated ability of the
minors provided that not more than 3 percent
of the pupils for whom an excess cost reim
bursement is claimed shall be identified on
such judgments alone.
In 1 9 6I-I9 6 2, the first year that the state of
California financed programs for mentally gifted minors,
pupil participation totaled 3 8 ,0 0 0 gifted students (Cali
fornia State Department of Education, 1971).
During the latter part of the fifties and the very
early sixties, the plethora of research published on
giftedness and gifted children demonstrated the heightened
30
interest, at least in the research laboratory, in the con
cept of gifteTlness. Reviewing research on the gifted which
was published during the 1 9 6 3 -1 9 6 5 period, Gallagher and
Rogge ( 1 9 6 6) predicted that the future research trend would
include the exploration of creative thinking and expansion
of the concept of superior intellectual ability.
This prediction regarding research trends was
eventually borne out. As attention to the gifted declined
during the middle and late sixties, the number of profes
sional research publications pertaining to gifted children
declined sharply. Tannenbaum (1972) stated that in the
1970 volume of The Education Index, the number of entries
under "Gifted Children" was less than half the number in
the i960 volume. In an updated review of research of the
gifted, Frierson ( 1 9 6 9) indicated that by 1965; research
related to the gifted had shifted markedly from a concern
for the gifted child to a concern for the creative process
and other cognitive factors.
In spite of the basic research on giftedness and
creativity occurring in the so-called "research laboratory,"
few of the research findings were actually being translated
into public school settings during the late fifties and
early sixties. Tannenbaum (1972) clearly delineated the
essential problem existing during this period:
31
Despite the post-Sputnik flurry of activity . . . ,
the idea of special provisions for the gifted never
really entered the bloodstream of American education.
Instead gifted children were considered ornaments to
be detached and discarded when the cost of upkeep
became prohibitive. (Tannenbaum, 1972, p. 18)
Although there existed widespread evidence of the
type of pragmetic problem described by Tannenbaum (1972),
organized efforts such as the California Project Talent, a
federally-funded three-year demonstration program ( 1 9 6 3-
1 9 6 6), made inroads in developing and evaluating various
types of special programs for mentally gifted minors.
Subsequently, through a large federal grant, the California
State Department of Education developed a tentative frame
work for the identification of mentally gifted minors and
objectives, principles, and curricula for programs for the
mentally gifted (California State Department of Education,
1971)-
On the other hand, during the sixties the limita
tions of the identification aspect of programs for the
mentally gifted became more and more apparent. The rigid
criteria and standards built into the state*s identifica
tion process for mentally gifted minors appeared to
systematically exclude a special breed of students. These
special individuals were perhaps not academically gifted,
but able to demonstrate exceptional creativity and talent
in diverse fields and media, ranging from verbal, mathe
matical, scientific, artistic, musical, or dramatic media
32
to dance and problem-solving in human interaction (Tannen
baum, 1972).
Similarly, potentially gifted or exceptionally
creative students from socially disadvantaged or minority
backgrounds seemed to be frequently overlooked when only
their less-than-exceptional academic achievement or intel
ligence test scores were utilized during the gifted
identification process (Gallegos, 1973; Passow, 1972;
Renzulli, 1973)•
The decade of the sixties was a period of social
movements. The civil rights movement and the war on
poverty, in particular, underscored the failure of schools
to provide equal educational opportunities to disadvantaged
and minority group children. One of the grave social
injustices which socially disadvantaged minorities had been
forced to accept was the lack of representation of the
disadvantaged and minorities among special programs for
the mentally gifted (Passow, 1972).
Therefore, as the civil rights movement advanced,
the traditional method of identification of the gifted—
intelligence test scores and academic achievement— became
a focal point of controversy. Standardized intelligence
tests were condemned by some civil rights groups as highly
biased against socially disadvantaged minorities who had
not had the opportunity to incorporate into their life
33
styles all the accompanying experiences necessary for per
formance at a gifted level on the intelligence test
(Tannenbauirij 1972) .
Indeed, the crux of the problem appeared to be
democracy's perennial dilemma: how to provide equality of
educational opportunity while simultaneously promoting
individual differences and the pursuit of excellence
(Gardner, 19^3)•
One important outgrowth of this problem awareness
was an important amendment to the California Administrative
Code, Title 5j in 19^9• Section 3822, pertaining to the
identification of mentally gifted minors, was amended to
provide for the identification and inclusion of pupils with
culturally disadvantaged backgrounds in programs for
mentally gifted minors. No longer was any child with such
handicaps to be excluded from eligibility solely on the
basis of standardized test scores. The California Adminis
trative Code, Title 5, Chapter 2, Sections 3821 and 3822
established the following selection criteria which were to
be utilized in the identification of mentally gifted
minors:
SECTION 3821. Evidence to be Studied, except for
Culturally Disadvantaged Underachieving Pupils.
(a) A score at or above the 9 8th percentile on a
full scale individual intelligence test . . .
34
or
(b) For a pupil in grades seven through twelve, a
score at or above the 9 8th percentile on each
of two tests . . .
(1) A standardized full-scale group test of
mental ability.
(2) A standardized test of one of the following:
reading achievement, arithmetic achievement,
science achievement, social studies achieve
ment .
or
(c) The judgments of teachers, psychologists, and
administrators and supervisors who are familiar
with the demonstrated ability or potential of
the minors. In any given district not more than
5 percent of the pupils identified under Section
3821 as mentally gifted minors shall be identi
fied on such judgments alone.
SECTION 3 8 2 2. Separate Criteria for Identifying
Culturally Disadvantaged, Underachieving, Mentally
Gifted Minors.
A culturally disadvantaged, underachieving,
mentally gifted minor shall be identified by the
committee as follows:
(a) As "culturally disadvantaged"— through the
committee's study of all available and perti
nent evidence of a child's language, cultural,
economic, or environmental handicaps that have
in the past and may in the future interfere
with his success in school, restrict the devel
opment of intellectual and creative ability,
and prevent full development of his poten
tial . . .
and
(b) As "underachieving scholastically"— by comparing
the pupil's general Intellectual capacity with
his achievement on the basis of all pertinent
evidence related to cultural disadvantage . . .
35
and
(c) As "mentally gifted"— on the basis of the judg
ment of the committee that he may be expected
within a reasonable time and with appropriate
curricular modifications to perform in school
at a level equivalent to that of mentally gifted
minors identified according to Section 3821.
Judgment shall be based upon one or more of the
following:
(1) Precocious development and maturation or
outstanding scholastic accomplishment at
any point in his school career.
(2) Unusual resourcefulness in coping with
responsibilities, opportunities, depriva
tions . . .
(3) Outstanding achievements, skills, or cre
ative products.
(4) Scores at or above 9 8th percentile on non
verbal performance scores of individual
intelligence tests . . .
and
(d) In no case shall minors identified in this
section exceed 2 percent of the culturally dis
advantaged pupils within the school district.
A 1970 Congressional mandate added Section 8 0 6,
"Provisions Related to Gifted and Talented Children," to
the Elementary and Secondary Educational Amendments of
1 9 6 9 (Public Law 91-230). This mandate directed the
United States Commissioner of Education, Sidney Marland,
Jr., to conduct a study of the national status of the
educational programs for gifted and talented children and
make recommendations for future programs (Sato & Ponce,
1973)•
Marland of the United States Office of Education
(1971) issued a report of his findings entitled Education
of the Gifted and Talented: Report to the Congress of the
United States. His report indicated the following: (l)
Only a small percentage of the estimated 1.5 to 2.5 million
gifted and talented school children are presently bene
fiting from existing services and, in particular, subpopu
lations such as the disadvantaged and minorities are not
being reached; ( 2) services for the gifted are currently
perceived as having a very low priority at most local,
state, and federal levels of government and educational
administration; furthermore, funding priorities, crisis
concerns, and lack of trained personnel hinder substantial
services for the gifted and talented even where there
exists a legal or administrative basis; (3) without
assistance, the enormous potential of gifted and talented
students will go undiscovered and undeveloped; (4) his
intentions were to initiate immediately a series of major
activities at the federal level to encourage and press for
greater commitment to the gifted and talented at the local
and state levels.
The findings and recommendations of the United
States Office of Education (1971) were very significant
for two reasons: First, demonstrated interest in gifted
ness at the federal level provided an impetus to states
and local school districts to seek more appropriate ways to
identify giftedness and meet the individual needs of gifted
37
and talented students. Second, the U.S.O.E. had formulated
a broader definition of giftedness. In their category of
"gifted and talented," they Included "those with high
general Intellectual ability, those who manifest creative
or productive thinking, those with specific academic apti
tude and/or those with ability in visual and performing
arts" (U.S.O.E., pp. B2-B3).
California has continued to be in the forefront in
the establishment of special programs for mentally gifted
minors. In 1972, Assembly Bill 364 Increased on a gradual
basis the apportionment for mentally gifted minors programs
and initial Identification costs. The number of students
Identified to participate in California's mentally gifted
minors programs gradually Increased from 3 83000 in I96I-
1962 to 100,000 In 1968 to 125,000 in 1973 (Sato & Ponce,
1973)•
In line with the intent of the 1969 legislative
amendment which established separate criteria for cul
turally disadvantaged, underachieving children, local
school districts in California have been encouraged to
develop Identification criteria and innovative program
phases to meet special local needs.
The decade of the seventies appears to be charac
terized by a revival of interest in the gifted. Unlike
past waves of Interest in the gifted, this growing concern
38
for giftedness includes recognition of the creatively
gifted as well as the disadvantaged and minority group
members with undeveloped talents in diverse fields. Em
phasis* in particular* seems to be focused on developing
new* multidimensional definitions of giftedness and estab
lishing appropriate criteria for identifying diverse types
of giftedness.
Definitions of Giftedness
Although progress has been made in defining gifted-
ness* the problem of universal definition has not yet been
resolved in spite of the diligent efforts of numerous
researchers to "get a handle on" the concept of giftedness.
The enigma of defining giftedness has* consequently* been
referred to as a "timeless problem" by investigators such
as Carroll and Laming (1974)• The importance and extent
of the problem of defining giftedness are reflected in the
abundance of research which speaks to this persistent
problem.
The definition dilemma appears to grow out of two
basic features of giftedness: the intangibility of the
concept and its multidimensional character. In their
review of recent attempts at the definition of giftedness*
Carroll and Laming (1974) first described the semantic
difficulties which arise when attempting to define
39
intangibles, such as giftedness and other criteria (intel
ligence, creativity, aptitudes, and abilities) used to
measure giftedness. Second, these investigators pointed
out the complexity of defining a concept with multidimen
sional character, such as giftedness; the diverse types of
giftedness appear to be endless.
The major trend in defining giftedness has been
a movement from a more restrictive definition to a broader
expanded definition of giftedness (Witty, 1971). The early
definition, usually a very limited one, applied only to
individuals who were intellectually or academically gifted,
as indicated by an exceptionally high score on an intelli
gence test (Hollingworth, 1942; Terman, 1925) . Current
definitions of giftedness have been expanded to include the
exceptionally creative child whose talents may lie in
diverse areas (Bruch & Torrance, 1972; Carroll & Laming,
1973] Fliegler & Blsh, 1959; Taylor, 1 9 6 8).
Table 1, which presents a compilation of defini
tions of giftedness, demonstrates the changing nature of
the concept of giftedness through the past half century.
The persistent problem of defining giftedness
revolves around the controversial issues of what consti
tutes giftedness and what are the most effective methods of
classifying giftedness (Martinson, 1 9 6 6). Lucito ( 1 9 6 3)
established the following five classes of definitions of
Table 1
Definitions of Giftedness
Investigators Definitions
Terraan (1925)
Defined the gifted as having an IQ 130 or higher and defined genius as having
an IQ of 1^0 or higher, as measured on the Stanford-Binet Test of Intelligence.
Hollingworth (19^2)
Defined the gifted as children having an IQ of 180 or higher on the Stanford-
Binet Test of Intelligence.
Sumption and Luecking (i 960)
Defined the gifted as "those -who possess a superior nervous system character
ized by the potential to perform tasks requiring a comparatively high degree
of intellectual abstractions or creative imagination" (p. 7) -
Leese and Fliegler ( 1961)
Defined giftedness as "a superior general intellectual potential and ability
(approximate IQ 120 plus); a high functional ability to achieve in various
academic areas commensurate with general intellectual ability; a high order
talent in such special areas as art, music, mechanical ability, foreign lan
guages, science, mathematics, dramatics, social leadership, creative writing,
and a creative ability to develop a novel event in the environment. This
definition probably includes about fifteen to twenty percent of the school
population" (p. 16).
Taylor ( 1968)
Stated that gifted is an adjective that can be used to cover eight to ten
broad or high level talents such as high intelligence, creative talents,
p la n n in g t a le n t s , wisdom o r dervi si on-m aking a b i l i t i e s , and fo r e c a s tin g
talents of several varieties.
Witty (1971)
Defined the gifted as "any child whose performance in a worthwhile type of
human endeavor is consistently or repeatedly remarkable" (p. 112).
Gowan (1971) Defined the gifted child as one who has the potential to develop creativity.
Thompson (1972)
Defined the gifted person "as someone special, someone wi 1 0 stands out from
the crowd because of superior performance" (p. 58).
4=-
O
41
giftedness: (l) ex post facto definitions— the gifted were
those who had achieved outstanding prominence in one of the
professions (Anastasi, 1958; Roe* 1953); (2) IQ defini
tions— the gifted were those who scored at or above some
point on an IQ scale (Terman, 1925; Hollingworth, 1942);
( 3) social definitions— the gifted include those who
excelled in areas such as art or music (DeHaan & Havig-
hurst, 1 9 6 1); (4) percentage definitions— the gifted may
include all of the upper 15 to 20 percent of the secondary
school population or merely the upper 1 to 3 percent of the
school population (Hollingworth, 1942); ( 5) creativity
definitions— the gifted include those who demonstrate
exceptional creative thinking or abilities (Gowan, 1971;
Torrance, 1 9 65a, 1970a).
Terminology used in referring to the gifted has
been frequently inconsistent and not operationally defined.
Labels such as "prodigy," "exceptional," "bright," "aca
demically talented," "capable," "precocious," "talented,"
"able," and "near genius" have been applied to children
with superior learning and performance potential. The
distinction between "gifted" and "talented," although some
times used interchangeably, usually lies in the degree of
generality of the ability or aptitude to which the term is
applied. "Gifted" usually refers to a generalized aspect
of ability similar to Spearman's (general factor), as
42
measured by the Stanford-Binet, whereas "talented" usually
refers to the presence of Spearman's s_ (specific) factor
(Gowan & Demos, 1964). Furthermore, "talented" is some
times used to refer to those who excel in areas such as
art and music (DeHaan & Havighurst, 1 9 6 1).
There now exists widespread awareness that children
may demonstrate giftedness in diverse ways through a vari
ety of media (Taylor, 1 9 6 8; Torrance, 1 9 6 2). This broader
definition of giftedness emanates from a broadened concep
tion of the nature of human abilities in general (Renzulli,
1 9 7 3). In recent years, several investigators have
proposed new, more complex models of human abilities.
First, Guilford ( 1 9 6 7b) has theorized and validated the
Structure-of-Intellect (Si) model, which incorporates 120
possible human abilities. Williams and Eberle ( 1 9 6 7)
developed a model which identified 23 classroom teaching
strategies that can be used to develop seven productive
thinking operations in various subject matter areas.
Taylor ( 1 9 6 8) established a multiple talent model
which isolated distinguishable abilities in areas such as
creativity, decision-making, planning, forecasting, and
communications. Suggesting a grouping of talents based on
the world-of-work needs, Taylor warned that giftedness
should not be limited to academic talent alone. Taylor
(1 9 6 9) proposed that if the upper 10 percent of those in
each of six major* ability categories were included* then
30 percent of the population would be considered gifted or
talented.
The diversity of types of giftedness may be a major
reason why various studies on giftedness frequently produce
conflicting results (Anastasi* 1958)■ The broader concep
tualization of giftedness is applauded by Carroll and
Laming (197^0 j who feel that the expanded definition of
giftedness gives more children access to special educa
tional provisions; consequently* these children have
greater opportunities to live up to their potential.
Identification of the Gifted
Just as there exists no universal definition of the
concept of giftedness* no consensus has yet been obtained
as to the appropriate criteria to be utilized in identify
ing giftedness. However* significant efforts toward the
establishment of effective methods and measures of identi
fying giftedness have been under way for the past five
decades.
As the concept of giftedness has moved toward a
multidimensional type of definition* the need for multiple
criteria* rather than a single criterion* has become
apparent.
Terman (1 9 2 5)* a pioneer in the study of giftedness,
44
relied primarily on an IQ score at or above a specific
point on an individual intelligence test scale (usually 140
IQ on the Stanford-Binet) to Identify gifted children.
However, Terman also utilized teacher nominations and group
screening tests to first identify which children were
potentially gifted candidates and should be subsequently
administered individual intelligence tests. In addition,
Terman utilized interest, general Information, and reading
tests, as well as a home and school information blank, In
order to gather supplemental information about the stu
dent's family, activities, and interests.
Recognizing the multifaceted nature of giftedness,
investigators and educators have proceeded to propose a
variety of more appropriate methods for identifying the
gifted. Ward (1 9 6 2) proposed that the following types of
data be utilized as indicators of giftedness: (a) indi
vidual IQ tests, (b) group IQ tests, (c) teacher judgment,
(d) school records (including achievement test scores and
teacher grades), (e) appraisal of social and emotional
maturity and adjustment, (f) parental interviews, and (g)
pupil motivation and drive. Carroll and Laming (1974)
felt that creativity tests and observational methods should
be included in Ward's list of indicators of giftedness.
According to DeHaan (1957) . > identification measures
should evaluate interest, motivation, personality, and
45
social factors* as well as aptitudes and capacities. Plac
ing less emphasis on formal measurements* Schermann (1 9 6 6)
suggested that identification of the gifted could occur
through observational methods in the day-to-day classroom
setting* especially if the classroom is sufficiently open
so children have the opportunity to display their excep
tional skills and abilities.
Check lists of observable behaviors which gifted
children demonstrate have been compiled by several investi
gators (Abraham* 1958; Barbe* 1 9 6 5; Carroll & Laming* 1974;
Gallagher & Rogge* 1 9 6 6; Torrance & Dauw* 1966). Abraham
warned that although the check lists can be very useful
during the identification of the gifted* the lists and
tables usually provide a composite picture of the gifted
and sometimes overlook important subgroup and individual
differences.
Intelligence Tests
The individual intelligence test and the accompany
ing IQ score were utilized as the primary indicators— and
sometimes the only indicators— of giftedness by early
investigators such as Terman (1 9 2 5) and Hollingworth (1942)*
who defined intelligence in very narrow* restrictive terms.
At mid-century* the use of intelligence tests for
identifying gifted individuals was strongly supported by
46
the Educational Policies Commission (1950), as indicated by
the following statement:
We recommend the use of intelligence tests in iden
tifying gifted children and youth, not because they
have been demonstrated to measure accurately the
inner structure of capacities of human personality,
but because they have been found to provide data
from which subsequent behavior of an individual can
be roughly predicted. The accuracy of such predic
tions is far from perfect, but is accurate enough to
justify the use of intelligence test scores along
with other criteria in such practical tasks as iden
tifying gifted students, in making special provisions
for their education, and in counseling them. Thus,
it cannot be claimed that intelligence tests have
"absolute" validity; but for practical purposes, they
have a useful degree of operational validity. (p. 4l)
Ghauncey ( 1 9 5 8) stated that although intelligence
tests do not measure all dimensions of academic ability,
they provide a "highly serviceable degree of accuracy" and
that which they do measure seems to relate consistently
with academic achievement.
In the past group and Individual intelligence tests
have been used In the identification of gifted children.
In their discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of
group and individual intelligence tests, Gowan and Demos
(1964) Indicated that the disadvantages of group individual
Intelligence tests include: (a) reading disability, (b)
emotional pressures, (c) time pressure, and (d) lack of
motivation. The primary advantage of group Intelligence
tests is their speed, economy, and ease of administration.
Gowan and Demos (1964) concluded that in spite of the
47
disadvantages of group intelligence tests* "They are under
proper circumstances and under an integrated testing pro
gram where comparable scores may be inspected* fairly good
predictors of future academic achievement" (p. 2 7 7)•
Recognizing the desirable features of group tests*
Anastasi (1 9 6 8) also noted the following limitations of
group tests: (a) less opportunity to establish rapport
with and interest in the subject* (b) the difficulty of
detecting any temporary condition* such as illness or
anxiety* which may seriously affect the test results* and
(c) little or no opportunity for supplementary observations
of the subject's behavior. Consequently* she concluded
that "when important decisions about individuals are to be
made* it is often desirable to supplement group tests
either with individual examination of doubtful cases or
with additional information from other sources" (pp. 2 1 5-
216) .
Gowan and Demos (1964) noted that* in light of the
disadvantages of group intelligence tests and the broaden
ing concept of giftedness there was evidence of movement
away from the use of group intelligence tests as a primary
method of identifying giftedness.
In the identification of the gifted* much reliance
has been placed upon the use of individual intelligence
tests. Gowan and Demos (1964) described the advantages of
individual intelligence tests as follows: (a) the provision
of a face-to-face interview type situation where direct
observation may be made on rapport and observation, (b) the
reduction of difficulties resulting from poor reading dis
abilities and time pressures, and (c) they are probably the
single most feasible way of identifying individual ability.
On the other hand, Gowan and Demos (1964) stated that the
major disadvantages of individual tests include: (a) time
and cost, (b) restricted sampling of intelligence which may
not identify exceptional creative abilities, (c) lack of
culture fairness due to class bias, and (d) loading in
favor of verbal ability which might not identify individu
als with other talents or abilities.
Although intelligence tests have been used for many
years in identifying the gifted, there appears to exist
little agreement over the minimum IQ score which should be
utilized as a cutoff point for identifying the gifted or
the percentage of the total school population that should
be identified as gifted. In his initial study of gifted
individuals, Terman (1925) utilized an IQ of 140 or above
on the Stanford-Binet as a score indicative of giftedness,
whereas Hollingworth (1942) utilized an 180 IQ on the
Stanford-Binet as indicative of giftedness.
In a survey of the programs for mentally gifted
minors in the unified school districts in California,
49
Duncan (1964) discovered that there was much disagreement
among school authorities as to how high an IQ score must be
for identification of a student as gifted.
An organization called MENSA has been established
specifically for the gifted. The primary membership
requirement in the organization is that of an IQ in the top
2 percent of the population (Serebriakoff, 1 9 6 6).
Lucito (1 9 6 3) reported that among researchers
using percentage definitions of giftedness, there exists a
broad range wherein as many as the upper 15 to 20 percent
or as few as the upper 1 to 3 percent of the school popu
lation might be considered gifted.
In her discussion of who should be considered
gifted, O'Shea (1 9 6 7) concluded that there existed two
major schools of thought regarding what constitutes intel
lectual giftedness. One school preferred, in spite of its
absolute status, that a designated top percentage such as
10 percent, of any school population, should be considered
the gifted children. The other school preferred an
approximately "absolute" scale of giftedness since more
benefits would probably accrue to society from this second
definition.
The State of California defines mentally gifted
minors as children in the upper 2 percent of general mental
ability at their grade level throughout the state. This
50
definition stipulates that a student must obtain an IQ
score, which is at least two standard deviations above the
mean, on an individual intelligence test in order to
qualify for special education programs for the gifted
(California State Department of Education, 1971).
Recently, various criticisms have been levied by
many psychologists, researchers, educators, and citizens
against the sole or even predominant use of standardized
intelligence, ability, or achievement tests in Identifica
tion of the gifted. The basis of these criticisms is that
generally socioeconomically disadvantaged and minority
group children perform quite poorly on most measures of
intelligence, cognitive development, and educational
achievement as compared to white middle-class or upper-
class children (Gallegos, 1970; Passow, 1972; Renzulli,
1973; Samuda, 1973; Williams, 197^)•
The results of studies throughout the past century
have repeatedly demonstrated that the mean score of Blacks
falls at one standard deviation below the mean score of
whites, particularly on measures of intelligence (Samuda,
1974). According to Samuda, the’fundamental issue of the
testing controversy revolves around the conviction that
the low performance of poor minority group members on tests
will result In the denial of equal opportunity in school
51
or in future jobs* as indicated in the following state
ment :
Testing is seen by many as the chief element in
retarding the social mobility of minorities and
blocking the path for the poor, the black and other
minorities to share in the educational opportuni
ties., and by extension, in the goods of society.
(p. 2)
The primary questions at the heart of the contro
versy over the use of intelligence tests appear to be two
fold: (l) Gan tests that were supposedly designed by and
for a majority group be legitimately administered to a
culturally different group? (2) Can individuals with dif
ferent experiential backgrounds be expected to come to a
testing situation differently prepared to respond to test
items whose content is unfamiliar?
Following a review of the standardization samples
of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales and the Wechsler
Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC) and discovering no
Black children among these samples, Samuda (1973) made the
following statement:
Whenever tests like the Stanford-Binet and the WISC
are used with subjects whose characteristics do not
correspond to the sample upon which those instru
ments were normed, it is logical to conclude that
l) such uses are invalid as measures of the intel
lectual level or potential of these subjects; 2)
whenever such tests are administered to subjects
significantly different from the white sample,
scores are expected to be relatively low; and 3)
comparisons of scores have questionable validity
and utility. (p. 4)
52
Furthermore* after examining the research on the
effects of language differences on test results* Samuda
(1 9 7 3) concluded:
Standardized IQ tests do not* and cannot as they
presently exist* measure the true potential of
black children whose language and life styles are
largely determined by the conditions of the ghetto.
For such tests depend heavily on vocabulary and
language usage which place the minority child at
a distinct disadvantage. (p. 9)
In a discussion of the reliability and validity of
test data from culturally different children* Adler (1973)
stated that the conventional tester-testee format and the
tester-group format could present serious biases of the
test results. Adler concluded that "these biases are
generally related to the differences that may exist in
lower-class children in their use of diglossic patterns*
communications between tester and testee* and subjects'
motivational and aspirational level" (p. 429).
Williams (1974) reported that at their 19 69 meeting
in Washington* D.C.* the Association of Black Psychologists
issued an official statement calling for a moratorium on
the repeated abuse and misuse of conventional psychological
tests* such as the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler* and all
testing of Blacks until more equitable tests are available.
In a discussion of the identification of talent*
Gardner ( 1 9 6 1) provided his viewpoint on the testing con
troversy:
53
It is now objected that the tests give an advantage
to the individual of good family background and place
the individual of poor background at a disadvantage.
This is true in some measure. But it must never be
forgotten that the tests introduced an objectivity
into the measurement of human abilities that never
before existed. Before the tests were developed a
great many people seriously believed that the less
educated segments of society were not capable of
being educated. And the view is still prevalent
in many societies. (p. 48)
In response to the call for a moratorium on all
testing of Black people, Messick and Anderson (1974)
described the social consequences of not testing:
We must pause to wonder what might be lost by the
elimination of testing.
To begin with, the needs that testing serves
would still exist and would be addressed by other
means. If objective and standardized tests were
not available, people would revert to the uses of
the past— to subjective appraisals such as the inter
view and inquiries into ancestry. (p. 3 2)
Perhaps one of the most significant insights which
emanated from this controversy over the use of intelligence
tests was the growing recognition of the narrowness of
traditional conceptions of the nature of human abilities.
Renzulli ( 1 9 7 1) stated:
It seems safe to conclude that both traditional tests
and so-called culture free tests reflect the emphasis
which the dominant culture and formal education place
on the ability to deal effectively with language,
symbols, and abstraction; and by so doing, these .
measures have had the effect of creating a limited
concept of the abilities which our society values.
(p. 122)
As the conception of the nature of human abilities,
in general, and the conception of giftedness, in particular,
54
have broadened in recent years, the limitations of intelli
gence tests in successfully identifying individuals with
exceptionally high creative potential have been noted by
various investigators (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Guilford,
1959, 1 9 6 7b; Razik, 1970; Torrance, 1971b; Witty, 1971).
Some of the limitations of the intelligence tests
in identifying multiple talents result directly from the
narrowness of the range of abilities measured by these
tests. Meeker (1 9 6 9) reported that only 54 of the 120
abilities in Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect model are
tested in the Stanford-Binet, whereas only 26 of the 120
abilities are evaluated by the WISC.
In general, responses to intelligence test items
require primarily convergent thinking and little divergent
thinking. The highly creative individual may be at his
best when demonstrating divergent thinking and consequently
not be able to fully demonstrate his creative giftedness in
responding to objective intelligence test items (Guilford,
19 6 7b; Torrance, 1971b).
The limitations of intelligence tests in the
identification of the creatively gifted appear to present
special problems in the current talent search among the
disadvantaged and minority groups (Renzulli, 1971, 1973)•
Torrance (1 9 6 9a) presented a summary of 18 "creative posi
tives" of disadvantaged and minority group children; few
55
of these creative abilities frequently characteristic of
disadvantaged children are measured by intelligence tests.
For example, figural creativity is a particular strength
noted in disadvantaged children; yet, figural creativity
is not tested by the Stanford-Binet (Torrance, 1969a).
In general, there appears to exist abundant evi
dence that intelligence tests do not reflect the full
potential— particularly the creative potential— of many
children and youth screened for purposes of identification
of giftedness.
Teacher Judgments
The gradual realization of the limitations of
intelligence tests and the IQ in identifying the gifted,
particularly the creatively gifted, has spurred researchers
and educators to seek alternative methods of identifying
giftedness and exceptional creative potential.
Teachers' judgments have frequently been substi
tuted as an alternative type of criterion to be utilized in
identifying the gifted. The validity of teacher judgments
or predictions of giftedness and, in particular, high
creative potential have sometimes been assumed— perhaps
inappropriately— by educators and others concerned with
effective identification of the gifted.
At a very early date, Terman combed the California
56
school population asking for teacher nominations and for
the youngest child in each class (because of the accelera
tion policy in the schools). The results of Terman's
( 1 9 2 5) study of the gifted indicated that teachers were not
able to successfully predict the traits called "genius";
confounding the variable of chronological age with gifted
ness., they selected older pupils as the brighter students.
Upon consideration of some of the important factors
in identifying students gifted in mathematics and science,
Norton (1957) concluded that the validity of teacher
Judgments of giftedness was hindered by several things,
including: (a) the Judgment of conformity as a mark of
superiority, (b) the confusion of creativity with school
achievement and intelligence, (c) the under-Judging of
students who demonstrate independent behavior, high curi
osity, or alternative ways of completing tasks, and (d)
the lack of recognition of the fact that pupils hide their
high abilities in order not to be perceived as "brains."
Pegnato and Birch (1959) compared seven methods for
identifying gifted children at the Junior high level. Of
the seven methods utilized, teacher Judgment was considered
one of the two weakest methods of identification. This
conclusion was based on the finding that teachers accu
rately Judged as gifted only 45-1 percent of the gifted
population of students in the study; in fact, nearly
57
one-third of the students rated as gifted by teachers were
actually in the average range of intelligence.
Utilizing high school students in his study,
Holland (1959) found that teacher ratings were less useful
in the prediction of creativity than in the prediction of
academic achievement.
The well-publicized study by Getzels and Jackson
( 1 9 6 2), which compared the highly intelligent child and the
highly creative child on several variables, indicated that
teachers clearly preferred the high IQ, child over the
highly creative pupil although both were equally superior
to other students in school achievement. Undertaking a
study similar to that of Getzels and Jackson, Torrance
( 1 9 6 2) also discovered that teachers rated the high IQ
students as more desirable students, more ambitious and
hard working, less unruly and more friendly than the highly
creative students, thus confirming Getzels and Jackson's
finding on the attitudes of teachers toward high IQ stu
dents as compared to highly creative students. In a later
study of teachers' concepts of the Ideal pupil, Torrance
( 1965b) found that teachers had much ambivalence toward the
type of pupil who might be called highly creative. Out of
62 characteristics, teachers rated independence in judg
ment 19th and courage 2 9th. Teachers preferred student
traits such as industriousness, obedience, popularity with
58
their peers, and punctuality in the completion of school
work.
Wallach and Kogan (1 9 6 5) claimed that Getzels and
Jackson's "desirable as pupil" rating referred to the
teachers' value system regarding pupils1 behavior rather
than the actual classroom demeanor of the student. In
general, Wallach and Kogan came to similar conclusions as
Getzels and Jackson regarding teachers' ratings. They saw
little value in teachers' Judgments of creative students.
In light of teachers' negative perception of creative
pupils and consequently called them "next to worthless"
(p. 1 6 9) in creativity research.
On the other hand, Richards, Cline, and Neeham
(1964) drew the conclusion from their study that teacher
ratings in originality did not favor the intelligent over
the creative students.
Guilford (1 9 6 7b), however, argued that even after
an explanation of the characteristic to be rated, it would
be "doubtful that the average teacher knows what to look
for, or fully understands the characteristic to be rated"
(p. 164).
Studying the validation of tests of creativity,
Yamamoto (1 9 6 7b) concluded that predictions or Judgments of
teachers were reliable criteria of creativity when such
predictions were collected on a separate criteria basis,
59
that is, by specific creative abilities such as fluency,
originality, and the like.
In a study of high school students, Klausmeier,
Harris, and Ethnathios (1962) found positive correlations
between teacher ratings on creativity and performance on
creativity tests.
When Check (1970) requested that teachers of
fourth, seventh, and twelfth grade students select their
five most creative students and their five least creative
students, he found that teachers were not able to identify
creative students.
Upon factor analyzing the ratings by teachers of
28 pupil characteristics, Morrison, McIntyre, and Suther
land (1 9 6 5) found three main components: good behavior,
attainment, and sociability. They found that teachers were
able to discriminate between "good" behavior and attainment
and, furthermore, that the attainment factor contained a
highly significant positive loading from rated originality.
Treffinger, Peldhusen, and Thomas (1970) adminis
tered the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to 38
elementary school teachers and their pupils. They re
quested that each teacher rate his pupils' creative
thinking ability through use of a five-category, forced
normal distribution procedure. Utilizing pupils' test
scores as criteria, they found: (a) there were substantial
6o
differences among teachers in ability to rate their pupils,
(b) teachers’ ratings of pupils' creativity correlated no
higher and often significantly lower with pupils' TTCT
scores than with their IQ scores, regardless of whether the
teachers themselves were high or low on divergent thinking,
and (c) teachers' divergent thinking scores were positively
related to their pupils' scores on tests of divergent
thinking.
In response to the question of whether high ability
divergent children can be evaluated realistically or fairly,
Biggs, Fitzgerald, and Atkinson (1971) designed a study
which analyzed the relationship between the convergent and
divergent abilities of eleven-year-olds and Australian
teacher ratings of conceptual and mechanical ability plus
specific classroom behavior. Their findings were that both
convergent and divergent children were given high concep
tual and low mechanical ratings and that both received
favorable ratings In terms of classroom behaviors. Conse
quently, Biggs et al. concluded that teachers were evalu
ating divergent children realistically and positively and
thus the use of teachers' ratings for various educational
purposes need not necessarily penalize divergent children.
Kirk (1972) reported that teachers are not very
effective at recognizing the gifted child since teachers
61
generally fall to Identify from 10 to 50 percent of the
gifted students in their classes.
Investigating the relationship among measures of
academic achievement, creativity, and teacher judgment for
fifth grade students, Merz and Rutherford (1972) found
that: (a) there are low positive relationships between per
formance on creativity tasks and teacher judgment just as
there are low positive relationships between performance on
creativity tasks and achievement test performance, and (b)
teacher ratings and scholastic achievement are more clearly
correlated than they are to performance on creativity tasks.
Consequently, these investigators concluded that student
test performance can bias teacher rating in many areas and
that in spite of the overlap, the three types of measures
seemed, in general, to be assessing different aspects of
pupil performance.
Recently, Stauts (1973) completed a comprehensive
study of teacher assessment of creative potential in fifth
grade students. Her findings were summarized as follows:
Teachers did not effectively predict their highly
creative children as being high creatives, and that
even with the aid of personality characteristics
information on identifying highly creative children
they were still unable to predict creativity at a
useful level. In addition teachers were no more
effective at predicting factors of creativity than
they were at predicting global creativity ....
62
Teachers were found to depend fairly extensively (and
erroneously) upon reading achievement as a guide in
identifying the highly creative child. (p. 147)
There appears to be a trend., although no consensus,
among researchers or educators regarding the validity of
teacher Judgments as criteria in identifying the creatively
gifted or the highly creative student. As intelligence
tests have become more vulnerable to the attacks of
critics, the use of teacher judgments in identifying the
gifted has become more commonplace, particularly in the
case of disadvantaged minority group children. Unfortu
nately, this assumption of the validity of teacher judgment
in discovering diverse types of giftedness appears to be
doubtful, if not entirely erroneous, in the case of the
creatively gifted child.
Nature of Creativity and Assessment
of Creative Potential
The creative potential of the gifted and talented
is now recognized as a valuable national resource (Marland,
1972). The plethora of publications on creativity since
mid-century attests to the rapid upsurge in popularity of
this subject as an important area of research. Although
there exist many unanswered questions and problems regard
ing creativity, past research has already substantially
contributed to our understanding of the basic nature of
creativity and methods of assessment of creative potential.
Historical Developments
The Zeitgeist (spirit of the times) of creativity
has enjoyed popularity for a relatively short period of
time. Until the mid-twentieth century, the culturally-
inherited conceptions that creativity was either a divine
or mysterious property of the geniuses, the eccentric, or
the pathological convinced most persons that education for
creativity would be ineffective (Guilford, 1970bj Murray,
1959; Razik, 1970)• Making only infrequent, vague refer
ences to "imagination," early scientific psychologists
generally shunned research of creativity under the pres
sures of non-mentalistic behaviorists and psychometrists
who did not recognize creativity as a part of intelligence
(Guilford, 1 9 6 7a)•
A few investigators, such as Terman ( 1 9 2 5K
attempted anecdotal and genetic studies by recording bio
graphical information and productions of recognized crea
tive geniuses. Wallas ( 1 9 2 6) and Rossman (1931) suggested
the various stages in the creative process, utilizing the
anecdotal approach. However, these early studies before
World War II did not Investigate the fundamental problem
of the nature of creativity itself (Guilford, 1 9 6 7a).
However, creativity took on new meaning in 194-5 as
a result of the devastating effects of the first atomic
bomb and the commencing of such psychosocial forces as the
64
power struggle between democracy and communism, demands for
innovative weapons, new economic processes and updated
technological advancements, social changes, resistance
against conformity, and greater desires for creative
activities during increased leisure time (Guilford, 1970a;
Metfessel, 1967; Noy, 1970; Razik, 1970).
After World War II, Industry, business, and the
government had already begun to show some interest In
developing creativity. However, the Initial stimulus which
encouraged professional psychologists and educators to
recognize creativity as a research area which urgently
required serious attention was the mid-century American
Psychological Association Presidential Address by Guilford
(1950). He stated that during the previous quarter century
only 186 of the 121,000 listings In Psychological Abstracts,
that is, less than two-tenths of 1 percent of all psycho
logical research, related to creativity.
To demonstrate the growing trends in creativity
research during the past two decades, Guilford (1970a)
recently pointed out that by 1 9 6 5* creativity was the topic
of 474 of that year's 66,314 Psychological Abstracts list
ings, that is seven-tenths of 1 percent of the psychologi
cal literature. By 1 9 6 9* creativity showed a great
upsurge in popularity, being the chosen subject of 1.4
percent of all psychological studies that year.
65
The pioneering studies of creativity during the
fifties and the first part of the sixties generally took
place at several early creativity research centers; these
early research centers, the primary investigators at each
center, and the primary emphasis of their creativity
research are described in Table 2. Investigators during
this early period generally focused on seeking fundamental
information about the nature of.the creative process,
characteristics of creative persons, and conditions for
nurturing creativity.
Interest in identifying creative youth was height
ened to a great degree with the launching of Sputnik I in
1957 and the subsequent demand for early Identification
and special education of the gifted since developing crea
tivity was felt to be the crux of educating gifted chil
dren (Fliegler & Bish, 1959)•
The focus of the late sixties and early seventies
was on the development of more sophisticated measures for
identifying creative potential and techniques for encourag
ing creative growth. Those centers which are currently at
the forefront of creativity research and their primary
areas of interest are presented in Table 3.
Research on the nature and identification of crea
tive potential has helped to broaden the concept of gifted
ness to include not only the highly intelligent child but
Table 2
Early Creativity Research Centers in the United States
Research Centers Primary Interests Investigators
University of Southern
California
Nature of creativity. Six factors of
creativity based on Structure-of-
Intellect model.
Guilford (1950, 1959)
Pennsylvania State
University
Creative abilities in the visual arts.
Six factors of creativity.
Lowenfeld and Brittain (196*0
University of Chicago Characteristics of highly intelligent and
highly creative adolescents in relation to
their personality and school achievement.
Getzels and Jackson (1962)
University of California
at Berkeley
Qualities of the creative process, creative
persons, products, and environments.
MacKinnon (1961);
Barron (1955)
University of Minnesota
Verification of the Getzels and Jackson
study. Measures for assessment and guid
ing creativity in elementary school
children.
Torrance (i960, 1962)
University of Utah
Criteria for creativity. Conferences for
dissemination of information on scientific
creativity.
Taylor (196*0
University of Buffalo
Creative Education Foundation.
Creative Problem-Solving Institute.
Early course in creative thinking and
creative problem solving.
Pames (1962)
G\
Table 3
Current Creativity Research Centers in the United States
Research Centers Primary Interests Investigators
University of Southern
California
University of California
Berkeley
University of Utah
State University of New York
at Buffalo
University of Georgia
University of Wisconsin
Purdue University
Portland State University
Project Potential. Identification of creative
abilities in disadvantaged youth. Tests of
creativity. Psychologist’s role in identifi
cation and development of creativity.
Qualities of creative person and creative
process and products. Productive Thinking
Program for young children.
National and international creativity research
conferences. Teacher workshops on creativity.
Alpha Biographical Inventory.
Creative Education Foundation. Annual Creative
Problem-Solving Inst itute s— problem-solving
courses. Journal of Creative Behavior. Work
books for developing creativity.
Identification of creative abilities. Tests
of creativity. Conditions; techniques, and
attitudes for developing creativity.
Identification and training of appropriate
attitudes, abilities, and techniques for
creativity.
Development of instructional materials for
teaching creative problem-solving abilities.
Purdue Creativity Training Program.
Characteristics of highly creative children.
Model of proper attitudes and strategies for
teaching creativity. Multimedia program for
teaching creativity
Metfessel (1965, 1967)
MacKinnon (1965); Barron
(1969); Crutchfield
(1966); Covington (1966)
Taylor (1968, 1969)
Pames (1971a, 1971b)
Torrance (1966, 1970a);
Bruch (1971)
Davis (1971a, 1971b)
Treffinger, Feldhusen,
and Thomas (1970)
Williams (1968, 1969)
a\
-0
68
also the highly creative child. The growing recognition of
Individual differences in children has recently increased
awareness of the various creative abilities which exist in
every child to a certain degree (Torrance* 1971b). Conse
quently* an increasing number of investigators are now
beginning to realize the Importance of identifying cultural
ly disadvantaged youth who possess unusually high potential
for creativity (Alzobaie* Metfessel* & Michael* 1968;
Bruininks & Feldman* 1970; Renzulli* 1971; Torrance* 1971a)
and are attempting to develop strategies for identifying
hidden creative potential among the disadvantaged gifted
and talented.
Having accumulated multitudinous descriptions of
the creative process* the creative product* and the crea
tive person during the past 20 years of research on crea
tivity* investigators at the various creativity research
centers throughout the United States are focusing their
current research efforts on refining* validating* and
improving their instruments for identifying creative poten
tial* establishing criterion measures of creativity* and
resolving the numerous problems related to effectively*
efficiently* and accurately identifying creative potential.
In the past* the identification of creative poten
tial has frequently been restricted to the research
setting. However* the current trend In identifying
69
creativity was clearly expressed in Parnes' statement at
the Eighth International Creativity Research Conference,
June 1970:
During the i960 *s some beginning steps were taken
toward the application of research findings. In the
majority of educational programs, however, large-
scale application on a nationwide basis will be the
exciting development of the 1970's. (Taylor &
Parnes, 1970, p. 170)
Definitions of Creativity
Defining the nature of creativity is one of the
most important aspects of identifying exceptional creative
potential. Unfortunately, defining the specific nature of
creativity has also been one of the primary problems in
identifying exceptional creative abilities. In spite of
the profusion of information on creativity, the problem of
defining the nature of creativity is still very apparent in
the literature.
As enthusiasm for identifying creative potential
has grown, the rubric "creativity" has been increasingly
referred to as the "catchword" of the times. Perhaps it
would be more appropriate to describe this frequently over
worked term as the I T catchall, r of this era since indiscrimi
nate reference to "creativity” and unclarified use of
similar terms such as "talented," "gifted," "originality,"
"imagination," "Ingenuity," "spontaneity," "productivity,"
70
and "non-academic accomplishment" have resulted in great
confusion as to the actual nature of creativity.
Yamamoto ( 1 9 6 7a) reacted to the problem of defini
tion as follows:
The word "creativity" has been used in myriad ways
by people in different walks of life and, accordingly,
no single definition will cover all the meanings ever
attached to it. . . . It is of utmost importance for
a research worker to define the term explicitly and
to deduce his hypotheses from this definition. There
is no absolute need for everyone to agree on a single,
universal meaning of "creativity," but at least inves
tigators should be clear about what they mean by this
word. (pp. 3 0 8-3 0 9)
Excessively casual use of a term can easily propel
what was originally genuine enthusiasm in a subject to
slide into purely faddish interest in a rubric. Parnes
(1971b) recently observed that the diverse, often contra
dictory meanings of the term "creativity" have resulted in
some people seeing the term as "a 'red flag1 . . . equated
with bizarreness and irresponsible non-conformity" (p. 29).
The nature of creativity has been conceptualized
through various approaches: logic or philosophy, behavior
ism, Gestalt principles, factor analysis, experimental
psychology, and psychoanalysis (Getzels & Madaus, 1 9 6 9;
Roweton, 1970). Reviewing several important approaches to
theorizing about creativity, Roweton (1970) recently con
cluded that present explanations of creativity rely upon
larger, established systems of psychological theory, such
71
as Freudian psychology, and no complete and specific theory
of creativity in and of itself has yet been proposed.
After reviewing the literature on creativity,
Golann (1 9 6 3) suggested that most approaches to defining
creativity could be organized under four basic headings:
products, process, measurement, and personality.
In a later review of the literature, Dellas and
Gaier (1970) classified approaches to creativity in terms
of four major orientations: (l) the nature and quality of
the product created, ( 2) the actual expression of the
creative acts and the continuing process during the crea
tion, ( 3) the nature of the creative individual, and (4)
environmental factors and press that stimulate creativity.
Torrance (1971b) noted that the majority of defini
tions of creativity are specified in terms of (a) a
product— a discovery or an invention, (b) a process, (c)
a kind of person, or (d) the conditions which facilitate
the process.
Analyzing numerous studies in the area of creativ
ity, Welsh (1973) recently concluded that these studies
can be viewed from five different perspectives:
1. The person himself, by means of an attempt to
delineate his traits and characteristics.
2. The product of a person's endeavor, either, a
tangible object or a record of an outcome.
3. The particular individual psychological proc
esses that lead to the said product.
72
4'. The various types of press, both personal and
social, that motivate the individual to perform
his creative act.
5. The place in which the person lives and works,
considered as both geographical locus and point
in historical time. (p. 244)
Depending on the theoretical approach utilized in
interpreting creativity, various definitions of creativity
have been formulated during the past two-and-a-half
decades. Table 4 presents an overview of the diverse types
of definitions of creativity which past and current inves
tigators have utilized as a basis of their research on
creativity.
Structure-of-Intellect Model
One of the most promising approaches to delineating
the nature of creativity appears to be the Structure-of-
Intellect (SI) model by Guilford (1956, 1959j 19 67b). The
Structure-of-Intellect, presented in Figure 1, is the basis
of a comprehensive theory of human intelligence, which sub
sumes several important creative abilities. This morpho
logical model (one which cross-classifies phenomena in
intersecting categories) embodies 120 isolated factors or
kinds of intelligence. Guilford recognized that each of
these intellectual abilities could be classified according
to three parameters: kind of operation, kind of content,
and kind of product. Accordingly, he arranged five
operation categories along one dimension, four content
Table 4
Definitions of Creativity
Investigators Definitions
Guilford (1950, 1959, 1967)
Defined various creative abilities within his Structure-of-Intellect
model of human intelligence. Validated six creative abilities through
factor analysis: sensitivity to problems, fluency, flexibility, origi
nality, elaboration, redefinition. Creative abilities differ in kind
and in degree in each individual.
Torrance (1962, 1966, 1971b)
Defined creativity as "the production of something new (to the individual
or to culture) . . . the process of becoming sensitive to problems, defi
ciencies, gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies, and so
forth; identifying the difficulty; searching for solutions; making
guesses or formulating hypotheses about the deficiencies; testing and
retesting these hypotheses (and possibly modifying and testing them);
and finally communicating the results"(Torrance, 1971b, P- 553)*
Vernon (1973)
Defined creativity as "man's capacity to produce new ideas, insights,
inventions, or artistic objects which are accepted as being of social,
spiritual, aesthetic, scientific or technological value" (p. 5l)*
Medniek (1962)
Defined creativity as "the forming of associative elements into new
combinations. . . . The more mutually remote the elements of the new
combinations, the more creative the process or solution" (p. 221).
Three ways that associative elements can be brought together for a
creative solution are serendipity, similarity, and mediation. The
more creative person has a flat associative hierarchy (few stereo
typed associations).
—3
u>
Table h - — continued
Investigators Definitions
MacKinnon (1961)
Defined creativity in terms of three conditions: (l) involves a novel
response, ( 2) solves a problem or correlates with reality, (3) sustain
ing, evaluating, and elaborating the original insight.
Pames {196 7)
Defined creative behavior as "that which demonstrates both uniqueness
and value in its products. (The product may be unique and valuable to
a group or organization, to society as a whole, or merely to the individ
ual himself)" (p. 6).
Rogers ( 1975)
Defined creative process as "the emergence in action of a novel rela
tional product, growing out of the uniqueness of the individual on the
one hand, and the materials, events, people, or circumstances of his
life on the other" (p. 139)•
Ghiselin ( 1955)
Defined creativity as a process of change and development in the psychic
life of an individual leading to intervention.
Maslow (1963)
Defined creativity in terms of subjective experience; creativity is
inspired; emphasized importance of insight without reference to whether
it will even result in anything tangible.
Barron (1969) Defined creativity as the ability to bring something new into existence.
75
OPERATIONS
|) i\ r t jjfn l Pruduclion
Ct7nverg»nt frroduc Ilr>f7
PRODUCTS
I rin ita rm H lo m
D e fin itio n * o f C a U g o r ll i In th e S tr u c tu r e o f In te lle c t
O P E R A T IO N S -■ M a jo r k in d * o f In te lle c tu a l a c t iv it ie s o r p r o c e s s * * . t h in * * th a t th e o r g a n is m d o e * w ith the ra w m a te r ia l* o f in *
fo r m a tio n *
C o im tio n - * Im m e d ia te d lic o v e r y , a w a r e n t f i, r e d le c o v e r y . o r r e c o g n itio n o f in fo r m a tio n in va rkoua fo r m * ; c o m p re h e n s io n
o r u n d e rs ta n d in g .
M e m o ry * - R e te n tio n o r s to ra g e , w ith som e d e g re e o f a v a ila b ilit y , ot in fo r m a tio n in th e sam e f o r m In w h ic h I t w a s c o m m it
te d to s to ra g e a n d in re s p o n s e to the sa m e c u e * in c o n n e c tio n w ith w h ic h i t w as le a rn e d
D iv e r g e n t p ro d u c tio n • - G e n e ra tio n o f in fo r m a tio n fr o m g iv e n in fo r m a tio n , w h e re the e m p h a s is is u po n v a r ie ty a n d q u a n tity o f
“ ouTpuT fr o m th * sam e s o u rc e - L ik e ly to In v o lv e w h a t has been c a lle d t r a n s fe r .
C o n v e rg e n t p ro d u c tio n - - G e n e ra tio n o f in fo r m a tio n fr o m g iv e n in fo r m a tio n , w h e re th e e m p h a s is I * upon a c h ie v in g u n iq u e o r
c o n v e n tio n a lly a c c e p te d b e s t o u tc o m e s . D I * lik e ly th a t th * g iv e n (cue) in fo r m a tio n fu lly d e te rm in e * the re s p o n s e
E v a lu a t io n - - R e a ch in g d e c is io n s o r m a k in g ju d g m e n ts c o n c e rn in g the goo dness ( c o rr e c tn e s s , s u ita b ility , a d e q u a c y , d e s ir a
b i lit y , e t c .) of In fo r m a tio n in te r m s o f c r it e r i a o f Id e n tity , c o n s is te n c y , a n d g o a l s a tis fa c tio n .
C O N T E N T S . . B ro a d c la s s e s o f In fo r m a tio n .
F ig u r e ! c o n te n t • • In fo r m a tio n in c o n c re te fo r m , as p e rc e iv e d o r a * r e c a lle d In the f o r m o f Im a g e s. T h e te r m " f lg u r a l " I m
p lie s som e d e g re e o f o rg a n is a tio n o r s t r u c t u r in g . D iffe r e n t se n s * m o d a litie s m a y b e In v o lv e d , e g , v is u a l,
a u d ito ry , k in e s th e tic *
S y m b o lic c o n te n t * • In fo r m a tio n In the fo rm of s ig n s , h a v in g n o s ig n ific a n c e in eno o f th e m s e lv e s , s u c h a i le tt e r s , n u m b e rs ,
m u s ic a l n o ta tio n s , and o th e r •’ c o d e " e le m e n ts
S e m a n tic c o n te n t - * In fo r m a tio n in the fo r m o f m e a n in g s to w h ic h w o rd * c o m m o n ly b e c o m e a tta c h e d , hence m o s t n o ta b le in
v e rb a l th in k in g and in t e r b a l c o m m u n ic a tio n
B e h a v io ra l c o n te n t - * In fo rm a tio n , e s s e n tia lly n o n -v e r b a l, in v o lv e d in h u m a n In te r a c tio n s , w h e re a w a re n e s s o f th e a ttitu d e s ,
n e e d s, d e s ire s , m o o d s . In te n tio n s , p e rc e p tio n s , th o u g h ts , e tc . . o f o th e r p e rs o n s and o f o u rs e lv e s le Im p o rta n t.
P R O D U C T S • - F o r m s th a t I n fo r m a tto n 'ta k e * In th e o r g a n is m 's p ro c e s s in g o f It,
U n its - - R e la tiv e ly s e g re g a te d o r c ir c u m s c r ib e d Ite m s o f In fo r m a tio n h a v in g " t h in g " c h a r a c te r . M ay be c lo s e t o C o e ta lt
p s y c h o lo g y 's ‘fig u r e on a g ro u n d . "
C ia e e e * - * R e c o g n tie d se ts o f Ite m s of in fo r m a tio n g ro u p e d b y v ir t u * o f t h e ir c o m m o n p r o p e r tie s .
ft t fa it o n * - • R e c o g n iz e d c o n n e c tio n s b e tw e e n u n its o f in fo r m a tio n b a se d u po n v a ria b le s o r p o in t* o f c o n ta c t th a t a p p ly to th e m .
5> it r m • - • O rg a n is e d o r s tru c tu r e d a g g re g a te s o f ite m * o f in fo rm a tio n , c o m p le x e s o f in te r r e la te d o r In te r a c tin g p a r ts ,
T r a n s fo r m a tio n * - - C h anges o f v a rio u s k in d s of e x is tin g o r k n o w n In fo r m a tio n o r in it s u s e .
Im p lic a tio n s ^ . E x tra p o la tio n s of in fo r m a tio n . In th e fo r m of e x p e c ta n c ie s , p r e d ic tio n * , know n o r s u s p e c te d a n te c e d e n t* , c o n
c o m ita n ts , o r c o n se q u e n ce s.
"Information" Is defined as "that which th* organism discriminates. "
J. P. Guilford, and R. Hoepfner. "Current Summary of Structure-of-
Intallect Factor* and Suggested Teets," Reports from the Psychological Laboratory.
University of Southern California, Number 30, 1963.
Figure 1. Model of the Structure-of-Intellect
76
categories along a second dimension, and six products cate
gories along a third dimension. Trigrams, such as CSR for
cognition of symbolic relations, designate the location of
each of the 120 factors within the model and represent all
possible combinations of operation, content, and product.
Guilford (1967b) and his coworkers used the method
of factor analysis to verify each of the isolated hypothe
sised factors. The fact that 98 of these 120 hypothesized
abilities have now been empirically established (Taylor &
Parnes, 1970) lends strong support to the Structure-of-
Intellect as a good model for test construction.
According to Guilford ( 1967b), the existence of
individual differences Is a fundamental assumption of the
Structure-of-Intellect; individuals possess psychological
traits which vary in quantity along a continuum. The ap
plication of this assumption to creativity implies that
varying kinds as well as varying degrees of creativity exist
in all individuals (Guilford, 1 9 6 8; Metfessel, 1 9 6 7).
Guilford stated that creativity is not just a single
dimension but instead, Is composed of several abilities.
The kind or degree of creativity which a person manifests
Is determined directly by the particular combination of
components or creative abilities in that individual.
Although highly creative persons may exhibit some common
traits of creativity, they may very likely demonstrate
77
great differences in the way they deal with figural,
symbolic., or semantic materials or even social situations
(Guilford, 1968).
Guilford (1970a) explained that the Structure-of-
Intellect model hypothesizes two types of production:
convergent and divergent. Convergent production is aimed
toward producing one right answer; divergent production, on
the contrary, aims toward producing a variety of responses
in which case there is no single answer which stands alone
as correct. Most of the creative abilities fall in the
divergent production operation category. Twenty-three of
the 24 hypothesized divergent production abilities have
now been empirically demonstrated (Guilford, 1970a).
Four creative factors found repeatedly in the
divergent production category have been labeled as fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration. Two creative
abilities which have been found outside the divergent
production category have been labeled as sensitivity to
problems in the cognition category and redefinition In the
convergent production category of operations. Hence, there
are six major creative abilities which may operate in a
figural, symbolic, semantic, or behavioral context
(Guilford, 1 9 6 8).
In spite of the emphasis on divergent production
abilities in creative thinking, both evaluation factors
and memory factors are also essential in the creative
process. Osborn ( 1 9 6 3) noted the importance of evaluation
or critical judgment in the various stages of creative
problem solving* such as brainstorming; evaluation should
be suspended during the idea-producing stage but must be
applied intermittently throughout the other stages of the
creative process to determine the worth of the ideas. In
addition* the operation of memory* that is* putting infor
mation into memory storage* facilitates the retrieval of
information from the memory store* during the production
operations (Guilford, 1970a). Consequently* all five kinds
of thinking operations are involved in creative problem
solving and should, therefore* be represented in measures
utilized In assessing creativity.
Factors of Creativity
Guilford (1967a) recommended that factor analysis
be utilized in determining specific creative abilities* as
indicated in the following statement:
Finding the intercorrelations among a set of tests
is only a step in the direction of a factor analysis
which is well designed* with proper use* to lead to
conclusions regarding variables (abilities or other
traits)* each measured in common by a subgroup of
tests. When such underlying variables are verified
repeatedly in connection with the same tests* con
fidence develops In a constant of some kind* which
can well be given a name. (p. 1 3)
79
The six factors of creativity, including redefini
tion, sensitivity to problems, fluency, flexibility,
originality, and elaboration, were discovered simultane
ously by Guilford (l950.» 1956) at the University of South
ern California and Lowenfeld (1 9 6 2) at Pennsylvania State
University. These six factors of creativity have been
defined and corroborated extensively through research
studies by various investigators.
Redefinition. Guilford and Merrifield (i9 6 0)
defined redefinition as the ability to define or perceive
in a way different from the usual, established, or intended
way.
Guilford originally hypothesized that highly crea
tive persons may be able to view things in ways not recog
nized by less creative people. The hypothesized factor
was demonstrated in an early study (Wilson, Guilford,
Christensen, & Lewis, 195*0 and labeled redefinition, a
concept from Gestalt psychology. Guilford’s hypothesis
about this creative ability was influenced by Kohler's
studies on insightful behavior in apes. Guilford found
three redefinition factors, each involving convergent
production: (l) figural redefinition, which has been called
"flexibility of closure," is represented by NFT (convergent
production of figural transformations); (2) symbolic
80
redefinition is the NST factor (convergent production of
symbolic transformations); and ( 3) semantic redefinition is
the NMT factor (convergent production of semantic trans
formations) .
When redefinition abilities are poor, the condition
is described as functional fixedness (FF); the condition is
characterized by a rigidity in the use of objects or in the
way information is used. Johnson (1 9 6 2) discovered that
the degree of embeddedness of the needed information
affects the degree of FF behavior.
Lowenfeld ( 1 9 6 2) observed that creative art stu
dents tend to change the function of materials being used.
Acknowledging the ability to redefine and rearrange, he
felt that practice in this ability would motivate a person
to search for new ideas and traditions. An early study by
the staff of Project Potential (Metfessel, Murry, & Foster,
1 9 6 5) specified redefinition as a correlate of creativity
and defined it as the ability to re-mark the boundaries
between classes or groups of phenomena, between the mean
ings of words or phrases, or in terms of use.
All the redefinition factors involve the operation
of convergent production and transformations as the product.
A recent study on transformations (Hoepfner, Guilford, &
Bradley, 1970) demonstrated two convergent production-
81
transformation factors, namely NST and NMT, validating the
redefinition factor.
Sensitivity to problems. Guilford and Merrifield
(i9 6 0) defined sensitivity to problems as seeing defects,
needs, deficiencies, as seeing the odd, the unusual: seeing
what must be done.
Guilford (1950) hypothesized that the highly crea
tive person has a high degree of sensitivity to problems.
In several of his early studies, he developed tests which
demonstrated that the highly creative person can be
sensitive to problems in three different ways: seeing
defects and deficiencies, seeing the unusual, seeing what
must be done (Guilford 8c Merrifield, I960; Kettner, Guil
ford, 8c Christensen, 1959a; Merrifield, Guilford, Christen
sen, 8c Prick, I96O; Wilson et al., 1954) • Originally,
Guilford and his coworkers placed the verbal sensitivity to
problems factor In the EMI cell of the Structure-of-
Intellect model (Si), believing the ability required evalu
ation; however, later it was realized that sensitivity to
problems depended upon cognizing things as wrong, and the
verbal sensitivity-to-problems factor was shifted to the
CMI cell, cognizing semantic implications (Berger, Guil
ford, 8c Christensen, 1957; Mihira, Guilford, Hoepfner, &
Merrifield, 1964) .
82
Another factor (CFU), cognition of visual-figural
units, depends upon the ability to be sensitive to problems
and was identified as "speed of perception" by Thurstone
(1944) and as "gestalt perception" by French (1951)*
Lowenfeld ( 1 9 6 2) found the ability to be sensitive to prob
lems, social awareness, as he called it, plus the sensi
tivity to see, hear, and touch, to be prevailing traits of
his creative art students.
Taylor (1 9 6 2) suggested that being sensitive to
problems or "to know when you don't know" may provide
motivational features needed for creative production.
Osborn (1 9 6 3) recognized being sensitive to problems as an
essential first step in the creative problem-solving proc
ess. Torrance (1971b) in his definition of creativity,
specified "becoming sensitive to problems, deficiencies,
gaps in knowledge, missing elements, disharmonies" as the
first stage of the creative process.
Fluency of thinking. Guilford and Merrifield
(1 9 8 0) defined fluency of thinking as the ability to
produce a large number of ideas.
Early studies at the Aptitudes Research Project
discovered four fluency factors in verbal tests (Wilson et
al., 1954; Guilford & Christensen, 1957)- First, word
fluency is an ability to produce words rapidly that contain
a letter specified and is represented by Guilford's trigram
DSU (divergent production of symbolic units). Second,
ideational fluency, the ability to rapidly produce ideas
which meet certain specifications, is useful in problem
solving; it is represented by Guilford's factor DSU
(divergent production of semantic units). Third, associ-
ational fluency, the ability to generate ideas which fit a
class, concerns the completion of relationships; it is
Guilford's factor DMR (divergent production of semantic
relationships). Fourth, expressional fluency, is the rapid
production of phrases or sentences to meet certain require
ments; its representative trigram is DMS (divergent produc
tion of semantic systems). Guilford and Hoepfner ( 1 9 6 6)
found fluency in figural content in both adult and adoles
cent populations.
It has been demonstrated that the individual who
can generate ideas rapidly, will have a distinct advantage
in being creative over a person who is slower in producing
ideas, assuming the equality of idea quality (Metfessel et
al., 1 9 6 5). Orpet and Meyers ( 1 9 6 6) produced strong
evidence of ideational fluency in six-year-olds. Ward
( 1 9 6 9) found that creative and uncreative children have
identical response hierarchies, but after uncreative chil
dren quit responding, creative children continue to gener
ate responses, many of them being unique; although the
84
response rate of responses decreased with time for both
creative and uncreative children, children who produced the
most ideas overall were those who produced responses at a
faster rate throughout the test task.
Clark and Mirels (1970) concluded that fluency,
defined as the number of responses, influences all creative
ability test scores and, therefore, may falsely influence
high intercorrelations among measures of creativity; these
investigators modified the test scoring procedure by count
ing only the students’ first three responses on the tests
for flexibility, originality, elaboration, and title ade
quacy and then found that the intercorrelation of creativ
ity scores excluding fluency was reduced from .40 to .20.
After re-examining the correction procedure for fluency
used by Clark and Mirels (1970), Speedie, Asher, and
Treffinger (1971) pointed out that the modified scoring
procedure had shortened the test and therefore, reduced
reliability of the test; their conclusion was that the
pervasive effect of fluency should be corrected, but by
some other procedure.
Fulgosi and Guilford (1970) discovered that a 20-
minute incubation period (a lapse of occupied time and
apparent inactivity) during a creative problem-solving
test, resulted in a significant gain in ideational fluency
for the college-age subjects.
85
When the results of courses which teach creative
thinking were analyzed* Parnes ( 1 9 6 2) reported little or no
gain in the ability of fluency. The inferences drawn from
such conclusions by Guilford (1967b) are that (a) idea
tional fluency* a personal quality* is not affected by
training* (b) the kinds of training in creative problem
solving courses are not appropriate for developing fluency*
and (c) the emphasis of these courses is on high-quality
ideas* which are not measured by fluency tests.
Flexibility of thinking. Guilford and Merrifield
(i9 6 0) defined flexibility of thinking as the ability to
shift from one approach to another* one line of thinking to
another* to free oneself from a previous set.
In early studies* Guilford and his associates have
demonstrated two kinds of flexibility: (l) Spontaneous
flexibility is the readiness to shift from class to class
in searching for information; tests of this factor are
scored according to the number of changes in kind of ideas*
not the quantity or quality of ideas generated. It is
represented by DMC (divergent production of semantic
classes) in the SI model (Frick* Guilford* Christensen* &
Merrifield* 1959)• Spontaneous flexibility has also been
found in symbolic and figural content (DSC and DFC) (Guil
ford & Hoepfner* 1 9 6 6; Lauritzen* 1 9 6 3)• (2) Adaptive
86
flexibility is the ability to use a variety of approaches
to solve problems; it is regarded as a habit-breaking dis
position. Its SI trigram is DPT (divergent production of
figural transformations). Originality is the parallel to
adaptive flexibility in semantic content (Prick et al.,
1959).
Lowenfeld ( 1 9 6 2) recognized flexibility as an
important trait of highly creative art students; he fre
quently criticized the coloring book with its rigid,
stereotyped outlines as a deterrent of flexibility.
Metfessel et al. ( 1 9 6 5) found flexibility to be one of
their 26 correlates of creativity and defined it as the
ability to be free from rigid, habitual problem-solving
methods, to go in new directions to obtain novelty, to make
a change in meaning, interpretation, or strategy.
Spontaneous flexibility (shift in class) is very
similar to what Gordon ( 1 9 6 1) described when emphasizing
the usefulness of keeping the thinker's search model (a
class idea) broad and at a high level of abstraction.
In a recent analysis of flexibility earlier (1971)
administered 26 verbal and nonverbal tests of flexibility
to 78 boys and 107 girls, averaging 18 years. Her findings
were that 53 percent of the total variance was based on six
factors: general flexibility, associative flexibility,
87
ideational flexibility, graphic flexibility, and two unin-
terpreted factors.
Establishing a broad theory of creativity, Jackson
and Messick ( 1 9 6 7) proposed four sets of properties for
judging the results of creative processes, one of these
being the ability to transform the constraints of reality;
a person demonstrating such a response property is charac
terized as being flexible and having an open-minded,
cognitive style.
In a study of the problem-solving flexibility of
middle-class children, Greenberger (1970) found the cor
relates of high problem-solving flexibility to be (a) high
recall on novel information, (b) high curiosity, and (c)
active, assertive, personality characteristics for boys.
Originality. Guilford and Merrifield (i9 6 0)
defined originality as the ability to produce remote,
unusual, or new ideas or solutions.
In two early studies (Wilson, Guilford, & Christen
sen, 1953; Wilson et al., 195^) it was hypothesized and
later demonstrated that there are three kinds of origi
nality: (l) the ability to produce responses that are
statistically rare in the population, (2) the ability to
generate remotely related responses, and ( 3) the ability
to produce clever responses. These three kinds of origi-
88
nality are all represented by the DMT trlgram (divergent
production of semantic transformations).
Later research showed that the most common re
sponses were generated early during the production period;
uncommonness of responses increased over successive
response positions (Christensen* Guilford* & Wilson* 1957;
Ward, 1 9 6 9)• In a test scored for cleverness* the mean
scores for cleverness remained constant as working time
increased; this unexpected uniformity continued in spite
of whether instructions to "be clever" or no instructions
about cleverness were given. Quantity was reduced by
instructions to be clever; however* quality or the average
level of cleverness of response increased by such guiding
instructions (Christensen et al.* 1957)*
Lowenfeld ( 1 9 6 2) described originality as the
quality opposite of conformity; he reported that art stu
dents who were original gave uncommon responses to ques
tions and unusual solutions to problems.
In a recent study of the relationship between
complexity and originality* Kuusimen (1970) hypothesized
that very high complexity levels related closely with the
rejection of conventionality and less closely with a
fondness for novelty and a tolerance of ambiguity. Using
four different complexity levels* all in the upper half of
the complexity distribution* the investigator found the
89
preference for complexity curvilinearly related to origi
nality* as well as to fluency.
Many studies researching ways to increase origi
nality have been reported in the literature. Maltzman
(i9 6 0) explained the improvement in originality after
training in terms of associational theory. He theorized
that by reinforcing uncommon associations and not rewarding
common associations* a resistance builds up against all
common responses. Torrance (1971c) reported that college
students taking a test of creative thinking in dyads or
pairs achieved higher originality scores and experienced
more stimulation, enjoyment* and originality of expression
than students working alone on the test. Torrance and
Phillips ( 1 9 6 9) gave the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
to four and five year old children who had previously par
ticipated in a cognitive-structured pre-primary program.
The five-year-olds continued creative growth and demon
strated more verbal originality by the end of grade two
than did the control group. Although the four-year-olds
showed continued creative growth during the pre-primary
program* they slumped in figural originality while in
grade one.
Researching the effects of short-term incubation
on divergent production* Fulgosi and Guilford (1970) con
cluded that response quality* the number of remote
90
responses, was greater when college students completed a
creative problem-solving task without any Incubation
interval.
Torrance and Dauw (1 9 6 5)* utilizing the Runner
Studies of Attitude Pattern, compared the mental health
problems of three groups of creatively gifted students:
(l) high originals, (2) high elaborators, and (3) those
high in both originality and elaboration. They described
the high originals as having: (a) concern about ridicule,
restrictions on freedom, time pressures, frequent parental
disagreements; (b) problem-solving ability to change strat
egy; and (c) low expectations of them by other people. The
high originals seemed to cope with stresses by changes in
strategies and new projects. Long, Henderson, and Ziller
(1 9 6 5) characterized highly original children as unhappy,
having low self-esteem, and alienated from adults.
Propensity for elaboration. Merrifield and Guil
ford (i9 6 0) defined propensity for elaboration as the
ability to work out the details of a plan, idea, or outline,
to "embroider" or elaborate.
The elaboration factor is the newest of the crea
tive ability factors. The first elaboration-ability
factors were discovered in a study of planning (Berger et
al., 1 9 5 7) and demonstrated again with junior high age
91
children (Guilford, Merrifield, & Cox, 1 9 6 1). This factor
is represented by DMT (divergent production of semantic
implications) and DPI (divergent production of figural
implications). Metfessel et al. (1 9 6 5) counted propensity
for elaboration among their correlates of creativity and
defined it as the ability to supply detailed steps of a
plan when provided with only a bare outline of what Is
wanted.
Comparing original thinkers with elaborators, Dauw
( 1 9 6 5) concluded that high intelligence elaborators had the
following traits: (a) they tended to be more perfection-
istic than highly intelligent original thinkers; (b) they
preferred a cooperative work relationship compared to the
original thinkers' preference for a competitive work rela
tionship; and (c) they paid more attention to detail than
original thinkers who set higher goals for achievement.
In a similar comparison of high originals and high
elaborators, Torrance and Dauw (1 9 6 5); utilizing the Runner
Studies of Attitude Pattern, found that high elaborators
frequently tend to be concerned about (a) possible failure,
(b) their inability to fulfill other persons' high expec
tations of them, (c) meeting the high requirements of their
environment, (d) stressful situations, which prompt them to
use withdrawal strategies and resort to gratifications such
as eating or sleeping, and (e) thorough absorption in their
work, creative activities, and problem-solving experiences.
92
Clearly, the gradual accumulation of evidence from
a variety of sources is useful in clarifying the nature of
these six factors of creativity and establishing their
exact role in determining an individual's creative poten
tial .
Assessment of Creative
Potential
Twenty-two years ago Guilford (1950) described the
problem of studying creativity in these terms:
The more immediate and more explorable problem is
a double one: (l) How can we discover creative
promise in our children and our youth? and (2)
How can we promote the development of creative
personalities? (p. 445)
The first question of how can we discover creative promise
in our children and youth has not yet been satisfactorily
answered 25 years after it was originally asked.
The importance of discovering how to assess crea
tive potential is apparent. Accurate measures for assess
ment of creative abilities are perhaps the essence of (a)
effectively identifying exceptional creative potential for
purposes of inclusion in special gifted programs; (b)
realistically planning learning activities and appropriate
environments which accommodate an individual's specific
cognitive style and affective traits; and (c) distinguish
ing an individual's strongest creative abilities so they
might be developed up to their potential.
93
Tests of Creativity
In the past, constructs such as intelligence or
personality have been operationally defined in terms of
scores on tests or inventories developed specifically for
measuring particular constructs. During the past two
decades, psychologists and educators alike have invested
diligent efforts into constructing empirical measures of
creativity. Table 5 summarizes some of the most Important
tests of creativity which are currently available.
Unfortunately, the assessment of creative potential
has been hindered by several problems. In their compre
hensive review of needed research on the measurement of
creativity, Treffinger and Poggio (1972) suggested that the
problems of psychological measurement can be pragmatically
discussed In terms of: (a) validity, (b) reliability, and
(c) usability.
Test validity. The problem of establishing the
validity of measures of creativity is probably one of the
most important--yet most commonly Ignored--problems in this
area of research. There are several types of test validity
and tests of creativity should be evaluated in terms of
each kind.
Content validity is the degree to which the uni
verse of behavior being measured is sampled by the test.
Table 5
Tests of Creativity
Tests Investigators Descriptions
Guilford's Tests of Divergent Thinking
Alternate Uses
Making Objects
Consequences
Decorations
Match Problems
Guilford ( 1967) Based on structure-of-intellect (Si) model.
Scores in terms of fluency, flexibility,
originality, elaboration, sensitivity to
problems, redefinition. Verbal and per
formance subtests. Emphasis on speed.
Elementary grades to adult level.
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Circle & Squares
Product Improvement
Ask & Guess Test
Just Suppose
Incomplete Figures
Torrance ( 1966) Based on SI model. Test items do not measure
pure factors, but are models of creative
thinking process and involve different kinds
of thinking. Scores in terms of originality,
elaboration, fluency, flexibility. Verbal
and performance subtests timed, game-like
tasks. Kindergarten to adult level.
Wallach and Kogan's Association Measures
Uses & Similarities
Pattern Meanings
Line Meanings
Wallach & Kogan
(1965)
Battery of ^ association type measures. Two
verbal stimulus tests and 2 visual stimulus
tests. Scores in terms of number of responses
and uniqueness of responses which yield crea
tivity index. Game-like task contest. Crea
tivity scores uncorrelated with intelligence.
Elementary grades to adult level.
■ f r
Table 5— continued
Tests
Investigators Descriptions
Individual Test of Creativity (ITOC)
Group Test of Creativity (GTOC)
Children's Test of Creativity (CITOC)
Metfessel & staff of
Project Potential
(1965a, 1965b)
Based on SI model. Scores in terms of sensi
tivity to problems, fluency, flexibility,
originality, elaboration, redefinition.
Tests developed particularly for disadvan
taged: both verbal and performance tests,
individual administration, untimed, game
like tasks. Elementary grades to adult
level.
Remote Associates Test (RAT)
Mednick & Mednick
(1967)
Based on remote association theory. Meas
ures fluency to produce hard-to-retrieve
associations. RAT problems consist of 5
mutually exclusive words; subject must find
^th word which is remote associate to other
3 words. Elementary grades to adult level.
Starkweather's Tests for
Pre-school Children
Form Boards Test
Target Game
Social Conformity
Originality Test
Curiosity Test
Starkweather (1971)
Measures personality characteristics of pre
school children. Measures curiosity, con
formity or nonconformity, originality, will
ingness to try difficult tasks, and behav
ioral independence. Use of a variety of
ingenious equipment. Tests are administered
individually or in small groups. Use with
pre-school children.
v o
u i
96
Since no one is quite sure what creative behavior includes*
content validity is difficult to establish. Treffinger and
Poggio ( 1 9 7 2) indicated that three problems are involved in
the establishment of content validity: (l) confusion as to
the universe to be sampled* ( 2) lack of a commonly-
accepted* comprehensive theory of creativity* and ( 3) the
complexity of creativity as a psychological construct.
At present* tests of creativity lack a basis of
comparability since they have not been founded on a single*
commonly-accepted* comprehensive theory of creativity
(Roweton* 1970). Each investigator has developed assess
ment techniques based on his own preconceptions of the
nature of creativity. In a study of various problems
involved in measuring creative thinking* Treffinger*
Renzulli* and Feldhusen (1971) regarded this great diver
sity among tests of creativity as a very serious problem
in itself:
Given the existing array of ideas about creativity*
and the absence of "theoretical unity*" it is not
in the least surprising that there exists a number
of tests* all purporting to be measures of "crea
tivity*" but differing in a number of ways. Each
instrument mirrors the particular set of beliefs
and preconceptions of its developer concerning the
nature of creativity. Sadly* the theoretical
rationale for such tests is often not even suf
ficient to allow systematic tests of differential
predictions. (p. 1 0 6)
The myriad tests* inventories* check lists* and
other instruments now available for assessing creativity
97
reflect these countless, formulated theories— many of which
have been rejected for their narrowness in scope, lack of
provision for empirical assessment procedures, or lack of
a basis for systematic prediction. Due to its broad
inclusiveness and its provision for empirical measurement
through factor analysis, Guilford's Structure-of-Intellect
model has been the most widely accepted theory of crea
tivity as a basis of test construction. Yet certain
investigators (Treffinger et al., 1971) have noted that
even Guilford's SI model is not a comprehensive theory
since the model does not include the essential, non-
cognitive components of creativity. In any case, the wide
differences in theoretical rationale and empirical test-
construction procedures have increased the difficulty of
establishing necessary content validation for creativity
assessment measures.
Treffinger and Poggio (1970) emphasized that
accurate sampling of the universe of creative abilities
requires special attention to the selection and use of test
tasks. Torrance ( 1 9 6 6) has described the care he took to
establish content validity In developing the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking:
To insure content validity, a .consistent and deliber
ate effort has been made to base the test stimuli,
the test tasks, instructions, and scoring procedures
on the best theory and research now available.
(p. 24)
98
A second type of validity, construct validity, is
the degree to which a test measures an hypothesized trait
or quality. Determining the degree to which a test
measures what it is supposed to measure is a rather compli
cated problem. Because the nature of creativity has not
yet been clearly defined, establishing construct validity
for this psychological construct is a vaguely defined task.
Past approaches for determining construct validity of
creative thinking include sociometric analyses, psychiatric
diagnoses, factor analysis, job performance, comparisons of
personality characteristics of persons achieving high and
low scores on tests of creativity, child-parent relation
ships, and observation of classroom behavior (Cronbach,
1 9 6 8; Guilford, 1971; Harvey, Hoffmeister, Coates, & White,
1970; Khatena & Torrance, 1971; Mednick & Mednick, 1967).
The third type of validity, criterion-related
validity, allows estimation of a child's adult creative
status or his current or future standing on another vari
able. Determining the appropriate criteria has been one of
the major problems here (Treffinger & Poggio, 1972).
Criteria which may be utilized in validating tests
of creativity have been identified by numerous investi
gators (Burns, 1989; Getzels & Madaus, 19^9; Guilford,
1971; Rotter, Langland, & Berger, 1971; Yamamoto, 1967b).
Getzels and Madaus ( 1 9 6 9) described the most common
99
predictive criteria of creative performance as being: (a)
achievement* (b) ratings by peers* teachers, and employers*
(c) intelligence, (d) personality* and (e) creativity test
scores.
Quite often the assessment of creative abilities
correlates low and with a great deal of variance with
proposed criteria of creativity. Guilford's (1971)
explanation of these poor correlations is that they are
usually the result of unsuitable criteria* incorrect selec
tion of abilities for testing* or low reliabilities of
criteria or of tests. Guilford recommended the use of
multiple predictions and multivariate procedures for vali
dation of tests of creativity.
Recently* investigators have begun to realize that
predictive validity is far more important than concurrent
validity. Cropley (1972) and Schaefer (1972) have both
carried out 5-year longitudinal studies to evaluate the
predictive validity of measures of creativity; both long
term studies were encouraging because they indicated that
these measures of creativity have a reasonable degree of
predictive validity. In a 12-year predictive validity
study* Torrance (1972b) concluded that the Torrance Tests
of Creative Thinking administered during the high school
years were predictive of real-life adult creative achieve
ments. There is a desperate need for more such longi
100
tudinal studies and follow-up studies to tie these tests of
creativity to "real life" creative achievement.
Test reliability. It is essential that test reli
ability, the consistency and stability of measurement by a
test, be determined for every constructed test. The reli
ability of tests of creativity has been frequently esti
mated in the past; generally these estimates have been only
over short time periods and figured primarily for total
test scores rather than single tests or subtests. The
open-endedness of the test questions, scoring techniques
which are based on understanding certain principles rather
than definite right or wrong answers, and the somewhat
complicated scoring procedures are several factors greatly
influencing and lowering test reliabilities.
In spite of these factors, the reliabilities of
tests of creativity compare fairly well with the relia
bilities of several intelligence tests. The manual
included with the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
(1 9 6 6) summarized a diversity of studies and samples which
established test-retest reliabilities in the range from
.5 0 to .9 3 over one- to two-week periods, and from .3 5 'bo
.7 3 over three-year periods; the three-year time interval
is the longest inter-test period cited in the manual.
Wodtke (1964) pointed out that reliabilities of the
101
Torrance Tests seem to be higher for the upper grades; when
he retested students in grades two through five after a
6-month interval, he found that the correlations for the
nonverbal battery were .46, .34, . 6 1, and .64 in ascending
grade order and .6 1 and .75 for grades four and five on the
verbal battery.
Reporting on the reliabilities of their own test
battery, Wallach and Kogan (1 9 6 5) found Spearman-Brown
reliabilities ranging from .80 to .93* Odd-even reliabili
ties near .90 have been quoted for the RAT (Buros, 1972).
Oropley and Clapson (1971)^ in a study of long-term test-
retest reliability of creativity tests for a five-year time
period, reported finding reliabilities for the Consequences
and Circles tests that were comparable to the reliabilities
of the subtests of the WISC. Both Torrance (1 9 6 6) and
Anastasi ( 1 9 6 8) set inter-rater reliability and intra-rater
reliability at .9 0 or above for Guilford's and Torrance's
tests.
Treffinger and Poggio (1972) questioned the suita
bility of traditional methods of establishing the relia
bility of tests of creativity:
It is not clear, then, that the traditional approaches
to determining the reliability of a test are well
suited to the measurement of creativity. Except in
the cases of single response, discrete-item tests
. . . such measures may be difficult to employ, and
yield misleading data concerning the accuracy of
measurement. Nevertheless, the general idea of
102
determining the accuracy of reliability of creativity
measures seems to have significance in evaluating
research which must he conducted in this area.
(Treffinger & Poggio, 1972, p. 262)
Test norms. The development of comparative group
norms for tests of creativity is essential if test results
are to be meaningful. Some investigators have argued that
normative scoring procedures are not feasible since crea
tive responses, because of their very nature, cannot be
predicted or anticipated. Disagreeing with this conclu
sion, Treffinger and Poggio (1972) concluded that since
individuals differ with each other in creative thinking,
then these inter-individual variations are predictable;
therefore, profiles of creative thinking with provisions
for unusual, unanticipated responses in the norms would
probably be of greater value than single or composite
creativity scores.
The selection and combination of subtests included
in tests of creativity appear to influence the nature of
abilities assessed (Harvey et al., 1970). Harvey and his
associates suggested that scores of individual factors or
dimensions of creativity are perhaps more meaningful than
combining scores across tasks or subtests to establish
total scores.
Comparative group norms for diverse types of
populations are necessary if results from tests of crea-
10 3
tlvlty are to be Interpreted adequately (Treffinger &
Poggio, 1972). Torrance ( 1 9 6 6) Indicated that he had no
intention of establishing for the Torrance Tests of Cre
ative Thinking any " 1children-in-generalr type norms"
(P* 57)• He reported, however, that he had already col
lected comparison group norms on several diverse types of
populations ranging from kindergarten through graduate
school and planned to describe clearly these populations
upon which his test had been normed; in addition, he stated
his intention to extend the norming process to other
population groups.
It has been suggested that tests of creativity have
incorporated test tasks which do not discriminate against
and may on some tasks even favor disadvantaged minority
group children (Renzulli, 1973; Torrance, 1971a). This
being the case, populations involved in the norming of
tests of creativity should certainly include representative
samples of disadvantaged minority group children.
Test administration. The problem of how test
administration and specific testing conditions affect the
measurement of creative abilities has attracted the inter
est of numerous investigators during the past decade.
Those who experimented with the early tests of creativity,
namely, Guilford (1950), Getzels and Jackson (1 9 6 2), and
104
Torrance ( 1 9 6 2), used testing procedures similar to those
applied to traditional intelligence tests; in other words,
a test-like atmosphere, time limits, group form, and
directions to produce as many unusual responses as possible
were the typical testing conditions for their popular tests
of creativity. However, several other concerned investi
gators were highly critical of these traditional adminis
tration procedures when they have been employed in giving
tests of creativity. Wallach and Kogan (1 9 65) first
rejected the test-like atmosphere, time limits, and group
form of these early tests of creativity and proceeded to
develop their own measures of creativity, building in game
like testing conditions, no time limits, and individual
administration procedures; they implied that the high
intercorrelations of divergent thinking measures and their
low correlations with convergent intelligence and achieve
ment measures were at least partially due to the relaxed,
informal testing conditions. Unfortunately, it is diffi
cult to determine how seriously their test findings were
affected by the confounding of task content and task
context since Wallach and Kogan always administered the
tests of creativity in a relaxed game-like atmosphere and
the intelligence tests in the traditional test-like
atmosphere.
The Wallach and Kogan ( 1 9 6 5) study has been
105
frequently replicated by various researchers seeking refine
ments In measures of creativity. Using group testing and
unobtrusive timing, Boersma and O'Bryan (1 9 6 8) confirmed
the findings of Wallach and Kogan's (1 9 6 5) study (also
confounding the effects of task content and task context).
Studying the relationship between associative fluency and
intelligence, Williams and Fleming (1 9 6 9) compared play-
and test-like atmospheres for administering the Peabody
Vocabulary Test and Wallach's tests of creativity to 33
four-year-olds. Their results did not confirm the hypothe
sis that a play atmosphere is necessary for a valid assess
ment of creativity; testing order was an observable weak
ness of this experiment.
Recently, Nicholls (1971) researched the effects of
testing procedure on divergent thinking (DT). Comparing
game-like methods to test-like methods of divergent think
ing (DT) assessment, he found that game-like DT and
intelligence were significantly correlated in all cases.
His conclusions from these findings were that although DT
scores demonstrated some convergent and discriminant
validity, testing procedure contributed a great deal to
variance and could, therefore, affect validity coefficients.
In addition, Vernon (1971) designed an experiment concern
ing the effects of administration procedures on divergent
thinking tests; his conclusions were: (a) large numbers of
106
high creativity scores are produced under relaxed condi
tions; (To) creativity scores obtained under test-like and
relaxed conditions have similar factorial structure; and
(c) creativity scores obtained under relaxed conditions
correlate higher with other creative variables, such as
teacher ratings and creative interests, and even with
intelligence measures.
A group of investigators at Purdue University have
recently run a series of interesting studies investigating
the effects of four different methods of group testing of
divergent thinking (Feldhusen, Treffinger, Van Mondfrans, &
Ferris, 1971; Van Mondfrans, Feldhusen, & Ferris, 1969; Van
Mondfrans, Feldhusen, Treffinger, & Ferris, 1971)• The
four methods included in their studies were (l) standard
timed testing, ( 2) incubation, (3) take-home, and (4) game
like atmosphere. Although no clear determination of which
method is best can be drawn from these studies, there are
strong indications that testing methods, especially the
removal of time limits, do add variance to scores on tests
of creativity.
Researching the use of time limits in creativity
testing, Torrance (1969b) concluded that the scores for
creative responses of 75 gifted sixth grade pupils were
valid only under the untimed testing conditions. Khatena
(1971) recently designed an unusual experiment to explore
107
the effects of a varying time Interval In the presentation
of word stimuli as deadlines to be met in the production of
original images by high, average, and low creative adoles
cent subjects. He tentatively concluded that although Low
Creatives do not appear to be more productive given
unlimited time, the High and Middle Creatives are able to
be more productive when given unlimited time.
Christensen et al. (1957) in a very early study
found that while the rate of production of responses on
most divergent thinking tests tends to subside with working
time, the more uncommon or unique responses usually appear
later in the test period; this result supported Wallach and
Kogan's preference for untimed conditions. It is interest
ing to note that Guilford (1971) has severely criticized
Wallach and Kogan's (1965) testing procedures since he
feels that time limits provide one very important way of
controlling conditions of the experiment; consequently, the
nature of tests of creativity may be completely changed by
the removal of time limits.
Variations in instructions was another variable
under consideration in the Christensen et al. (1957) study;
they concluded that instructions to be clever seemed to
reduce the total number of responses produced but, in the
long run, increased the total number of clever responses
and the average degree of cleverness. Gerlach, Schutz,
108
Baker., and Mazer (1964) discovered that Instructions such
as "the more Imaginative and creative the Ideas the higher
the score" significantly Increased the total number of
responses and the number of good responses more than
doubled.
Assessing the form of test administration (individu
al or group), Chambers (1970) administered the Wallach and
Kogan Creativity Battery on both a group and individual
basis in an informal atmosphere to fifth grade Negro chil
dren. His conclusion was that within an informal environ
ment, individual assessment yielded higher creativity
scores than group assessment.
These mixed research findings indicate there exists
a need for systematic study of the effects of variations in
test administration procedures and testing conditions.
Non-cognitive Characteristics
The role of non-cognitive personal characteristics
of creative individuals in assessing creative potential has
been explored by several investigators (Barron, 1969j
Getzels & Jackson, 1962] Getzels & Madaus, 1 9 6 9] Hinton,
1970] MacKinnon, 1965] Stauts, 1973] Taylor & Ellison,
1967] Torrance, 1 9 6 7, 1971b] Williams, 1971).
Torrance (1971b) has observed various important
ways that the highly creative person behaves differently
109
compared to the less creative person. He reported that the
highly creative person Is: (a) courageous In his convic
tions, (b) very curious, (c) Independent In thinking and
judgment, (d) frequently absorbed and preoccupied with his
interests, (e) very intuitive, (f) constantly questioning,
(g) visionary and optimistic, and (h) willing to take risks.
Williams (1971) further characterized the highly creative
child as (a) self-assertive and dominating, (b) superener-
getic, playful, and having a strong sense of humor, (c)
quite tolerant of disturbance and conflict, (d) frequently
appearing overly impulsive and immature, (e) self-critical,
but not easily discouraged, (f) preferring novel approaches,
asymmetrical designs, and complex situations, (g) often
choosing social isolation, (h) flexible and easily shifting
to new situations when needed, (i) frequently indulging in
fantasy and creative flights of imagination, and (j)
occasionally doubting about his own sex identity due to
popular ideas of sexual characteristics.
Descriptions of nonintellectual, personal charac
teristics of creative persons have been gathered through
the use of an assortment of non-test indicators such as
attitude inventories, surveys of personal-social motiva
tions and interests, check lists of creative achievements,
biographical inventories, various scales, self-rating
sheets, and questionnaires, which are summarized in Table
6 .
Table 6
Mon-Test Indicators of Creative Potential
Instruments
Originators Descriptions
Thinking Interest Inventory Merrifield
Assesses attitudes and motivations pertaining
to creative behavior.
Preconscious Activity Seale Holland 8 s Baird
Reflects respondent's attitudes toward engag
ing in creative activities.
Childhood Attitude Inventory
for Problem Solving
Covington 8 s Crutchfield Assesses attitudes related to creative and
problem solving.
What Kind of Person Are You? Torrance
Fifty two-choice items. Ask the individual to
indicate which of the two characteristics
describes him best.
Adjective Check List
Gough
Three hundred adjectives used in obtaining
self-descriptions or observers' descriptions
of creative behavior.
Guilford-Zimmerman Inte re st
Inventory
Guilford 8 s Zimmerman An interest inventory which comprehensively
covers broad interests.
Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Myers-Briggs Test of cognitive styles and personalities.
Measures introversion and extroversion.
110
Table 6— continued
Instruments Originators Descriptions
Runner Studies of Attitude
Patterns
(interview Form III)
Runner & Runner Freedom Orientation Scales and Control Orienta
tion Scales related to measures of creative
behavior.
Alpha Biographical Inventory
(ABI)
Taylor Three hundred multiple-choice items to assess
potential for scientific creativity in high
school students.
Biographical Inventory
Creativity (BIC)
Shaefer
One hundred sixty-five multiple-choice items
assess biographical information and creativity,
related areas of family history, activities,
etc.
Creative Motivation Checklist
Torrance
Screening device for identifying creative
adolescents and adults. Thirty checklist
items denoting creativity.
Independent Activities
Questionnaire (lAQ)
Klein
Self-report questionnaire to measure recent
creative accomplishments in various fields.
112
Guilford's approach to creativity has been attacked
by critics such as Treffinger, Renzulli, and Feldhusen
(1 9 7 1) because of his lack of inclusion of non-cognitive
factors in his theory. Guilford (1971) has indicated his
skepticism of the validity of non-cognitive personal
qualities in predicting future creative performance. In
general, longitudinal studies have not been in progress
long enough yet to present substantial evidence of the
extent to which high ratings for certain personal creative
qualities are predictive of later creative output.
Developmental Age and Sex
Differences in Creative Potential
Determination of the developmental age and sex
patterns of creative behavior is a major concern in assess
ing creative potential. Since developmental age trends and
sex differences have been evidenced on numerous tests of
convergent thinking and non-test affective measures of
interests, traits, and values, it is not unlikely that
performance on tests of creativity also involves develop
mental age patterns and sex differences. If tests of
creativity are to demonstrate practical value in assessing
creative potential, these empirical measures must reflect
any documented substantial age and sex trends in creative
behavior.
Sometimes the entire problem of age and sex
113
differences in creative potential has been avoided by the
investigator choosing subjects which were all the same age
or grade level and the same sex. In numerous other
studies* age and sex differences in creative behavior have
been considered concurrently by investigators in order to
determine interactive effects between the two variables.
One fundamental point regarding the measurement of
age trends in creative potential was pointed out by Guil
ford (1967b) during his comprehensive study of human
abilities: "Most abilities increase with age and scores
are therefore correlated with age" (p. 26).
Utilizing the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking,
Torrance (1962, 1968) has provided some insights into the
developmental age patterns of creative behavior. His
results indicated that the developmental patterns for the
white culture in the United States follow a generalized
curve of creative development with slumps in creative
thinking just before entrance into the first grade, and
also in grades 4, 7* and 12j and with peaks of creative
thinking between grades 3 and 4 and later in grade 11.
Gathering data on the fourth grade slump, Torrance (1968)
speculated that the highs and lows in creative behavior at
varying ages are related to the Influences and pressures of
society and peers in America since other cultures demon
114
strate age patterns and sex differences in creative behavior
which are in contrast to those in this country.
Eastwood (1 9 6 5) became concerned about the decre
ments in many children's divergent thinking abilities at
various chronological ages, particularly the third and
fourth grades; he suspected these losses were due to the
environment, specifically the increasing emphasis on formal
structure in the upper school grades. Analyzing the longi
tudinal consistency of elaboration scores, Eastwood con
cluded that first and second grade children with very high
peripheral elaboration scores (indicating high ability to
add details related to but not physically connected to the
stimulus figure) often redirected their attention to the
central feature of the situation after reaching the third
and fourth grades. It was suggested by Eastwood that since
the fourth grade drop in divergent thinking performance is
not universally present, the slump may be due to the upper
school grades' pressures to conform and concentrate only on
certain main tasks.
Studying the developmental age pattern in the
production of original verbal images of children between
the ages of 9 and 19* Khatena (1972) administered the
Children's Version of Sounds and Images to a large sample
of West Virginia boys and girls. His findings indicated
that girls demonstrated a slump in ability to produce
115
original verbal images in response to stimuli at age 11.
Although boys appeared to perform better at age 9, the
differences even out with increasing age. At age 12, both
boys and girls experienced a spurt in their productivity;
both reach their peak at the age of 14 to 19 and level off
after that. Khatena reported that fluctuations in variance
occur primarily between the ages of 10 and 12 for boys and
11 and 13 for girls.
In an era of women's liberation, the study of sex
differences is an especially relevant topic. Early
researchers have been somewhat inconsistent in their find
ings regarding the presence or absence of sex differences
in creative behavior.
Beginning in 1958 and during the early and middle
sixties, it was demonstrated by Torrance that boys in the
United States regularly did better than girls on most
measures of originality while girls did better than boys
on elaboration and most verbal measures of creative think
ing, particularly after the fourth grade (Klausmeier et al.,
1962; Mearig, 1967^ Torrance, 1962, 1965b; Torrance &
Aliotti, 1969). In contrast, boys were superior to girls
on originality as well as on verbal measures In India
where the culture stresses language skills and male
superiority (Raina, 1 9 6 9)•
These discrepancies between findings in India and
116
the United States suggested that socio-cultural Influences
carry heavy weight In determining the creative behavior of
males and females at different ages (Torrance & Aliotti,
1969).
Torrance (1972a) recently reported a trend in the
sixties and seventies: little or no evidence of sex differ
ences in creative thinking is being found. Several
research studies have substantiated Torrance's observation
(Check, 1970; Kaltsounis, 1971; Kogan, 197-4). Consequently,
Torrance (1972a) concluded:
At least findings of no sex differences are beginning
to appear frequently enough to suggest that social
attitudes concerning the differential creative devel
opment of boys and girls are changing. (p. 598)
Relationships between Intelligence,
Achievement, and Creativity
Intelligence and Creativity
The creativity-intelligence distinction became a
predominant topic of controversy and a popular subject for
research studies after Guilford's (1950) early controver
sial hypothesis of a low correlation between creativity and
intelligence.
The problem of determining the relationship that
exists between creativity and intelligence involves the
problem of dimensionality; this dimensionality Issue
evolves from the inability of investigators to agree upon
117
a generally acceptable operational definition or theoreti
cal description of creativity. The problem of dimensional
ity, referred to as convergent and discriminant validation
in measurement terms, concerns the degree to which measures
of creativity or divergent thinking are empirically dis
tinguishable from traditional measures of cognitive
abilities, such as intelligence and academic achievement
(Treffinger et al., 1971).
Getzels and Madaus (1969) pointed out the impor
tance of discriminating between studies such as Roe's
(195^) on the relationship between intelligence and
recognized creative achievement and studies of the rela
tionship between intelligence and creativity as it is
represented by tests of divergent thinking. The majority
of studies have fallen into the latter category.
In their early study, Getzels and Jackson (1 9 6 2)
found a low, positive relationship between measures of
creativity and intelligence when highly intelligent
students were compared to highly creative students at the
high school level.
In a replication of the Getzels and Jackson studies,
Torrance (1962) confirmed the low positive relationship
between creativity and Intelligence. Torrance (1962)
proceeded to postulate that Intelligence acts as a thresh
old variable; hypothesizing a threshold level of 120, he
118
concluded that achievement Is predicted better by IQ than
creativity measures below the IQ threshold, but creativity
becomes a better predictor of achievement above the thresh
old level.
Reviewing the research literature* Taylor and
Holland (1964) reported that the majority of the early
investigations on this issue found a low positive relation
ship (.20-.40) for general populations and almost no
correlation at the higher ability levels.
McNemar (1964) hypothesized that the relationship
between intelligence and creativity would vary at different
ranges. He strenuously argued this issue:
At the high IQ levels there will be a very wide range
of creativity, whereas as we go down to average IQ
and on down to lower levels, the scatter for creativ
ity will be less and less. Having a high IQ is not
a guarantee of being creative; having a low IQ means
creativity is impossible. (p. 8 7 9)
Guilford (1967b) described the triangular scatter-
plot for divergent production and IQ as follows:
It is such that those with high IQ may be found
almost anywhere along the range on a DP test: those
who are low on the DP test can also be almost any
where on IQ, but those high on the DP test have a
high probability of being above average on IQ. . . .
Although high IQ Is not a sufficient condition for
high DP ability, it Is almost a necessary condition.
(pp. 1 6 6, 1 6 8)
Barron ( 1 9 6 8), suggesting that creativity is posi
tively correlated with IQ at the lower levels but not the
higher levels of IQ, stated:
119
In brief, for certain creative activities a specifi
able minimum IQ probably Is necessary in order to
engage in the activity at all. But, beyond that
minimum . . . creativity Is not a function of intel
ligence as measured by IQ tests. (Barron, 1968, p.
22)
Using his Structure-of-Intellect model as a theo
retical framework, Guilford (1 9 6 7b) has established a
detailed explanation of the relationship between intelli
gence and creativity. He stated that there are several
kinds of operations involved In thinking: cognition,
memory, convergent production, divergent production, and
evaluation. He contrasted intelligence with creativity by
theorizing that intelligence is primarily based on cogni
tion, memory, and convergent thinking whereas creativity is
mostly a matter of divergent thinking and evaluation
(although he noted that there exists some overlapping of
operations involved in Intelligence and creativity). He
then proceeded to describe six creative abilities: fluency,
flexibility, originality, and elaboration (all four being
types of divergent thinking); sensitivity to problems
(evaluation); and redefinition (convergent thinking).
Several other Investigators have voiced contrasting
viewpoints about the creatlvity-intelligence dimensionality
Issue. Burt (1 9 6 2) objected to the simplification of the
creatlvity-intelligence issue by Getzels and Jackson:
We must, I think, conclude that the weight of the
evidence is strongly against the somewhat simpli
fied interpretation proposed by Professor Getzels
120
and Professor Jackson— namely, that there are just
"two basic cognitive or intellective modes," the
"creative" and the "intelligent" and similarly two
distinct types of "gifted students." (Burt, 1 9 62,
P. 297)
Burt protested that in spite of the fact that the correla
tions between creativity and intelligence tests were low,
the strength of the relationships was no less than the
correlations among the creativity tests themselves.
Anastasi and Schaefer (1971) agreed with Burt's
argument that individual test scores within each domain
correlate with each other and that intelligence test scores
correlate with creativity test scores; this is the case no
matter whether the researcher utilizes simple intercorrela
tions, refined factor-analytic techniques, or the compari
son of mean scores of subgroups.
Dacey and Madaus (1971) tested McNemar's hypothesis
using a combination of American eighth grade students and
Irish secondary students. IQ distributions were divided
into three ranges. Intelligence test scores and creativity
test scores were analyzed through analysis of variance and
a correlational analysis. Obtaining only slight support
for McNemar's hypothesis, the investigators explained their
findings in terms of validity problems associated with
tests of creativity.
Wallach and Kogan ( 1 9 6 5) opposed the conclusion
1P1
that tests of creativity like Guilford's constitute a
domain independent of general intelligence. However^ these
investigators claimed that their own measures of creativity
do constitute a domain of thinking that is Independent of
intelligence. Wallach and Kogan emphasized the necessity
of considering a child's joint standing on both intelli
gence and creativity.
Bowers ( 1 9 6 9) found only weak support for the
existence of an IQ threshold. He found that as IQ increased
above the threshold level, creativity did not become a
better predictor of achievement than IQ, but Instead the
predictive validity of creativity decreased.
Treffinger et al. (1971) suggested that the most
useful statistical procedure for clarifying the relation
ship between creativity and intelligence is perhaps the
multitrait-multimethod matrix. Appropriate for assessing
two or more traits by two or more methods, this procedure
can help determine whether a test correlates highly with
other variables with which it theoretically should cor
relate (convergent validation) and does not correlate
significantly with variables with which it should differ
(discriminant validation).
Achievement and Creativity
Getzels and Jackson (1 9 6 2) found that highly crea
tive and highly intelligent students performed equally well
122
on standard measures of achievement. Torrance (1962)
duplicated this finding in six out of eight replications of
the Getzels and Jackson study.
Wallach and Kogan (1965) found no correlation
between their measures of creativity and achievement. In
three out of nine analyses, Cicirelli (1965) discovered a
plateau in achievement at an IQ of 140. He found that when
the effects of IQ were statistically controlled there
existed low, positive relationships between creativity and
reading, language, and arithmetic achievement, but he was
unable to establish the specific IQ point at which crea
tivity began to differentially affect achievement.
Recently, Feldhusen et al. (1971) designed a study
to research how correlations between creativity scores and
school achievement differ among four methods of creativity
testing. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were
administered to a sample of students In grades 5> 8* and
11. IQ and standardized achievement test scores were
collected from school files. The investigators found
marked correlations between creativity and achievement.
Sullivan (1973) designed a study to demonstrate the
relationship of creative and convergent thinking to the
literal and critical reading ability of children in the
sixth and eighth grades. She concluded that creative
thinking abilities do not significantly contribute to
123
reading achievement* at least when reading Is measured by
the standardized test.
Although there currently appears to be substantial
disagreement among researchers regarding the relationships
between Intelligence, achievement, and creativity, the
majority of the research seems to indicate the existence of
weak, positive relationships between these two variables
and creative thinking abilities. Additional research in
these areas is necessary in order to fully substantiate
these relationships.
Relationship between Self-Perception
and Creativity
The lack of past research which has comprehensively
explored the relationship between self-perception and
creativity is evidenced by the scarcity of meaningful
literature available on the subject.
Long et al. ( 1 9 6 5) characterized highly original
children as having low self-esteem.
Anastasiow (1964) designed a study to explore the
relationship between self-concept and academic achievement
for gifted children. This investigator found a relation
ship between achievement and self-concept. He discovered
that gifted children who were achieving below what would
be expected also have low self-concepts. Anastasiow
suggested two alternate interpretations of this last
124
finding: (l) low reading achievement modifies gifted
children's perceptions of themselves as revealed by the
self-concept test, or (2) low self-concepts modify the
gifted children's reading achievement.
Schaefer ( 1 9 6 9) assessed self-concepts of high
school boys and girls through use of the Gough Adjective
Check List, which is composed of adjectives commonly used
in everyday life. Schaefer found the Adjective Check List
to be a highly valid instrument in identifying creative
high school boys and girls in diverse specialty fields.
In Schaefer's study, creative adolescents, as contrasted
with matched control groups, were found to have similar
self-images which were characterized by three primary
themes: (l) complexity and the reconciliation of opposites,
(2) impulsivity and the craving for novelty, and (3)
autonomy and self-assertion. Schaefer concluded that an
individual's self-image plays a significant,role in moti
vating him towards creative achievement.
Felker and Treffinger (1971) found that high self-
concept pupils scored significantly higher than low self-
concept pupils on measures of self-evaluation of creative
abilities, as well as verbal fluency, flexibility, and
originality. These investigators concluded there existed
support for a positive relationship between self-concept
and creative ability.
125
Recently, utilizing a sample of college students,
Khatena (1975) Investigated the relationship between
vividness of Imagery production and creative self
perceptions. He administered the following three measures:
(l) the Betts QMI Vividness of Imagery Scale, (2) What Kind
of Person Are You?, and (3) Something About Myself. The
findings of his study were as follows: (a) vividness of
imagery has a significant relationship to creative self
perceptions particularly relative to seeing, hearing, and
touching; (b) Vivid Imagers tend to have higher creative
self-perceptions than Moderate and Weak Imagers; and (c)
Moderate Imagers have higher creative self-perceptions
than Weak Imagers.
The task of establishing the specific relationship
between creativity and self-perception is complicated by
the fact that two subjective constructs are involved. The
problems of operational definition and objective measure
ment for each of these variables are readily apparent.
Research to date in this area is somewhat scarce and incon
clusive. However, the benefits which we might gain from
understanding the unique relationship between creativity
and self-perception would seem to be motivation to seek
ways to overcome these complex technical problems.
Chapter Summary
Chapter II presented a broad review of the litera
ture in the following areas of concern: (a) the nature of
giftedness and criteria for identification; (b) the nature
of creativity and the assessment of creative potential;
(c) developmental age and sex differences in creative
potential; (d) the relationships between intelligence*
achievement* and creativity; and (e) the relationship
between self-perception and creativity.
Both classic studies and the more recent studies
were presented in the literature review. Trends of
research In each area of concern were summarized.
CHAPTER III
PROCEDURES
This chapter describes the procedures used in
conducting the study. This procedural description is
presented in four major sections.
The first section reports on the characteristics of
the sample selected for participation in the study.
The second section discusses instrumentation and
provides a description of the evaluative instruments used
in conducting the investigation.
The third section sets forth the manner in which
the data were collected for the study.
The fourth section reports on the research design'
and the method by which the data were statistically
analyzed.
Description of the Sample
The school district in which the research was
primarily conducted was the Los Angeles City Unified School
District, a very large, metropolitan school district,
composed of several diversified geographical areas. Encom
passing approximately 8 8l square miles, the school
127
128
district's regular enrollment for kindergarten through the
twelfth grade for the school year 1 9 7 2 -1 9 7 3 was in excess
of 700,000 students (Oalifornia Public School Directory,
1974). The assessed valuation per unit a.d.a. for this
school district was estimated at $17*934 for the 1972-1973
school fiscal year. Although many socioeconomic levels are
represented in the various geographical sections of this
school district, the index of family poverty (the amount of
ESEA Title I funds per unit of a.d.a. for which the dis
trict was eligible) for the entire district equaled
$40.75 ( 8 5th state percentile rank) for the 1 9 7 2 -1 9 7 3
school year (Office of Program Evaluation and Research,
1974). According to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970),
the median income for all males in the district in 1970 was
$7,828 (59th state percentile rank).
The district has an adequate representation from
several different racial and ethnic groups. During the
1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 2 school year, the total minority representation
equaled 52 .3 percent in the district. This total percent
of minority group pupils enrolled in the district was
broken down into individual percents for the four largest
minority group categories: 24.8 percent Negro; 22.7 percent
Spanish surname; 3 .5 percent Oriental; and .2 percent
American Indian (Office of Program Evaluation and Research,
1974).
129
A total of nine district elementary schools was
randomly selected from the 160 schools (out of the dis
trict's 560 schools) conducting programs for mentally
gifted pupils. The schools selected to participate in the
study were geographically distributed across the entire
school district and represented a cross section of the
various racial, ethnic, and social-economic subgroups
included in the district. During the 1972-1973 school
year, approximately 2 6 ,0 0 0 mentally gifted minors were
identified and enrolled in special programs in this very
large district (Los Angeles City Unified School District,
1973). All mentally gifted minors identified in the nine
selected schools were included in the sample. The actual
sample was composed of 129 mentally gifted pupils from the
fourth, fifth, and sixth grades. Of these 129 identified
students, 42 were fourth graders, 54 were fifth graders,
and 33 were sixth graders.
A second smaller sample of identified mentally
gifted pupils included in the study was from the Palos
Verdes Peninsula Unified School District, a relatively
large school district located near a major metropolitan
center. The district's enrollment for kindergarten through
the twelfth grade was estimated in excess of 1 7 *0 00 stu
dents for the 1971-1972 school year (California Public
School Directory, 1973)• This second school district is
130
centralized in a suburban "bedroom community" where the
socioeconomic level ranges from upper-middle to upper-upper
class (as defined by Warner., Meeker, & Eells [i960 ]); a.d.a.
for this district was estimated for 1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 2 in excess of
$36,000 (Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District,
1971)• The index of family poverty for the district was
calculated at $.43 ( 8th state percentile rank) for the
1971-1972 fiscal year. The median income for all males in
the district in 1970 was $19*146 (9 9th state percentile
rank), according to the U.S. Bureau of the Census (1970).
With only 3 .6 percent minority representation included in
the total district student population during the 1 9 7 1 -1 9 7 2
school year, the racial-ethnic makeup of the district can
be described as primarily Caucasian.
A total of 8 3 fifth-grade mentally gifted pupils
composed the sample identified among the total student
population located at 9 of the 13 elementary schools in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
Table 7 presents a breakdown of the composition of
the student sample by school district, grade level, and
sex of the students.
All 212 students included in the sample had been
previously identified by their school districts as men
tally gifted minors according to the selection criteria
specified In the California Administrative Code, Title 5,
131
Table J
Composition of the Student Sample by District, Grade, and Sex
School
District Grade Boys Girls
Total
Students
1 *
25
17
42
Los Angeles
5 3^
20 54
6
17
16
33
All L.A.
Grades
7 6
53
129
Palos Verdes 5 45 38 83
Both Districts
Total
Sample
121 91 212
132
Chapter 2, Sections 382O-3 8 2 2. Table 8 reports on the
composition of the student sample by grade, sex, and
selection criteria.
Description of Evaluative Instruments
Four types of evaluative instruments provided the
data for the study. The types and names of the instruments
used for carrying out the research included (l) a test of
creativity— the Group Test of Creativity (GTOC); (2)
intelligence tests--the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale
(L-M), the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC),
and the Letter International Performance Scale; ( 3) achieve
ment tests in reading— the Comprehensive Tests of Basic
Skills (CTBS), the Reading and Stanford Achievement Test
(SAT), Reading; and (4) a self-perception scale— the
Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating.
The test of creativity and self-perception rating
scale were administered and scored in the Los Angeles City
Unified School District by the writer and two research
associates. The test of creativity only was administered
at an earlier date in the Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District by another Investigator and her associate.
The intelligence tests and achievement tests were all
administered previously by psychologists and counselors
employed by the school districts.
133
Table 8
Composition of the Student Sample by
Grade,, Sex, and Selection Criteria
Grade
Sex
State Selection Criteria
Test Data Judgment
Los Angeles
k
Boys 21 4
Girls 13 ^
Los Angeles
5
Boys 22 12
Girls
15 5
Los Angeles
6
Boys
15 2
Girls 12 4
Palos Verdes
5
Boys b2 3
Girls 38 0
All Grades
All Pupils 178
Test of Creativity
The measure of creativity used in this research
study was the Group Test of Creativity (GTOC), originally
developed by Metfessel and Risser ( 1965a) and the staff at
Project Potential, a federally-funded project investigating
the creative abilities of culturally disadvantaged children
and youth, Guilford's (1 9 5 6) Structure-of-Intellect (Si)
model and the factors of creativity, identified simultane
ously by Guilford (1959) and Lowenfeld ( 1 9 6 2), were, in
part, the bases of a theoretical framework upon which the
GTOC was constructed by the staff of Project Potential.
Similar in content and form to Metfessel and Risser's
( 1965b) Individual Test of Creativity (ITOC), the GTOC was
modified in order to make it more appropriate for group
administration. Recently, Metfessel et al. (1972a)
produced a revised edition of the GTOC. The GTOC must be
considered a research edition since investigation of the
reliability, validity, and normative data for the GTOC is
not yet completed.
The GTOC includes subtests which represent each of
the six factors of creativity, as identified by Guilford
(1959) through factor analysis. The following subtests are
included in the GTOC: (l) Redefinition— part A; Redefini
tion— part B; (2) Sensitivity to Problems; ( 3) Fluency of
Thinking; (4) Flexibility of Thinking; ( 5) Originality;
135
and (6) Propensity for Elaboration. The GTOC contains both
verbal and performance sections, three subtests being
verbal and three subtests being performance. Table 9
describes the GTOC subtests, defines the factors of crea
tivity, and states the relevant classification of the
creativity factor, according to Guilford's Structure-of-
Intellect (Si) model.
Criteria utilized by the staff of Project Potential
as a basis for both the construction of the GTOC and selec
tion of specific items included:
1. Minimal emphasis on speed or time limits for
test performance to decrease known cultural
differences in anxiety and speed of performance
on timed tests.
2. Length of test kept to a minimum to prevent
test fatigue and reduction in the intrinsic
motivation to perform.
3. Inclusion of both verbal and performance
sections which provide an equal chance to
Individuals and cultural groups differing
in verbal skills.
4. Simplicity of procedure and adequate use of
item examples to minimize difficulty In the
comprehension of test directions and task
requirements.
Table 9
Description of GTOC Subtests
Subtest Type Definition of Creativity Factor
Trigram
Guilford SI
Classification
Redefinition
( red)3 .
Verbal Ability to define or perceive in a way
different from the usual, established
or intended way; to shift the function
of something so it may be used in a
new way. (Guilford 8 s Merrifield, i9 6 0 )
NFT Convergent Production
of Figural Transforma
tions
Sensitivity to
Problems
(SEN)
Verbal Ability to see defects, needs, defi
ciencies; to see the odd, the unusual;
to see what must be done. (Guilford 8 s
Merrifield, i9 6 0 )
CMI Cognition of Semantic
Implications
Fluency of
Thinking (FLU)
Performance Ability to produce a large number of
ideas. (Guilford & Merrifield, i9 6 0 )
DFU Divergent Production of
Figural Units •
Flexibility of
Thinking
(FLEX)a
Verbal Ability to shift from one approach to
another, one line of thinking to an
other, to free one’s self from a previ
ous set. (Guilford 8s Merrifield, i9 6 0 )
DMC Divergent Production of
Semantic Classes
Originality
(ORl)
Performance Ability to produce remote, unusual, or
new ideas or solutions. (Guilford 8 s
Merrifield, i9 6 0 )
DMT Divergent Production of
Semantic Transforma
tions
Propensity for
Elaboration
(ELAB)
Performance Ability to work out the details of a
plan, idea or outline; to "embroider"
or elaborate. (Guilford & Merrifield,
i9 6 0 )
DFI Divergent Production of
Figural Implications
8L
Abbreviations for each subtest have been designated. These abbreviations are utilized in many of
the tables presenting the statistical results. oo
0\
137
5. Minimal demand on reading ability to assure the
measurement of creativity rather than reading
ability.
6. Inclusion of test content which might facilitate
a game-like atmosphere relatively free of test
anxiety during test administration.
7. Inclusion of test items which are based on situ
ations and experiences common to all individuals
regardless of cultural or socioeconomic back
ground and allow for non-culturally biased
divergent production.
8. Inclusion of test items which provide opportuni
ties for divergent production regardless of sex
or age.
9- Inclusion of test items which incorporate Intrin
sic Interest and a motivating context for the
test subjects.
The reliability and validity of the GTOC have been
investigated in several previous studies. Indirect sources
of GTOC reliability and validity are studies in which the
ITOC was the basic evaluative instrument, since the GTOC is
a modification of the ITOC. In an earlier study by Risser
( 1 9 6 6), reliability was computed and substantiated for the
ITOC through the use of three methods of estimation:
common factor variance plus specific factor variance;
equivalent forms; and comparison of 60 protocols scored by
two independent well-trained judges. Construct validity of
the ITOC was established by Risser (1966),, who utilized
three methods of estimation: comparison of the ITOC's
factor structure to the known factor structure of Guil
ford's marker tests; comparison of creative junior high
school students with non-creatives and a random sampling
of junior high school students on the basis of ITOC scores;
and comparison of creative junior college freshmen and a
random sample of junior college freshmen on the basis of
ITOC scores.
Utilizing a sample of seventh grade students,
Nivette ( 1 9 6 6) investigated several critical factors,
including validity, of the GTOC. In his study, he
employed a more extensive form of the GTOC, a battery which
was composed of a performance and verbal test for each of
the six hypothetical creativity factors. In a validity
check, Nivette1s results indicated that four of the verbal
and performance test sets measuring the same creativity
factor were significantly correlated. All GTOC verbal
subtests, except the verbal originality subtest, shared
common variance and consequently did not measure separate
factors. However, the GTOC performance subtests shared
139
little common variance and therefore were measuring
separate factors.
Another investigation by Fox ( 1 9 67) provided data
about the reliability and validity of the GTOC. Utilizing
a sample of Junior college psychology students., Fox
gathered his data through use of a GTOC battery which
included only one verbal subtest., redefinition, and per
formance subtests for all six hypothesized factors. The
results of Fox's study provided support for the construct
validity of the Structure-of-Intellect factors which
appeared in the factor analysis. The high correlations
between each of the subtests and the GTOC global score
indicated good internal test consistency and provided
support for the reliability of the whole GTOC.
In previous studies, the establishment of norms for
the GTOC was undertaken. Although some compiled data using
standard score values is available, the complex process of
norming the GTOC was far from complete at the time the
present study was conducted. Consequently, GTOC raw scores
were utilized for the purposes of this research. The total
creativity score was calculated as the sum of the examin
ee's raw scores on the six GTOC subtests.
Standardized procedures for administration of the
GTOC in a group setting are described in the Group Test of
Creativity: Administration Manual and Scoring Guide
l4o
(Metfessel, Risser, Fridley, & Hammond, 1972b). General
instructions which the examiners followed in administering
the GTOC included: (a) establishing rapport with subjects
by explaining what is expected of them in taking a test of
creativity; (b) clarifying how a test of creativity differs
from an intelligence or achievement test; (c) urging sub
jects to feel free to give unusual or different responses
rather than seeking to provide one correct answer; (d)
providing encouragement to examinees experiencing test
anxiety by pointing out there are no wrong answers on a
test of creativity; and (e) creating a general test atmos
phere by communicating to students that the test is
"neither a crisis nor a lark."
Specific directions for administering the individ
ual GTOC subtests are stated in the GTOC Administration
Manual. Certain instructions that appeared in capital
letters were read aloud to the examinees.
The examinees who were administered the GTOC were
requested to write their answers or produce their drawings
directly in the 9-page GTOC test booklet. Examples of the
types of answers appropriate for the test items were illus
trated for each subtest.
In order to eliminate or at least reduce anxiety
over time limitations during the administration of the
test, time limits were not specified in the specific
141
instructions for the individual GTOC subtests, except the
Fluency subtest. However, 5 minutes was the amount of time
allowed for each subtest once the instructions were read
aloud to the examinees. A time limit of 4 minutes was
specified in the specific instructions for the Fluency
subtest. The total time required for the administration of
the entire battery was approximately 65 minutes.
The rationale and basic principles for scoring of
the GTOC are presented in the Group Test of Creativity:
Administration Manual and Scoring Guide (Metfessel et al.,
1972b). Undoubtedly, the development of scoring procedures
for tests of creativity presents some unique problems.
Unlike intelligence or achievement tests which emphasize
convergent thinking., tests of creativity place emphasis on
divergent thinking. This major difference in tests of
creativity complicates the scoring process and necessitates
a balance between subjective and objective scoring methods,
one that reflects the uniqueness of an examinee's response
without sacrificing scoring reliability. Devoid of spe
cific, exclusive, and exhaustive right answers, the scoring
of a test of creativity, and in particular, the GTOC, is
based primarily on psychological principles or criteria
that specify which types of answers are appropriate.
The GTOCs from the Palos Verdes Peninsula sample
were all scored previously by another investigator and her
two associates, who established a .9 6 inter-judge scoring
reliability coefficient through utilization of the
Spearman-Brown formula (Stauts, 1973)- All the GTOCs
administered in the Los Angeles Unified School District
were scored by the investigator and two associates. Prior
to scoring the GTOCs, the Investigator and her associates
were trained by one of the authors of the GTOC Scoring
Guide In the procedures utilized in scoring the GTOC by
principles. The training session Included discussion of
basic scoring principles for each subtest, calculation of
subtest and total creativity scores, and a period of prac
tice scoring of sample GTOCs. Although it was not com
plete, a long list of examples of appropriate responses in
the GTOC Scoring Guide was of much assistance In illus
trating the principles involved in scoring each subtest.
The number of points for appropriate responses on each
subtest was specified in the Scoring Guide.
Although scoring the GTOC became relatively simple
and reliable after a period of training and practice, some
of the special problems discovered in scoring a test of
creativity such as the GTOC included:
1. The open-endedness of questions and the sub
jectivity of answers.
143
2. Occasional difficulty in interpretation of the
examinee's creative answers by a less creative
scorer.
3. No allowance for questioning of the examinee
about his answers for purposes of clarifica
tion .
4. The requirement of trained judgment rather than
clerical expedience in scoring.
5. The necessity of hand scoring rather than
machine scoring.
6. The greater amount of time consumed during the
scoring process (as compared to scoring tests
involving convergent thinking).
7. The establishment of inter-judge reliability
among individuals participating in the scoring
process.
Previous investigators who utilized the GTOC in
their research studies demonstrated the probability of
establishing a high degree of inter-judge reliability among
scorers of this particular test of creativity. Pox ( 1 9 6 7)
established an inter-judge reliability coefficient of .8 8 3
among one GTOC scorer and two test "checkers." Cantey
(1973) utilized the Spearman-Brown formula for computing a
.9 8 inter-judge reliability coefficient for 30 randomly
selected GTOCs scored by five scorers.
144
Although the Inter-judge scoring reliability was
not calculated for the present study, a random sample of
the scored GTOCs was re-scored by one of the GTOC authors
to check on accurate and reliable scoring. This "check1 '
indicated that scoring accuracy and reliability were quite
adequate across all three scorers.
Intelligence Tests
Intelligence test data were provided by the records
offices of those districts In which the study was conducted.
Two Individual intelligence tests,, the Stanford-Binet In
telligence Scale (L-M) and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale
for Children (WISC), were the two primary sources of
intelligence data although scores from the Leiter Inter
national Performance Scale were used in five cases. The
Stanford-BInet, the WISC, and the Leiter are all state-
approved instruments for identification of mentally gifted
minors and are, in fact, the intelligence tests most com
monly used for the determination of superior mental
ability. Since these three standardized intelligence tests
are widely known and frequently used, no attempt is made to
describe them further here.
All Intelligence test data were reported in the
form of IQ scores. For the purposes of this study, IQ
scores derived from all three intelligence tests were
145
considered equivalent. Intelligence test data were avail
able for all but five subjects in the sample population.
Achievement Tests
Reading achievement test data were also supplied by
the records offices of the two participating districts.
The Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CTBS), Reading,
Level 2, was the source of reading achievement data in the
Los Angeles City Unified School District. As part of the
district-wide testing program during 1972-1973* the CTBS,
Reading, Level 2, scores were available for most fourth
and sixth graders but not fifth graders included in the
study. The Stanford Achievement Test (SAT), Reading,
Primary II, was the primary source of reading achievement
data for the sample from Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified
School District. As a state-mandated test during the
1 9 6 8 -1 9 6 9 and 1969-1970 school years, the SAT had been
administered to most of the mentally gifted Palos Verdes
pupils during their second or third year.
Achievement data used in this study were available
in the form of percentiles. Although percentile scores
have the limitation of marked inequality of units, achieve
ment scores in the form of percentiles were considered most
appropriate for comparison across grade levels and across
different tests in the current study.
146
Self-Perception Rating
The measure of self-perception utilized in the
current study was the Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating,
developed by Metfessel ( 1 9 65b) through the University of
Southern California's Project Potential. The rating scale
includes four subtests and a global self-perception rating.
The instrument is composed of stick figures, varying in size
and facial expression, which represent variance among
individuals in self-perception. The primary task of the
rating scale is that of having pupils respond on a scale of
1 (unfavorable) to 5 (very favorable) to four questions:
(a) How well do you do in school? (b) How do your teachers
feel toward you? (c) How do your classmates feel toward
you? and (d) How do you feel about yourself? The basic
hypothesis underlying the rating is that pupils who are
confident of their own abilities will respond in a very
positive manner to the above questions.
The criteria utilized in construction of the self
perception rating scale included:
1. Validity of the measurement of self-perception
2. Flexibility in the areas of self-perception
measured through a single set of instructions
and format
3. Essentially nonverbal measurement
4. Simplicity in administration
147
5. Simplicity in scoring
6. Amenability of scores to statistical interpre
tation
Like most self-report measures* the Stick-Figure
Self-Perception Rating has certain built-in problems. The
first major problem is that of obtaining accurate ratings.
The difficulty in this task is that self-estimates are
frequently subject to malingering or a response set.
Common response sets on self-report measures are the
tendency to supply the most socially desirable response or
the tendency to choose the response in the middle or at the
extremes. The second major problem of self-report instru
ments is that of reliability* the consistency of scores
obtained by the same individuals when re-examined with the
same instrument. These two problems can be partially
overcome through the establishment of good examinee-test
administrator rapport and presentation of the self-rating
as a non-threatening game-situation.
The Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating was admin
istered to the sample of fourth* fifth* and sixth grade
mentally gifted pupils in the Los Angeles City Unified
School District by the investigator and two research
associates. The rating was administered in small group
settings in order to eliminate or at least reduce discus
sion among pupils.
148
Instructions for administration of the Stick-
Figure Self-Perception Rating are presented In Project
Potential Interpretive Guide: Self-Perception by Metfessel
(1965b). The specific Instructions which were read aloud
to the examinees are printed in capital letters in the
interpretive guide. During the presentation of instruc
tions, the instrument was displayed to assist the examinees
in understanding the Instructions. Although there were no
established time limits for administration of the instru
ment, test administration varied from 10 to 15 minutes for
each group.
Scoring of the rating scale was completed by the
Investigator and two associates. Scoring procedures of
this Instrument are both simple and objective. According
to the stick figure marked by the pupil, 1 to 5 points is
scored on each of the four subtests as an indicator of
self-perception in the various measured areas. A total
self-perception score was calculated for each pupil by
computation of the sum of the points from the four sub
tests. The global self-perception raw scores provided the
self-perception data statistically analyzed in this study.
Collection of the Data
Data were collected in the Los Angeles City Unified
School District during the last two months of the spring
149
semester, 1973- students identified as mentally-
gifted, creativity and self-perception data were obtained
through administration of the GTOC and Stick-Figure Self-
Perception Rating by the investigator and two research
associates. A training session for those individuals
involved in test administration and scoring was held prior
to the actual collection of test data by one of the Project
Potential staff familiar with the instruments.
The two instruments were administered at the nine
randomly-selected elementary schools in small group
settings. Tests were administered at the individual
school's convenience. The library was usually the environ
ment chosen for the testing since it allowed ample space
between individual students. A discussion with the school
principal and the students' teacher concerning the instru
ments and purpose of the testing always occurred prior to
the testing period at each school. The test administrator
then met with the gifted students who were to be adminis
tered the two instruments. An adequate period of time was
used for establishing rapport with the students and dis
tributing test materials. After students were familiarized
with the testing purpose and procedures, the investigator
or one of the two research associates then proceeded to
administer the instruments according to the instructions
150
specified in the test manuals while the students' teacher
acted as proctor during the testing period.
Scoring of the GTOCs and the Stick-Figure Self-
Perception Rating was carried out T o y the investigator and
two research associates during the- three weeks following
the testing period.
Cumulative records of the mentally gifted students
in the Los Angeles sample were used by school district
personnel to collect the following data:
1. Grade
2. Sex
3. Selection Criteria for Identification
as a Mentally Gifted Minor
4. Date Identified as Mentally Gifted
Minor
5- Intelligence Test and IQ Score
Utilized in MGM Identification
6. Reading Achievement Scores
Data were collected in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District during the last two months of the
spring semester, 1 9 7 2, by another investigator and her two
research associates. Creativity data were collected
through administration and scoring of the GTOC by the same
investigator and her associates. The district's pupil
personnel staff used the students' cumulative records to
gather data regarding grade, sex, selection criteria, and
151
intelligence test scores. Reading achievement data had
previously been collected from the district's cumulative
records during the earlier period of creativity testing.
The composition of data collected for the total
sample is reported in Table 10.
Statistical Analysis of Data
A 2 x 2 factorial design was utilized to investi
gate the major hypotheses of the study. This basic
statistical model is presented in Figure 2. The two inde
pendent variables were selection criteria and sex. Selec
tion criteria were represented at two levels: objective
test data and subjective judgment. Sex was represented at
two levels: boy and girl. The dependent variable was
creativity;, as measured by the GTOC.
Grade level was not represented as a third variable
in the factorial design, and no statistical tests of sig
nificance were run on the creativity data by grade level,
because of the small cell size and the lack of random
distribution of grade levels included in the sample.
Analysis of variance was the statistical technique
used to test the major hypotheses involving the main
effects of both selection criteria and sex, as well as the
interaction between these two independent variables.
The BMD X64 program, developed by Dixon (1955)3
Table 10
Composition of Data Collected
Type of Data Type of Scores
L.A.
Grade b
L.A.
Grade 5
L.A.
Grade 6
P.V.
Grade 5
Total
N
Creativity Raw Scores hi
53 32 83
209
Selection Criteria Categorical b 2
5^ 33 83
212
Sex Categorical b 2 56
35 83
216
Intelligence IQ Scores
b 2 5b
33
82 211
Achievement Percentiles 30 0 28 81
139
Self-Perception Ratings (l to 5)
37
52 30 0 118
153
SELECTION
CRITERIA
Test
Data
Judgment
GRADE
Girl Boy
SEX
ANALYSIS OF VARIANCEi A 2 x 2 Factorial Design,
Hypotheses tested for each appropriate dependent variable*
Main Effects *
Hq i Selection Criteria, Test Data “ Judgment
H q 1 * Sex, Boy = Girl
Two-Way Interaction*
Hn : * Selection Criteria x Sex
Figure 2. Basic statistical model
154
was employed to carry out the analysis of variance. The
.0 5 level of significance was required when statistical
tests were applied. Descriptive statistics, in the form
of means and standard deviations, were included in the
program output.
An intercorrelation model, as presented in Figure
3, was used to investigate additional hypotheses. The
Pearson product-moment correlation was the statistical
technique employed to determine the relationships between
the following variables: (a) creativity, (b) selection
criteria, (c) sex, (d) intelligence, (e) achievement, and
(f) self-perception. Statistical computations of correla
tion coefficients were performed by an IBM computer 1 5 8,
using the Statistical Package for Social Sciences, devel
oped by Nie, Bent, and Hull (1970).
The research design and statistical procedures used
in the study have been thoroughly described by Kirk ( 1 9 6 8)
and Guilford ( 1 9 6 5)•
Chapter Summary
Chapter III provided an overview of the procedures
utilized in the study. The first section presented a
description of the sample. The second section described
the evaluative instruments used in the study. The third
155
Xx Xs X3 X4 Xs Xe
Xi
Creativity Sub-
tests & Total)
X
Xa Sex
X
x3
Selection
Criteria
X
x4
Intelligence
X
X5
Achievement
X
Xe
Self-Perception
X
Figure 3* Intercorrelation Model
section reported the methods utilized in the collection of
the data. The fourth section presented a description of
the statistical analysis of the data.
CHAPTER IV
FINDINGS
This chapter reports the research findings In four
sections and a summary. The first of the four sections
summarizes the descriptive statistics obtained from the
GTOC measurements. The second of the four sections deals
with the three questions and respective hypotheses treated
through an analysis of variance. The third section deals
with the remaining four questions and the respective
hypotheses analyzed through Pearson product-moment corre
lations. The last section deals with the limitations of
the findings.
Tabular data* pertinent to the questions and
hypotheses, are presented through tables of descriptive
statistics, ANOVA tables, and correlation matrices. The
major findings resulting from these data are reported and
discussed.
Descriptive Statistics
The Data
Table 11 presents means and standard deviations for
raw score data for both Los Angeles and Palos Verdes gifted
157
Table 11
Means and Standard Deviations for Raw Score Data by Grade Level
Variable
L.A. Grade k L.A. Grade
5
L.A. Grade 6 P.V. Grade 5
N Mean SD N Mean SD N Mean
SD N Mean
SD
Redefinition ko 14.87
5.07 53
16.16 6.38 32
18.31 6.72
83
22.06 7.61
Sensitivity to Problems
39 3.87
1.26
53
5.07 2.14
32 6.56
2.95 83
6.48 3.04
Fluency of Thinking 4o 11.65 4-71
53 12.33
4.83 32
14.28 5.21
83 18.50 6.30
Flexibility of Thinking 4o
417 2.40 52 5.94 2.87
32
6.81
3-33
82 7.82
3-33
Originality 1 *0 15.82
i f . 89
53
15.88
4.79 32
16.31
5.15
82
2.53a
O.78
Propensity for Elaboration 1 *0 11.72 6.84
53 14.77
7.04
32
13.40 6.12
83 18.97
10.88
Total GTOC 41
61.51 14.36
53
70.01 16.94
32 76.15
16.90
83 76.39 21.65
IQ
k 2 135.28 8.88
54
134.46
10.99 33
134.15 7.22 82 143.03
10.51
Reading Achievement 30
80.86 14.84 0 — — 28 70.10
21.89 •81 87.46
10.97
Self-Perception
37
16.27
2.69
52 17.00 2.23 29 18.51 4.57
0 — —
£ L
The originality subtest administered to Palos Verdes gifted students differed in content and scoring
from the originality subtest administered to L.A. gifted students and consequently is not comparable.
H
ui
oo
159
by grade levels. Table 12 presents means and standard
deviations for raw score data for the total sample of
mentally gifted minors. The variables include the six
creativity subtests., total creativity, intelligence,
achievement, and self-perception. Descriptive statistics
for all gifted students by selection criteria and by sex
are reported in Appendix A.
Creativity
Raw score means for L.A. Grade 5 exceeded the raw
score means for L.A. Grade 4 on all empirically-measured
creativity subtests and total creativity. Raw score means
for L.A. Grade 6 exceeded the raw score means for L.A.
Grade 5 on total creativity and all creativity subtests,
except Elaboration. Raw score means for P.V. Grade 5
exceeded the means for L.A. Grades 4, 5j and 6 on total
creativity and on all creativity subtests, except L.A.
Grade 6 Elaboration.
Descriptive statistics for all L.A. and P.V. gifted
minors by selection criteria indicated that mean scores for
those selected by test data exceeded mean scores for those
selected by judgment on all creativity subtests, except
Originality. Those selected by test data averaged only
.53 raw score point higher than those selected by judgment
on total creativity (Appendix A).
160
Table 12
Means and Standard Deviations for Raw Score Data for Total Sample
Variable N Mean SD
Redefinition 208 18.60
7-55
Sensitivity to
Problems
207 5 .64 2.74
Fluency of
Thinking
208 Ik, 9 6 6.2 3
Flexibility of
Thinking
20 6 6.48
5.55
Originality 207 IO.65
7.61
Propensity for
Elaboration
208
15.65
9.07
Total GTOC 209 71.78 19.50
IQ 211 157.90 IO.65
Reading Achievement
139
82.54 16.00
Self-Perception 118 17.14 3.18
l6l
Descriptive statistics for all L.A. and P.V. gifted
boys and girls by sex group indicated that the mean scores
for gifted girls were greater than the mean scores for
gifted boys on all creativity subtests, except Originality.
Girls averaged 6.01 raw score points higher than boys on
total creativity (Appendix A).
Intelligence
Mean intelligence scores by grade level were in the
following rank order from high to low: (l) P.V. Grade 5,
(2) L.A. Grade 4, ( 3) L.A. Grade and (4) L.A. Grade 6 .
The mean intelligence score for P.V. Grade 5 was 143.0 3,
exceeding the mean intelligence score of each of the L.A.
grade levels by 7-75 to 8 .8 8 points. The variation between
the mean intelligence scores of the three L.A. grade levels
was 1 .1 5 ov less points.
The average intelligence score for the total sample
of mentally gifted minors was computed as 1 3 7. 9 0* an
average figure which is considerably greater than the 9 8th
percentile intelligence cut-off score which is required for
eligibility as a mentally gifted minor under regular cri
teria.
A comparison of the mean intelligence scores by
selection criteria indicated that those selected by test
data averaged 1 6 .2 1 points higher on a standard intelli-
162
gence test than those selected hy subjective judgment. The
mean intelligence score of those selected by test data
exceeded by approximately 9 points the 9 8th percentile
intelligence cut-off score required of mentally gifted
minors under regular criteria. The mean intelligence score
of those selected by judgment was approximately 7 points
less than the 9 8th percentile intelligence eligibility
score required under regular criteria (see Appendix A).
The mean intelligence score for boys exceeded the
mean intelligence score for girls by 1 .0 6 points (see
Appendix A).
Achievement
Mean reading achievement percentiles by grade level
were in the following rank order from high to low: (l)
P.V. Grade 5* (2) L.A. Grade 4, and ( 3) L.A. Grade 6. No
reading achievement scores were available for L.A. Grade 5-
The mean reading achievement for P.V. Grade 5 exceeded the
mean reading achievement score for L.A. Grade 4 by 6 .6
percentile points and L.A. Grade 6 by 1 7 .3 8 percentile
points. The mean reading achievement for L.A. Grade 4
exceeded the mean reading achievement for L.A. Grade 6 by
IO.7 6 percentile points. These calculations suggested that
the reading skills of the P.V. Grade 5 gifted students are
superior for their particular grade level to the reading
163
skills of either the L.A. Grade 4 gifted students or the
L.A. Grade 6 gifted students for their grade level.
The mean reading achievement for the total sample
fell at the 8 2nd percentile., an overall ranking which
substantiates the outstanding reading achievement of those
mentally gifted students included in the sample.
The mean reading achievement percentile for those
gifted students selected by test data was 8 .1 5 percentile
points greater than the mean reading achievement percentile
for those gifted students selected by subjective judgment
(see Appendix A).
The mean reading achievement percentile for girls
exceeded the mean reading achievement percentile for boys
by only 1.75 percentile points (see Appendix A).
Self-Perception
Mean self-perception scores by grade level were in
the following rank order from high to low: (l) L.A. Grade
6, (2) L.A. Grade 5j and (3) L.A. Grade 4. No self
perception scores were available for P.V. Grade 5* Out of
a possible total of 20 self-perception points, the three
L.A. grade levels ranged from a high of 18.51 to a low of
1 6 .2 7 points.
The mean raw score total for all three L.A. grade
levels was 17.14 points, a figure which suggested that the
164
overall sample population is characterized by very high
self-perception.
The mean self-perception score for those selected
through test data exceeded the mean self-perception score
for those students selected through Judgment by only ,28
raw score point. The average self-perception scores for
each of the two selection criteria groups fell in the upper
quarter of possible total points.
The mean self-perception score for girls exceeded
the mean self-perception score for boys by 1.47 raw score
points. The average self-perception scores for each of the
two sex groups fell in the upper quarter of possible total
points.
Analyses of Variance
The Data
Tables 13 to 19 present the results of the analyses
of variance (AISTOVA) for each of the six creativity factors
and total creativity for the L.A. fourth grade. Tables
20 to 26 report the results of the analyses of variance for
each of the six creativity factors and total creativity for
the L.A. fifth grade. Tables 27 to 33 present the results
of the analyses of variance for each of the six creativity
factors and total creativity for the L.A. sixth grade. The
165
analysis of variance design did not include the P.V. fifth
grade.
Hypotheses
The first three of the seven primary research
hypotheses were tested through analyses of variance
(ANOVA):
Hbi
There are no significant differences on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity or total creativity between those
individuals identified as mentally gifted pupils
by intelligence test data criteria and those
identified by judgment criteria.
H02
There are no significant differences on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity or total creativity between gifted
boys and gifted girls.
Ho 3
There is no significant interaction effect
between selection criteria and sex on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
166
creativity or total creativity for mentally
gifted pupils.
Twenty-one statistical hypotheses were derived for
each of the three grade levels from each of the three
preceding major research hypotheses. A total of 63 sta
tistical hypotheses was derived and tested through analyses
of variance in order to account for six factors of crea
tivity and total creativity, two independent variables and
interaction between these two variables, and three grade
levels.
Statistical hypotheses for each of the six crea
tivity subtests and the total creativity score for the
selection criteria research hypothesis at each of the three
grade levels take the form presented below:
Hq: ct^ =0 for all i
Hi; 0 for some i
Statistical hypotheses for each of the six crea
tivity subtests and the total creativity score for the sex
research hypothesis at each of the three grade levels take
the form indicated below:
PL: p . = 0 for all j
^ J
H-. : p . j* 0 for some j
— 3
Statistical hypotheses for each of the six crea
tivity subtests and the total creativity score for the
167
Interaction research hypothesis at each of the three grade
levels take the form stated below:
Hq : = 0 for all ij
H-, : a|3. . ^ 0 for some ij
X 1J
Fourth Grade Results
Results of the analyses of variance for the 21
fourth grade statistical hypotheses are presented in
Tables 13 to 19- The means and standard deviations for
each of the seven analyses of variance are among the data
presented in Appendix B.
All selection criteria F ratios computed for crea
tivity subtests and the total creativity score at the
fourth grade level failed to reach statistical signifi
cance. All of the sex F ratios computed for creativity
subtests and the total creativity score at the fourth grade
level also failed to reach statistical significance.
All interaction F ratios calculated for creativity
subtests and the total creativity score at the fourth grade
level failed to reach statistical significance except for
the ratio of the Elaboration subtestj which is reported in
Table 18. Figure 4 presents a plot of the interaction
effect for the Elaboration subtest for the fourth grade.
Fourth grade gifted boys selected by intelligence test
data scored lower on Elaboration than fourth grade gifted
168
Table 13
Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Square s F
Mean 5183.17288 1 5183.17187 149.57492
Selection Criteria 5.75352 1
5.75352
0.16603
Sex
27.99399
1
27.99399
0.80784
Interaction 16.20513 1 16.20512 0.46764
Error 1316.80220 38
34.65268
Analysis
Table l4
of Variance: Sensitivity to Problems
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 302. V7989 1 302.47974 119.96161
Selection Criteria 2. 47989 1
2.47989
0.98351
Sex 4.1074-5 1 4.10745 1.62899
Interaction 1.29220 1 1.29220 0.51248
Error
95.81595
38
2.52147
169
Table 15
Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean 5862.59928 1 5862.59917 154.05116
Selection Criteria 46.44054 1 46. 44052 1.85202
Sex 51.53770 1
51.53769
1.24974
Interaction 1 5. 6896O 1 15.68960 0.54594
Error 952.86722 58 2 5. 07514-4
Analysis
Table 16
of Variance: Flexibility of Thinking
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 445.45481 1 445.45459 71.16518
Selection Criteria 0.16449 1 0.16449 0 .0 2 6 2 8
Sex 1 0.110 25 1 10.11025 1 .61520
Interaction 0. 14-2108 1 0.42108 0 .0 6 7 2 7
Error
257.85897
58 6.25945
170
Table 17
Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 7046.70095 1 7046.69922
231.57095
Selection Criteria 82.09097 1 82.09097 2.69770
Sex 19.68628 1 19.68628 0.64694
Interaction 40.13203 1 4o.13202 1.31883
Error 1156.33974 38 30.42998
Table 18
Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 4258.95309 1 4258.94922 97.12738
Selection Criteria IOO.58359 l 100.58359 2.29386
Sex 0.39591
1
0.39591
0.00903
Interaction 193.83872 1 193.83871 4.42058*
Error 1666.26648 38 43.84911
< .05.
171
Table 19
Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 104868.42096 1 104868.37500 448.44897
Selection Criteria 414.03972 1 414.03955 1.77056
Sex 320.93122 1 320.93115
1.37240
Interaction 650 .59 691 1 65 0 .5 9 6 6 8 2 .7821 5
Error 886.18315 38 233.84683
Creativity Scores
172
18 -
17 -
16 -
Legend:
Ik -
Test Data •
Judgment ■
12 -
11 -
10 -
B G
Sex
Figure 4. Plot of significant interaction for
elaboration for fourth grade
173
boys selected by judgment, whereas fourth grade gifted
girls selected by Intelligence test data scored higher on
Elaboration than fourth grade gifted girls selected by
judgment.
Accordingly, no statistical support is available at
the fourth grade level for the selection criteria research
hypothesis or the sex hypothesis for any of the creativity
subtests or total creativity. Statistical support is
available at the fourth grade level for the interaction
research hypothesis for only the Elaboration subtest.
Fifth Grade Results
Results of the analyses of variance for the 21
fifth grade statistical hypotheses are reported in Tables
20 to 26. The means and standard deviations for each of
the seven analyses of variance are also reported in
Appendix B.
All selection criteria F ratios calculated for
creativity subtests and the total creativity score at the
fifth grade level failed to reach statistical significance
except for the ratio of the Originality subtest, which is
presented in Table 24. Mentally gifted pupils selected by
test data scored significantly higher on Originality than
those selected by judgment. Sex F ratios calculated for
Redefinition, Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency, and
174
Table 20
Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean
8455*18925
1 8455.18750 162.28654
Selection Criteria 3 4.44848 1 54.44847
0.66119
Sex 149.57492 1 149.57492 2 .8 709 0
Interaction
197.71796
1
197.71796 3.79494
Error 2605.01818 50 52.10056
Analysis
Table 21
of Variance: Sensitivity to Problems
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 791.27845
1 791.27832 152.02460
Selection Criteria
14.45707
1 14.45707
2.77575
Sex 14.05707 1 14.05707 2 .6 9 6 8 8
Interaction 28.27615 1 28.27614 5.43256*
Error 260.24697 50 5.20494
*p < .05.
175
Table 22
Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square s F
Mean 5110.69^
1 5110.69141 169.20427
Selection Criteria 4.42429 1 4.42429 0.14648
Sex 49.46338 1 49.46336 1.63763
Interaction 79.60182 1 79.60181 2.63545
Error 1510.21364 50 30.20427
Table 23
Analysis of Variance: Flexibility of Thinking
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Square s F
Mean IIIO.83I82 1 IIIO.83179 118.45886
Selection Criteria 5.88674 1 5.8867 3 O.62776
Sex 18.33118
1 18.33118 1.95483
Interaction 77.63642 1 77.63641 8.27913*
Error 468.86818 50
9-37736
*p < .05.
176
Table 24
Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean 7299.^9843 1 7299.49609 243.06322
Selection Criteria 294.62078 1 294.62061 9.81046*
Sex 207.59550 1
207.595^9 6. 91265*
Interaction 1 1 2 .59 269 1 112.59268 3.74918
Error 1501.56364 50 30.03127
*p < .05.
Table 25
Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 6628.92874 1 662 8.9 2578 119.44443
Selection Criteria 70.14151 1 7 0.141 49 1.2638 6
Sex 372.27484 1 372.27466 6. 70789*
Interaction IIO.15172 1 110.15172 1.98479
Error 2 7 7 4.9 0000 50 55-^9799
*p < .05.
177
Table 26
Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Fifth. Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean 153223.18802 1 153223.18750 326.88V77
Selection Criteria 1553.9^358 1
1553-9^336 3.31517
Sex 3759.1^205 1
3759-1^185
8.01972*
Interaction 3352.4263^
1
3352.^2627
7.15203*
Error 23^36.88030 50 * * 68.73755
178
Flexibility subtests failed to reach statistical signifi
cance. Statistically significant F ratios were calculated
for Originality, Elaboration, and total creativity, as
reported in Tables 24, 2 5, and 26. Boys scored signifi
cantly higher than girls on Originality, Elaboration, and
total creativity.
The interaction F ratios for the Sensitivity to
Problems and Flexibility subtests and for total creativity
were statistically significant, as reported in Tables 21,
2 3, and 26, respectively. Interaction effects for Sensi
tivity to Problems, Flexibility, and total creativity are
plotted in Figures 3 s 6, and 7- Fifth grade gifted boys
selected by intelligence test data scored lower on Sensi
tivity to Problems, Flexibility, and total creativity than
fifth grade gifted boys selected by judgment, whereas
fifth grade gifted girls selected by Intelligence test data
scored higher on Sensitivity to Problems, Flexibility, and
total creativity than fifth grade gifted girls selected by
judgment.
Consequently, statistical support is available at
the fifth grade level for the selection criteria research
hypothesis for only the Originality subtest. Statistical
support Is available at the fifth grade level for the sex
research hypothesis concerning Originality, Elaboration,
and total creativity. Statistical support is also avail-
Creativity Scores
179
9-
Legend
8-
Test Data •
7-
Judgment ■
6 _
5-
k-
2 -
1-
G B
Sex
Figure 5* Plot of significant interaction on sen
sitivity to problems for fifth grade
Creativity Scores
180
Legend
9
Test Data 0
8
J udgment ■
7
6
5
k
3
2
1
G B
Sex
Figure 6. Plot of significant interaction
for flexibility for fifth, grade
Creativity Scores
181
Legend:
80 -
Test Data •
75 -
Judgment ■
70 -
65 -
6o -
55 -
50 -
kO -
B G
Sex
Figure 7- Plot of significant interaction for
total creativity for fifth grade
182
able at the fifth grade level for the interaction research
hypothesis concerning Sensitivity to Problems., Flexibility,
and total creativity. Since the interaction F ratio for
total creativity is statistically significant, the signifi
cant F. ratio attained for sex main effects for total crea
tivity is interpreted with caution.
Sixth Grade Results
Results of the analyses of variance for the 21
sixth grade statistical hypotheses are presented in Tables
27 to 3 3. The means and standard deviations for the seven
analyses of variance are also reported in Appendix B.
All selection criteria F ratios computed for the
six creativity subtests and the total creativity score at
the sixth grade level failed to reach statistical signifi
cance. All sex F ratios computed for creativity subtests
and total creativity at the sixth grade level failed to
reach statistical significance except for the ratio of
Sensitivity to Problems, which is reported in Table 28.
Sixth grade girls scored significantly higher than boys on
Sensitivity to Problems.
The interaction F ratios computed for the crea
tivity subtests and total creativity failed to reach
statistical significance except for the Sensitivity to
Problems and Flexibility subtests, which are presented in
183
Table 27
Analysis of Variance: Redefinition
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Square s df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean.
5193.53^57
1 5193.33203 91.31918
Selection Criteria 26.51605
1 2 6.31604 0.46274
Sex 14.66790 1 14.66790 0.25792
Interaction
5.05679
1
5.05679
0 .0 8 8 9 2
Error 1649.25553 29
5 6 .8 7 0 1 0
Analysis
Table 28
of Variance: Sensitivity to Problems
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 772.44568 1 772.44556 98.79854
Selection Criteria 7.70494 1 7.70494 0.98549
Sex 48.89012 1 48.89012 6. 25322*
Interaction 4 5 .0 3 8 2 7 1 4 5 .0 3 8 2 7 5. 76056*
Error
226.73333
29
7.8183 9
*p < .05.
184
Tables 28 and 30. Significant interaction effects are
plotted in Figures 8 and 9- Sixth grade gifted boys
selected by intelligence test data scored higher on Sensi
tivity to Problems and Flexibility than sixth grade gifted
boys selected by judgment, whereas sixth grade gifted girls
selected by intelligence test data scored lower on Sensi
tivity to Problems and Flexibility than sixth grade gifted
girls selected by judgment.
Therefore, no statistical support is available at
the sixth grade level for the selection criteria research
hypothesis for any of the creativity subtests or total
creativity. Statistical support is not available at the
sixth grade level for the sex research hypothesis concern
ing total creativity or the creativity subtests, except
Sensitivity to Problems. Statistical support is available
at the sixth grade level for the interaction research
hypothesis for only Sensitivity to Problems and Flexibility
subtests. Since the interaction effects for Sensitivity
to Problems are statistically significant at the sixth
grade level, the significant F ratio attained for sex main
effects for Sensitivity to Problems at the sixth grade
level is interpreted with caution.
185
Table 29
Analysis of Variance: Fluency of Thinking
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares
F
Mean 2958.40000 1 2958.59990
85.57114
Selection Criteria 28.90000 1
28.89999 0.85593
Sex 6.40000 1 6.40000 0.18512
Interaction 18.67778 1 18.67776 0.54025
Error 1002.60000 29 54.57240
Analysis
Table 50
of Variance: Flexibility of Thinking
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Square s df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 849-46944 1 849.46924 80.28229
Selection Criteria 12.46944 1 12.46944 1.17847
Sex 19.44475 1 19.44475 1.85770
Interaction 51.62994 1
51.62993
4.87948*
Error 506.85000 29
10.58105
*P < .05.
Creativity Scores
186
12-
11-
10-
9-
8-
7-
6-
5-
k-
3~
Legend:
Test Data •
Judgment ■
T
B
~r
G
Sex
Figure 8. Plot of significant interaction on sen
sitivity to problems for sixth grade
Creativity Scores
187
12-
11-
10-
Legend
9-
Test Data •
8-
Judgment ■
7-
6-
k-
B G
Sex
Figure 9* Plot of significant interaction
on flexibility for sixth grade
188
Table 31
Analysis of Variance: Originality
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 4456.79012 1 4456.78906 122.29639
Selection Criteria 0.12346 1 0.12346 0.00339
Sex 20.86420 1 20.86420 0.57252
Interaction 7.90123 1 7.90123 0.21681
Error 1056.83333 29 36.44252
Table 32
Analysis of Variance: Elaboration
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares F
Mean 3068.336H 1 3068.33594 70.50015
Selection Criteria 0.00278 1 0.00278 0.00006
Sex 14.53364 1 14.53364
0.33393
Interaction 10.79290 1 10.79290 0.24798
Error 1262.15000 29 43.52240
189
Table 33
Analysis of Variance: Total Creativity
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Source
Sum of
Squares
df
Mean
Squares F
Mean
9^003.79753
1 94003.75000 191.64577
Selection Criteria 32.00123 1 32.00122 0.06524
Sex 254.46420 l 254.46419 0.51878
Interaction 119-40864 1 119.40863 0.24344
Error 14224.73333 29
490.50781
190
Pearson Product-Moment Correlations
The Data
The coefficient of correlation matrices of GTOC
subtests and total creativity scores are computed by grade
level, by selection criteria, by sex, and for the total
sample. In Tables 3^ to 42, the data summarized include
the coefficients of correlation between each of the GTOC
subtests; between each GTOC subtest and total creativity;
between each subtest and intelligence, achievement, and
self-perception; and between total creativity and intelli
gence, achievement, and self-perception. All correlation
coefficients were computed utilizing the Pearson product-
moment correlations.
Creativity Subtests and
Total Creativity
Whereas the first three primary research hypotheses
were tested by ANOVA, the following primary research
hypothesis was tested through Pearson product-moment cor
relation :
H04
There are no significant correlations between
any of the specific empirically-measured factors
of creativity or total creativity for mentally
gifted pupils.
The findings are as follows:
191
L.A. fourth grade. The data summarized for the
L.A. fourth grade in Table 3^ indicate that two-thirds of
the subtest intercorrelations are low, mainly positive, and
not significant at the .05 level of confidence. The five
exceptions, which are Redefinition-Flexibility, Sensitivity
to Problems-Fluency, Sensitivity to Problems-Flexibility,
Fluency-Flexibility, and Fluency-Originality, are signifi
cant, positive, and moderate. All subtests, except Sensi
tivity to Problems, correlate significantly with the total
GTOC, two at a moderate, positive level and three at a
moderately high, positive level.
L.A. fifth grade. As reported in Table 35, the
data summarized for the L.A. fifth grade level indicate
that approximately one-half of the subtest intercorrela
tions are low, mostly positive, and not significant at the
.05 level of confidence. The remaining L.A. fifth grade
subtest intercorrelations, which are moderate, positive,
and significant, include Redefinition-Sensitivity to
Problems, Redefinition-Fluency, Redefinition-Flexibility,
Sensitivity to Problems-Fluency, Sensitivity to Problems-
Flexibility, Sensitivity to Problems-Originality, and
Fluency-Flexibility. All subtests correlate significantly
at the .05 level of confidence with the total GTOC score.
Three subtest-total creativity intercorrelations are
Table 34
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .10 .11
•33*
-.0 5 .11 .47* 40
Sensitivity to
Problems
.10 1.00 .43* .38* .01
-.1 3
.24
39
Fluency of
Thinking
.11 .43* 1.00
.55*
.29* .13 .68* 40
Flexibility of
Thinking
•35*
. 38*
.55*
1.00 .24 .20 .68* 4o
Originality
-.0 5
.01 .29* .24 1.00
.09 .48* 40
Propensity for
Elaboration
.11
-.1 3 •13
.20
.09
1.00 .61* 4o
Total GTOC .47* .24 .68* .68* .48* .61* 1.00 41
IQ .16 .36* -.0 1 .18 .03 -.0 8 .07 4o
Reading Achievement
.18 .24 -.0 8 .27 .40* -.1 1 .16 28
Self-Perception .08
.13 .03 .06 -.0 1
-•3 3 * -.0 7 35
ft
‘ Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Table 35
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores., Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Percept ion
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Variable
RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .50* .49*
.51* .15
.02 .72*
53
Sensitivity to
Problems
.50* 1.00 . 38* . 49*
• 33*
-.09 . 57*
53
Fluency of
Thinking
.49* . 38* 1.00 .42*
• 17 •17
.71*
53
Flexibility of
Thinking
.51*
. 49* . 4 - 2 * 1.00 .20 .10
. 65* 52
Originality
• 15 . 33* •17
.20 1.00 -.01 .46*
53
Propensity for
Elaboration
.02 -.0 9
•17
.10 -.01 1.00 . 47*
53
Total GTOC .72*
. 57*
. 71* . 65* .46* . 47* 1.00
53
IQ -.03 -.1 2
-.15
-.11 .03 .05 -.0 6
51
Reading Achievement — — —
—
— — — 0
Self-Perception -.o4 -.1 0 .10 -.01 -.04 . 25* .08
49
^Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
1 — ■
vo
194
positive and moderate; three subtest-total creativity
intercorrelations are positive and moderately high.
L.A. sixth grade. The data compiled for the L.A.
sixth grade in Table 36 indicate that two-thirds of the
subtest intercorrelations are low, positive for the most
part, and not significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Subtest intercorrelations which are moderate, positive, and
significant include Redefinition-Fluency, Redefinition-
Originality, Sensitivity to Problems-Flexibility, and
Fluency-Originality. The intercorrelation Flexibility-
Elaboration is also significant and moderate, but in a
negative direction. All subtests, except Sensitivity to
Problems, correlate significantly with the total GTOC, two
at a moderate, positive level and three at a moderately
high, positive level.
P.V. fifth grade. The data presented for the P.V.
fifth grade in Table 37 indicate that two-thirds of the
subtest intercorrelations are low, generally positive, and
not significant at the .05 level of confidence. Moderate,
positive, and significant subtest intercorrelations include
Redefinition-Sensitivity to Problems, Redefinition-Fluency,
Redefinition-Flexibility, Sensitivity to Problems-Fluency,
Sensitivity to Problems-Flexibility, and Fluency-Flexi
bility. All GTOC subtests, except Originality, correlate
Table 36
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .20 .30* .28
• 55*
.22
.79* 32
Sensitivity to
Problems
.20 1.00 -.1 0 .52* .06 -.2 2 .24
32
Fluency of
Thinking
; .30* -.1 0 1.00 .08
• 31* • 05
. 61* 32
Flexibility of
Thinking
; .28 .52* .08 1.00 .10 -.31* .34*
32
Originality
; .55*
.06 . 31* .10 1.00 .14
•73*
32
Propensity for
Elaboration
.22 -.2 2
.05
-. 31* .ik 1.00 • 37* 32
Total GTOC
I *79*
.24 . 61* . 34*
• 73* .37*
1.00 32
IQ ; -.0 3 *17
.24 .01 .08 -.19 .04
32
Reading Achievement
; *3^*
.06 -.19
• 39*
-.1 0 .24 .22 27
Self-Perception . 63* .11
.33* *23 •23
.06 . 51* 29
Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Table 37
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(P.V. Fifth Grade)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .51* .5 6 * .44* .01 .11 .71* 83
Sensitivity to
Problems
L T V
1.00 .47* .5 2 * .02 .02
• 55*
83
Fluency of
Thinking
.5 6 * .47* 1.00 .48* .10 .3 1 *
.79 * 83
Flexibility of
Thinking
.44* .52* .48* 1.00
.17 •13
.60* 82
Originality .01 .02 .10
•17
1.00 -.1 6 .01 82
Propensity for
Elaboration
.11 .02 .3 1 *
.13
-.1 6 1.00 .66* 83
Total GTOC .71 *
.55* .79*
.6 0 * .01 .66* 1.00 83
IQ
-.0 9 .02 -.0 2 .06 .11 -.14 -.0 8 82
Reading Achievement -.0 8 -.0 8 .05
-.13 .15
.03 -.01 81
Self-Perception
—
— — — — — — 0
*Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
197
significantly at the .05 level with the creativity score,
one subtest at a moderate, positive level and four at a
high, positive level.
All selected by test data. The data summarized for
all mentally gifted minors selected by intelligence test
data in Table 38 indicate that all subtest intercorrela
tions except for Sensitivity to Problems-Elaboration are
low or moderate and significant at the .05 level of confi
dence. All significant subtest intercorrelations are
positive except in cases where Originality is interrelated
with other subtests; Originality correlates negatively with
all subtests. All GTOC subtests correlate significantly
at the .05 level of confidence with the total GTOC score,
one subtest at a moderate, positive level and four at a
moderately high, positive level.
All selected by .judgment. The data reported for
all mentally gifted minors selected by Judgment in Table
39 indicate that over two-thirds of the subtest intercor
relations are low, mainly positive, and not significant at
the .05 level. Three subtest intercorrelations, including
Redefinition-Fluency, Redefinition-Flexibility, and Sensi
tivity to Problems-Flexibility, are moderate to moderately
high, positive, and significant. The intercorrelation
between Flexibility and Originality is low, negative, and
Table 38
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(All Selected by Test Data)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00
• 53* • 53*
.52* -. 26* . 21*
.71*
174
Sensitivity to
Problems
• 53*
1.00 .^7*
• 57*
-.14* .07 . 56*
173
Fluency of
Thinking
.53*
. i t - 7 * 1.00 . 56* -. 34* . 36* .74* 174
Flexibility of
Thinking
• 52*
.57*
. 56* 1.00 -.20* .22* .66* 172
Originality -. 26* -.14-* -. 3 1# -.20* 1.00 -,2k* .01
173
Propensity for
Elaboration
.21* .07 . 36* .22* -.21# 1.00 . 62* 174
Total GTOC .71*
. 56* . 74* .66* .01 . 62* 1.00
3 - 7 5
IQ
.01 .03 .10 .17* -.22* -.02 -.0 2
175
Reading Achievement .11 -.0 1 .05 .10 -.26* .Ik .05 123
Self-Perception .32*
.15
.22* .16 .09 .05 . 28*
85
*Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Table 39
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(All Selected by Judgment)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .18 . 69* .40* -.0 6 .22 . 82* 32
Sensitivity to
Problems
.18 1.00 .10 .58*
-•15
-.04
• 33* 33
Fluency of
Thinking
. 69*
.10 1.00 .14 .01 .10 . 69* 32
Flexibility of
Thinking .40* .58* .14 1.00
-.29* .08 . 36* 32
Originality -.0 6 -.15 .00 -. 29* 1.00 -.29 .12
32
Propensity for
Elaboration
.22 -.04 .10 -.0 8 -.2 9 1.00 .50*
32
Total GTOC .82*
.33*
. 69* . 36* .12 .50* 1.00
32
IQ .29
.02 .18 .08 -.24 .32* .26
31
Reading Achievement .16 .02 .18
• 43
-.49* .24 .12
13
Self-Perception .26 .20 .16 .27 .02
-.13
.20
27
*Significant at the .03 level of confidence.
199
200
significant at the .05 level of confidence. Five subtest-
total creativity intercorrelations are significant at the
.05 level. Sensitivity to Problems and Flexibility corre
late at a low, positive level, Elaboration at a moderate,
positive level, and Redefinition and Fluency at a moder
ately high positive level with the total GTOC score.
Total boys. In Table 40, the data presented for
all mentally gifted boys indicate that all subtest inter
correlations, except for Sensitivity to Problems-
Originality and Sensitivity to Problems-Elaboration, are
low or moderate, positive except when Originality is inter
correlated, and significant at the .05 level of confidence.
Originality intercorrelates negatively with the five other
creativity subtests. All subtests, except Originality,
correlate with the total GTOC score to a degree which is
moderate to moderately high, positive, and significant at
the .05 level.
Total girls. The data compiled for all mentally
gifted girls indicate that subtest intercorrelations,
except for Sensitivity to Problems-Originality and Sensi
tivity to Problems-Elaboration, are significant. The
subtest intercorrelations in strength are from low to
moderately high and are positive for the most part.
Originality intercorrelates negatively with all other
Table 40
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Boys)
Variable RED S E M FLU FLEX 0RI ELAB Total G T O C R
Redefinition 1.00 . 1 + 1*
.51*
. 1 1 1* -.29* .17* .66 120
Sensitivity to
Problems
. 1 + 1* 1.00 . 52* . 56*
-.15 .09 . I 19* 120
Fluency of
Thinking
.51* .52* 1.00 . 38* -.30* .30* . 69* 120
Flexibility of
Thinking
,Ul* . 56* . 38* 1.00 -. 16* .19* . 58* 119
Originality -.29*
-.15
-. 30* -.16* 1.00 -.25* .00 119.
Propensity for
Elaboration
.17*
.09
. 30*
.19*
-. 25* 1.00 . 62* 120
Total G T O C .66* . 1 + 9 * . 69* . 58* .01 . 62* 1.00 121
m .13
.02
.09
. o i l -. 26* -.0 3 -.01 119
Reading Achievement .21 .06 .32 .12 -.3 0 . 1 1 1 .08
75 i
Self-Perception • 05 .05
. O i l .01 .03 -.02 .06
67 •
i
^Significant at the .05 level of confidence. ro
O
Table 4l
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Girls)
Variable RED
SEN FLU FLEX ORI
ELAB
Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00
.57* .59*
.62* -.23* . 28* . 78* 88
Sensitivity to
Problems
• 57*
1.00 .51*
•55*
-.1 6 .01
•55* 87
Fluency of
Thinking
.59* . 51*
1.00 .64* -.34* .40*
•77
88
Flexibility of
Thinking
. 62*
•55*
.64* 1.00 -.27* .18* .66* 87
Originality -.23* -.1 6 -. 34* -. 27* 1.00 -.22* .02 88
Propensity for
Elaboration
.28* .01 .4o* .18* -.22* 1.00
• 59*
88
Total GTOC . 78*
•55* •77*
.66* .02
• 59*
1.00 88
IQ .07
•15
. 22* . 29* -. 36* .11 .07 86
Reading Achievement .02 -.0 6 .14
• 17
-.34* .16 .01 61
Self-Perception .45* .20 . 25* . 29* .09 .02
. 53*
46
*Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
203
creativity subtests. Five out of six subtests— all but
Originality— correlate significantly at the .05 level with
total creativity; significant subtest-total creativity
Intercorrelations are moderate or moderately high and
positive.
Total sample. As reported in Table 42, the data
summarized for all mentally gifted minors in the sample
Indicate that all subtest intercorrelations, except Sensi
tivity to Problems-Elaboration, are-low or moderate, and
significant at the .05 level. All subtest intercorrela
tions are positive except when Originality is interrelated.
Originality intercorrelates negatively with the five other
creativity subtests at a significant level. All creativity
subtests, except Originality, intercorrelate significantly
at the .05 level of confidence with total creativity.
Sensitivity to Problems, Flexibility, and Elaboration cor
relate with the total GTOC score at a moderate, positive
level, whereas Redefinition and Fluency correlate with the
total GTOC score at a moderately high level.
General findings. The essential question posed was,
"How does each creativity subtest relate with every other
creativity subtest and with total creativity?" The cor
relation matrix for the total sample in Table 42 was the
Table 42
Correlation Matrix of GTOC Scores, Intelligence, Achievement, and Self-Perception
(Total Sample)
Variable RED SEN FLU FLEX ORI ELAB Total GTOC N
Redefinition 1.00 .49*
■ 55*
. 51*
£-
O J
1
. 21* .71* 208
Sensitivity to
Problems
.49* 1.00 .43*
.57* -. 15* .05 .53*
207
Fluency of
Thinking
• 55*
. 43* 1.00
.51*
-. 32* .34*
.73*
208
Flexibility of
Thinking
.51*
• 57* . 51* 1.00 -.21* . 18* . 62* 206
Originality -.27* -.15* -. 32* -.21* 1.00 -.24* .01 207
Propensity for
Elaboration
.21* .05 . 34* .18* -.24* 1.00 . 60* 208
Total GTOC .71*
• 53* . 73*
. 62* .01 . 60* 1.00
209
IQ
.10 .07 .14* .14* -.30* .02 ' .02 205
Reading Achievement .14* .01 .07 .14*
-. 31* .15* .06 136
Self-Perception
• 31*
. 16* .21* . 18* .08 .01 . 26* 113
*Significant at the .05 level of confidence.
r o
o
205
basis for decision-making regarding the null hypothesis
drawn from this question.
The preponderance of the creativity subtest inter
correlations were significant and five out of six crea
tivity subtests-total creativity intercorrelations were
significant for the total sample. Consequently* the
decision was that the null hypothesis be rejected for
all creativity subtest intercorrelations* except Sensi
tivity to Problems-Elaboration* and for all creativity
subtest-total creativity correlations* except Originality-
total creativity. The null hypothesis failed to be
rejected for the correlation between the Sensitivity to
Problems and Elaboration subtests; likewise* the null
hypothesis failed to be rejected for the correlation
between Originality and total creativity.
Consequently* the major findings are: there are low
to moderate* positive, and significant correlations between
all specific empirically-measured factors of creativity*
except for the Sensitivity to Problems-Elaboration inter
correlation and where Originality is intercorrelated with
other specific empirically-measured factors of creativity;
there are low* negative* and significant correlations
between Originality and every other specific empirically-
measured factor of creativity; there are moderate to
moderately high* positive* and significant correlations
206
between all specific empirically-measured factors of crea
tivity, except Originality, and total creativity; and there
is no significant correlation between Originality and total
creativity.
The significant correlation coefficients for nearly
all of the creativity subtest intercorrelations suggest
that the subtests may not be entirely independent; the
subtests are possibly measuring some of the same traits.
The creativity subtest-total creativity correla
tions possibly contain a spurious element since they
represent part-to-whole correlations; that is, some degree
of positive correlation is interjected because the variance
of total creativity is partially composed of the variance
of each of the component subtests. Therefore, caution
should be utilized during interpretation of these subtest-
total creativity findings.
Although the major findings pertaining to the crea
tivity subtest and total creativity relationships were
based on the total sample used in the study, additional
subquestions regarding these relationships necessarily
follow: Is there a difference in creativity subtest inter
correlations and creativity subtest-total creativity rela
tionships by grade? by selection criteria? by sex?
Comparison of the correlation matrices in Tables
34 to 37 suggests that some discernible difference does
exist in the pattern of creativity subtest intercorrela-
207
tions which are significant at each grade level. Creativ
ity subtests appear to intercorrelate at a significant
level more frequently at the fifth grade level (for both
the L.A. and P.V. samples) than at either the fourth or
sixth grade levels; approximately one-half of the creativ
ity subtest intercorrelations for each of the fifth grade
samples are significant while only one-third of the crea
tivity subtest intercorrelations are significant at the
fourth and sixth grade levels. The specific subtest inter
correlations which are significant at each grade level seem
to differ to some degree for each grade level sample
although there appears to exist greater similarity between
the two correlation matrices of subtest intercorrelation
for the two fifth grade samples than between the correla
tion matrices of subtest intercorrelations for any other
grade levels.
One discernible similarity between correlation
matrices of subtest intercorrelations for all grade level
samples is that the subtests Originality and Elaboration
appear to correlate least well at a significant level with
every other creativity subtest.
Some discernible difference also appears to exist
in the pattern of creativity subtest-total creativity
correlations which are significant at each grade level.
Nearly all creativity subtest-total creativity correlations
208
are significant for each grade level sample. However,
Sensitivity to Problems does not correlate significantly
with total creativity at either the fourth or sixth grade
level, whereas there appears to he little or no relation
ship between Originality and total creativity for the P.V.
fifth grade sample. Furthermore, the strength of the
individual correlations between specific creativity sub
tests and total creativity seems to vary considerably (from
low to moderately high) from grade level to grade level.
To determine any differences in the pattern of
creativity subtest intercorrelations and subtest-total
creativity correlations between those selected by intel
ligence test data and those selected by judgment, the
correlation matrices in Tables 38 and 39 were compared.
Overall, the creativity subtest intercorrelations for the
pupils selected by test data are more frequently signifi
cant relationships than for those pupils selected by
judgment. Only 4 out of 15 subtest intercorrelations (all
positive) for those selected by judgment are significant,
whereas 14 out of 15 subtest intercorrelations (9 positive
and 5 negative) are significant for those selected by
intelligence test data.
The pattern of creativity subtest-total creativity
correlations appears to be somewhat similar for those
selected by test data and those selected by judgment; for
209
both groups, all subtest-total creativity relationships,
except Orlginallty-total creativity, are positive and sig
nificant. The strength of the relationships between total
creativity and subtests Sensitivity to Problems, Flexi
bility, and Elaboration appears to be stronger for those
selected by test data than for those selected by judgment.
Comparison of the correlation matrices in Tables
40 and 4l assisted in establishing any differences in the
creativity subtest intercorrelations and subtest-total
creativity correlations for total boys and total girls.
Overall, the pattern for creativity subtest intercorrela
tions for total boys and total girls in the sample appears
to be very similar. Thirteen out of 15 subtest intercor
relations are significant at the .05 level, 9 positive and
4 negative, for both boys and girls.
Similarly, the pattern for subtest-total creativity
correlations for total boys and total girls in the sample
seems to be very similar. Five subtests, all but Origi
nality, correlate significantly in a positive direction
with total creativity for total boys as well as for total
girls in the sample.
Intelligence and Creativity
The following primary research hypothesis involving
the relationship between creativity and intelligence was
tested through Pearson product-moment correlation:
210
There Is no significant correlation between
intelligence and specific empirically-measured
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
The findings are as follows:
L.A. fourth grade. As reported in Table 34, cor
relations for the L.A. fourth grade between intelligence
and all creativity subtests, except Sensitivity to Prob
lems, are very low and not significant. Sensitivity to
Problems correlates with intelligence at a low, positive,
and significant level. The correlation of intelligence and
total creativity for the L.A. fourth grade is very low,
positive, and not significant at the .05 level of confi
dence .
L.A. fifth grade. As indicated in Table 35j
correlations for the L.A. fifth grade between intelligence
and all creativity subtests are very low and not signifi
cant. The correlation between intelligence and total
creativity is very low, negative, and not significant at
the .05 level of confidence.
L.A. sixth grade. The data compiled in Table 36
for the L.A. sixth grade indicate that the correlations
211
between Intelligence and all creativity subtests are very
low or low and not significant. Intelligence and total
creativity correlate at a very low, positive, but not sig
nificant level.
P.V. fifth grade. In Table 37* the correlations
for the P.V. fifth grade between intelligence and all
creativity subtests are very low and not significant. The
correlation between intelligence and total creativity Is
very low, negative, and not significant at the .05 level.
All selected by test data. As presented* in Table
38, correlations for all mentally gifted pupils selected by
intelligence test data between intelligence and all crea
tivity subtests, except Flexibility and Originality, are
very low and not significant. The relationship between
intelligence and Flexibility is low, positive, and sig
nificant, whereas the relationship between intelligence and
Originality is low, negative, and significant. The rela
tionship between intelligence and total creativity for
those selected by intelligence test data Is very low and
negative, but not significant.
All selected by judgment. As reported In Table 39,
correlations for all mentally gifted pupils selected by
judgment between intelligence and all creativity subtests,
212
except Elaboration, are very low or low, positive for the
most part, and not significant. Elaboration correlates
with intelligence at a low, positive, and significant
level. Total creativity correlates with intelligence at a
low, but not significant, positive level.
Total boys. The data summarized in Table 39 for
all boys indicate that correlations for intelligence and
all creativity subtests, except Originality, are very low,
generally positive, and not significant. Originality cor
relates with intelligence at a low, negative, and signifi
cant level. There is a very low, positive, but not sig
nificant relationship between intelligence and total
creativity for total boys in the sample.
Total girls. In Table 4l, the correlations for all
girls between intelligence and the subtests Flexibility and
Fluency are low, positive, and significant, whereas the
correlation between Originality and intelligence is low,
negative, and significant. Intelligence correlates with
total creativity at a very low, positive, but not signifi
cant level.
Total sample. As indicated in Table 42, the cor
relations between intelligence and the creativity subtests
Redefinition, Sensitivity to Problems, and Elaboration are
213
very low, positive, and not significant. Intelligence cor
relates with the suhtests Fluency and Flexibility at a low,
positive, significant level, whereas intelligence and
Originality correlate at a low, negative, and significant
level. The correlation coefficient for the total sample
between intelligence and total creativity is extremely low,
positive, and not significant.
General findings. One of the primary questions
under consideration was, "What is the relationship between
intelligence and creativity?" The correlation matrix for
the total sample in Table 42 was used as a basis for the
decision regarding the null hypothesis drawn from this
question.
Three creativity subtests correlate significantly
with intelligence, whereas three creativity subtests and
total creativity did not correlate significantly with
intelligence. Therefore, the decision was that the null
hypothesis Bq^ be rejected for the correlations between
intelligence and the subtests Fluency, Flexibility, and
Originality. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected
for the correlations between intelligence and the subtests
Redefinition, Sensitivity to Problems, and Elaboration.
214
The null hypothesis also failed to be rejected for the
correlation between intelligence and total creativity.
Consequently* the major findings were that intel
ligence correlates significantly at a low* positive level
with Fluency and Flexibility; intelligence correlates sig
nificantly at a low, negative level with Originality; and
intelligence does not correlate significantly with Redefi
nition* Sensitivity to Problems* Elaboration* or total
creativity.
In addition to the major question regarding the
relationship between intelligence and creativity for the
total sample* other subquestions include: Is there a
difference in intelligence-creativity relationships by
grade? by selection criteria? by sex? The results in
Tables 34 to 42 were utilized in making these comparisons.
The data produced no significant correlations
between intelligence and creativity* except for Sensitivity
to Problems at the fourth grade level* for any of the grade
levels. Consequently, there is little or no foundation to
suggest a substantial difference in intelligence-creativity
relationships by grade level.
According to data in Tables 38 an< 3 39, there appear
to be some discernible differences in intelligence-
creatlvity relationships according to differences In
criteria utilized in selecting mentally gifted pupils.
215
For those selected by test data., two subtests, Flexibility
and Originality, correlated significantly, one positively
and one negatively, with intelligence. For those selected
by Judgment, only Elaboration correlated significantly in
a positive direction with intelligence.
Comparison of the results in Tables 40 and 41
indicates that there also seems to be some discernible dif
ference in intelligence-creativity relationships according
to sex classification. Originality correlates signifi
cantly in a negative direction with intelligence for both
boys and girls. Fluency and Flexibility correlate sig
nificantly in a positive direction with intelligence for
girls but not for boys. These results suggest there may
exist some difference in intelligence-creativity relation
ships for certain creativity subtests when sex classifica
tion is taken into consideration.
Reading Achievement and
Creativity
The following primary research hypothesis pertain
ing to the relationship between creativity and achievement
was tested through Pearson product-moment correlation:
*06
There is no significant correlation between
reading achievement and specific empirically-
216
measured factors of creativity or total creativity
for mentally gifted pupils.
The findings are as follows:
L.A. fourth grade. In Table 34, correlations for
the L.A. fourth grade between achievement and all creativ
ity subtests, except Originality, are low and significant,
two positive and two negative. Originality correlates with
achievement at a moderate, positive, and significant level.
At the fourth grade level, the correlation between total
creativity and achievement is low, positive, and not
significant.
L.A. fifth grade. Since no reading achievement
scores were available for the L.A. fifth grade, correlation
coefficients between creativity and achievement were not
computed.
L.A. sixth grade. As reported In Table 3 6, corre
lations for the L.A. sixth grade between achievement and
all creativity subtests, except Redefinition and Flexibil
ity, are low and not significant. Redefinition and Flexi
bility correlate with achievement at a positive, moderate,
and significant level. The correlation between achievement
and total creativity is very low, positive, and not sig
nificant at the .05 level of confidence.
217
P.V. fifth grade. As summarized in Table 37* the
correlations between achievement and all creativity sub
tests are very low and not significant. The correlation
between achievement and total creativity is extremely low*
negative* and not significant at the .05 level of
confidence.
All selected by test data. In Table 3 8* the data
summarized for all those selected by intelligence test data
indicate that achievement and all creativity subtests*
except Originality* correlate at a level which is very low*
generally positive* but not significant at the .05 level.
However, the relationship between achievement and Origi
nality is low* negative* and significant. The correlation
between achievement and total creativity is positive but
extremely low and not significant at the .05 level of
confidence.
All selected by Judgment. The data reported in
Table 39 for all those selected by judgment indicate that
achievement and all creativity sub tests except Originality
correlate at a low* positive level, which is not signifi
cant. A moderate, negative* and significant relationship
exists between achievement and the subtest Originality.
There is a low* positive* but not significant* correlation
between achievement and total creativity.
218
Total boys. As Indicated in Table 40, the correla
tions for all boys between achievement and all creativity
subtests are low and not significant. The relationship
between achievement and total creativity is extremely low,
positive, and not significant at the .0 5 level.
Total girls. In Table 4l, the data presented for
all girls indicate that the correlations between achieve
ment and all creativity subtests, except Originality, are
low and not significant. The relationship between achieve
ment and Originality is low, negative, and significant.
The correlation between achievement and total creativity
is extremely low and not significant.
Total sample. The data summarized in Table 42 for
the total sample indicate that four out of six creativity
subtests correlate at a low, significant level with
achievement. Redefinition, Flexibility, and Elaboration
correlate positively with achievement, whereas Originality
correlates negatively with achievement. The relationship
between achievement and total creativity is extremely low,
positive, and not significant at the .0 5 level of
confidence.
General findings. One of the primary questions set
forth was, "What is the relationship between reading
219
achievement and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?”
The correlation matrix for the total sample in Table 42
was used in decision making regarding the null hypothesis
drawn from this question.
Four creativity subtests correlate significantly
with achievement, whereas two creativity subtests and total
creativity do not correlate significantly with intelligence.
Consequently, the decision was that null hypothesis Hog be
rejected for the correlations between achievement and the
subtests Redefinition, Flexibility, Originality, and
Elaboration. The null hypothesis failed to be rejected for
the correlations between achievement and the subtests Sen
sitivity to Problems and Fluency. The null hypothesis also
failed to be rejected for the correlation between achieve
ment and total creativity.
Accordingly, the major findings were that reading
achievement correlates significantly at a low, positive
level with Redefinition, Flexibility, and Elaboration;
reading achievement correlates significantly at a low,
negative level with Originality; and reading achievement
does not correlate significantly with Sensitivity to Prob
lems, Fluency, or total creativity.
Besides the major question regarding the relation
ship between reading achievement and creativity for the
total sample, other subquestions are: Is there a differ
220
ence in achievement-creativity relationships by grade? by
selection criteria? by sex? Tables 3^ to 42 provided data
used in answering these subquestions.
There appear to be some discernible differences in
reading achievement-creativity relationships when results
by grade level in Tables 3^ to 37 were compared. At the
fourth grade level, Originality was significantly and
positively correlated with reading achievement; at the
fifth grade level {only P.V. fifth grade results available),
no correlations between reading achievement and creativity
were significantly supported; at the sixth grade level,
Redefinition and Flexibility were significantly and posi
tively correlated with reading achievement. Consequently,
there appears to be some evidence of discernible differ
ences in achievement-creativity subtest relationships when
grade level is taken into account.
Comparisons of results in Tables 38 and 39 suggest
that the correlations between achievement and creativity
are very similar for those selected by test data and those
selected by judgment. The correlations between achievement
and creativity subtests, except Originality, and total
creativity are not significant for either group. Origi
nality correlated significantly in a negative direction for
both groups. Therefore, there is no substantial evidence
221
to suggest a difference in achievement-creativity relation
ships by selection criteria.
Comparison of data in Tables 40 and 4l suggests
that correlations between achievement and creativity are
also very similar for boys and girls. Correlations between
achievement and creativity subtests, except in the case of
Originality, and total creativity are not significant for
either boys or girls. The negative correlation between
achievement and Originality is not significant for boys,
whereas the negative correlation between achievement and
Originality is significant for girls; yet the two correla
tions are actually very similar in strength. There does
not appear to be enough evidence to indicate any substan
tial difference in achievement-creativity relationships
when sex is taken into consideration.
Self-Perception and Creativity
The following primary research hypothesis pertain
ing to the relationship between creativity and self
perception was tested through Pearson product-moment
correlations:
Ho7
There is no significant correlation between
self-perception and specifically-measured
2 2 2
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
The findings are as follows:
L.A. fourth grade. Table 3^ presents data for the
L.A. fourth grade which indicate that the relationship
between self-perception and all creativity subtests, except
Elaboration, is extremely low and not significant. The
correlation between self-perception and Elaboration is low,
negative, and significant at the .05 level. The relation
ship between self-perception and total creativity is very
low, negative, but not significant.
L.A. fifth grade. As reported in Table 35, the
data summarized for the L.A. fifth grade indicate that the
correlations between self-perception and all creativity
subtests, except Elaboration, are very low, negative for
the most part, and not significant. The correlation
between self-perception and Elaboration is low, positive,
and significant. Self-perception and total creativity do
not correlate significantly for the L.A. fifth grade.
L.A. sixth grade. The results computed in Table
36 for the L.A. sixth grade indicate that only the subtests
Redefinition and Fluency correlate significantly with self
perception. The significant correlation between self-
223
perception and Redefinition is positive and moderately
high, whereas the significant correlation between self
perception and Fluency is positive and low. The relation
ship between self-perception and total creativity is
positive., moderate, and significant at the .0 5 level of
confidence.
P.V. fifth grade. Since no self-perception scores
were available for the P.V. fifth grade, correlation coef
ficients between creativity and self-perception were not
computed for the P.V. fifth grade.
All selected by test data. In Table ^>83 the data
summarized for all those selected by test data indicate
that self-perception correlates significantly with only two
creativity subtests, Redefinition and Fluency; the relation
ship between self-perception and both these subtests is low
and positive. Similarly, the relationship between self
perception and total creativity is low, positive, and
significant at the .0 5 level of confidence.
All selected by Judgment. As indicated in Table 39,
by the data summarized for all those selected by judgment,
the correlations between self-perception and all creativity
subtests and total creativity are low, generally positive,
and not significant.
224
Total boys. In Table 40, the results compiled for
all boys Indicate that the correlations between self-
perception and all creativity subtests and total creativity
are extremely low., positive for the most part, and not
significant.
Total girls. In Table 4l, the data reported for
all girls indicate that self-perception correlates signifi
cantly with Redefinition, Fluency, and Flexibility at a
positive and low to moderate level. Total creativity also
correlates with self-perception at a low, positive, and
significant level.
Total sample. The data summarized for the total
sample indicate that self-perception correlates signifi
cantly with the subtests Redefinition, Sensitivity to
Problems, Fluency, and Flexibility at a low, positive
level. The relationship between self-perception and total
creativity is also low, positive, and significant at the
.0 5 level of confidence for the total sample.
General findings. A basic question posed was,
"What is the relationship between self-perception and
creativity?" The correlation matrix for the total sample
in Table 42 was utilized in making the decision regarding
the null hypothesis drawn from this question.
225
Four creativity subtests and total creativity cor
relate significantly at a low, positive level with self
perception. Therefore, the decision was that the null
hypothesis be rejected for the correlations between
self-perception and the subtests Redefinition, Sensitivity
to Problems, Fluency, and Flexibility. The null hypothesis
failed to be rejected for correlations between self
perception and the subtests Originality and Elaboration.
The null hypothesis was rejected for the correlation
between self-perception and total creativity.
It follows that the major findings were that self
perception correlates significantly at a low, positive
level with Redefinition, Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency,
and Flexibility; self-perception does not correlate sig
nificantly with Originality or Elaboration; and self
perception correlates significantly at a low, positive
level with total creativity.
In addition to the major question pertaining to the
relationship between self-perception and creativity for the
total sample, other subquestions include: Is there a dif
ference in self-perception-creativity relationships by
grade? by selection criteria? by sex? Data compiled in
Tables 4l and 42 were utilized in analyzing these subques
tions .
According to results in Tables 3^ to 3 6, Elabora-
226
tion correlates significantly in a negative direction with
self-perception at the fourth grade levels whereas Elabora
tion correlates significantly in a positive direction with
self-perception at the fifth grade level. Redefinition,
Sensitivity to Problems, and total creativity correlate
significantly and positively with self-perception at the
sixth grade level. There appears to be some evidence that
there are discernible differences in self-perception-
creativity relationships when grade level is taken into
consideration.
Results in Tables 38 and 39 indicate that some
discernible differences in self-perception-creativity
relationships do exist when results for those selected by
intelligence test data are compared to those selected by
judgment. Two subtests, Redefinition and Fluency, and
total creativity correlate significantly in a positive
direction with self-perception for those selected by test
data, whereas neither creativity subtests nor the total
creativity measure correlates significantly with self
perception for those selected by judgment.
Comparisons of results in Tables 40 and 4l produce
some detectable differences in self-perception-creativity
relationships according to sex classification. Although
there are no significant correlations between self
perception and creativity subtests or total creativity for
227
boys, there are low, positive correlations between self
perception and the subtests Redefinition, Fluency, Flexi
bility, and Originality and between self-perception and
total creativity for girls. The results, therefore, sug
gest that there may exist some differences in self-
perception-creati vity relationships for certain subtests
and total creativity when sex classification is taken into
account.
Limitations of the Findings
Appropriate caution should be utilized in interpre
tation and generalizability of the findings of the present
study.
The present study is an example of ex post facto
research and consequently possesses some of the same
weaknesses that are inherent in any such research.
Described by Kerlinger (1964), major weaknesses of ex post
facto research are: (a) the inability to manipulate and
control independent variables, (b) the lack of power to
randomize, and (c) the risk of improper and erroneous
interpretation. In actuality, the lack of control by the
investigator over independent variables and randomization
can easily lead to the third weakness, the risk of Improper
and erroneous interpretation of research results, if
hypotheses are not used to guide the investigation and
228
caution is not used in drawing conclusions from significant
and nonsignificant findings.
On the other hand, the value of ex post facto
research, such as this study, is readily apparent in the
areas of psychology, sociology, and education where the
manipulation of human characteristics and the randomized
assignment of individuals to groups or treatments to groups
become nearly impossible. Exploration into important
psychological and educational questions has been accom
plished through controlled inquiry in ex post facto
research.
A second limitation of the present study pertains
to sample size. According to Kerlinger (1964), it is
preferable to increase the sample size wherever practical
in order to reduce the sampling error. When the total
sample is relatively small and the total sample is to be
divided into several subcategories or subsamples, as in
the present study, the actual units of comparison or cells
are necessarily small. The result is a greater amount of
variability or sampling error, as indicated by some of the
relatively large standard deviations for variables in the
present study. This problem of small sample size places
certain limitations on the generalizability of the results
to other populations; therefore, adequate caution should
be used when such generalizations are made.
229
A third limitation of the study pertains to the
restricted range of IQ for the gifted students included in
the sample. When the variability of IQ Is restricted, It
is expected that correlation coefficients would be reduced
(Guilford, 1965)• The range of IQs of these students is
narrower and higher than a sample of average students. -In
view of the selective nature of the sample, the correlation
coefficients in the present study are possibly reduced by
restrictions in the range of the IQ scores.
Chapter Summary
In Chapter IV, the research findings of the study
were reported in three sections.
The first section summarized the descriptive
statistics obtained from the following variables: six
factors of creativity, total creativity, intelligence,
reading achievement, and self-perception. Means and
standard deviations for the raw score data were reported
for the total sample, as well as by grade level, by selec
tion criteria, and by sex.
The second section presented the findings resulting
from the Investigation of the first three major hypotheses
through analyses of variance utilized In testing the main
effects of selection criteria and sex on the six factors
of creativity and total creativity for mentally gifted
230
minors. Findings were also reported for the analyses of
variance utilized in testing the interaction effects
between selection criteria on the six factors of creativity
and total creativity for mentally gifted minors. The find
ings pertaining to the analyses of variance were reported
for fourth, fifth, and sixth grade mentally gifted minors
composing the Los Angeles City Unified School District
sample. The analysis of variance did not include the Palos
Verdes fifth grade sample.
The third section presented the findings resulting
from the investigation of the last four major hypotheses of
the study through Pearson product-moment correlations.
Findings were reported for the Pearson product-moment cor
relations utilized in testing the relationships between the
specific factors of creativity, between creativity and
intelligence, between creativity and reading achievement,
and between creativity and self-perception. The research
findings included an analysis of these relationships for
the total sample, as well as by grade level, by selection
criteria, and by sex classification.
Tables of descriptive statistics, ANOVA tables, and
correlation matrices were utilized in presenting the sup
porting tabular data relevant to the questions and
hypotheses.
The limitations of the findings resulting from the
231
inherent weaknesses in ex post facto research and from the
small sample size were discussed. It was suggested that
caution he used in drawing conclusions and generalizations
from the study's findings.
CHAPTER V
SUMMARY, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Summary
This chapter presents an overall review of the
study. The summary section of the chapter describes the
purpose of the study, the nature of the study, the state
ment of hypotheses, procedures, and findings. The second
section presents the conclusions drawn from the obtained
findings. The final section states recommendations for
further research.
Purpose of the Study
The study proposed to investigate the relationship
between selection criteria and empirically-measured crea
tivity for mentally gifted minors; the specific purpose of
the study was that of comparing the value of intelligence
test data and teacher judgment as selection criteria for
identifying mentally gifted pupils with outstanding crea
tive potential. The study also proposed to investigate the
existence of sex differences on empirically-measured
creativity for mentally gifted pupils selected through use
of two types of criteria.
232
233
Additional objectives of the present research
included further investigation into the relationships
between empirically-measured creativity and such variables
as intelligence, reading achievement, and self-perception
for mentally gifted minors.
Nature of the Study
The study was essentially ex post facto research.
The main effects of selection criteria and sex on the
interaction effect between selection criteria and sex on
empirically-measured creativity for mentally gifted minors
were investigated through use of a 2 x 2 factorial design.
An intercorrelation model was utilized to investi
gate the relationships between the specific factors of
creativity, between the specific factors of creativity and
total creativity, between creativity and intelligence,
between creativity and reading achievement, and between
creativity and self-perception. In addition to an analysis
of these relationships for the total sample, the correla
tion matrices were examined to determine if there were
discernible differences in these relationships by grade
level, by selection criteria, or by sex.
The study was designed to explore the following
questions:
1. What is the effect of selection criteria on
measured creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
2. What is the effect of sex on measured creativ
ity for mentally gifted pupils?
3- What is the interaction effect between selec
tion criteria and sex on measured creativity
for mentally gifted pupils?
4. What is the correlation between each factor of
creativity with every other factor of creativity
and total creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
5- What is the relationship between intelligence
and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
6. What is the relationship between reading achieve
ment and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
7- What is the relationship between self-perception
and creativity for mentally gifted pupils?
Statement of Hypotheses
The following seven major hypotheses were drawn
from the questions and tested in the study:
Hbq
There are no significant differences on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity or total creativity between those
individuals identified as mentally gifted
235
pupils by intelligence test data criteria and
those identified by judgment criteria.
Ho2
There are no significant differences on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity or total creativity between gifted
boys and gifted girls.
H 0 3
There is no significant interaction effect
between selection criteria and sex on any of
the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity or total creativity for mentally
gifted pupils.
H04
There are no significant correlations between
any of the specific empirically-measured factors
of creativity or total creativity for mentally
gifted pupils.
H 0 5
There is no significant correlation between
intelligence and specific empirically-measured
236
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
*06
There is no significant correlation between
reading achievement and specific empirically-
measured factors of creativity or total crea
tivity for mentally gifted pupils.
*0 7
There is no significant correlation between
self-perception and specific empirically-measured
factors of creativity or total creativity for
mentally gifted pupils.
Procedures
The study was conducted primarily in nine elemen
tary schools in the Los Angeles City Unified School
District* a very large metropolitan school district*
during Spring* 1973. The nine Los Angeles elementary
schools participating in the study were randomly selected
from the district's 160 schools conducting programs for
mentally gifted minors. The participating schools* geo
graphically distributed across the entire school district,
were considered a representative cross section of the
diverse racial* ethnic* and social-economic subgroups
237
making up the district. The Los Angeles student sample
included 1 2 9 identified mentally gifted minors in the
fourth;, fifth, and sixth grades.
The study also included a smaller sample of 83
fifth-grade identified mentally gifted minors attending
nine elementary schools in the Palos Verdes Peninsula
Unified School District. This school district, located In
a suburban, well-to-do, "bedroom community," is noted for
Its exceptionally high academic achievement.
The Group Test of Creativity (GTOC) and Stick-
Pigure Self-Perception Rating scale were administered in
small group settings to all fourth, fifth, and sixth grade
mentally gifted pupils included in the Los Angeles City
Unified School District sample by the investigator and two
other trained examiners. At an earlier date, the GTOC was
administered in small group settings by three trained
examiners to all fifth grade mentally gifted minors in the
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District.
Scoring of the GTOC and the Stick-PIgure Self-
Perception Rating in both districts was completed by the
same trained individuals who earlier administered the test
of creativity and the rating scale. Scoring of the GTOC
was based primarily on established psychological prin
ciples or criteria which specify appropriate types of
238
answers, whereas the Stick-Figure Self-Perception Rating
was based on simple, objective scoring procedures.
Cumulative records for those students included in
the Los Angeles sample and those in the Palos Verdes
sample were analyzed to: (a) determine selection criteria
used in identifying each mentally gifted minor; (b) verify
the sex of each identified mentally gifted minor; (c)
obtain an individual intelligence test score for each
identified mentally gifted minor; and (d) obtain data
reflecting reading achievement for each identified
mentally gifted minor.
A 2 x 2 factorial design and an intercorrelation
model were utilized to investigate the seven major hypoth
eses of the study.
Analysis of variance was the statistical technique
utilized in testing the three major hypotheses involving
the main effects of selection criteria and sex and the
interaction between these two independent variables. The
.0 5 level of confidence was required when statistical tests
were applied. The BMD X64 program was employed to carry
out the analysis of variance. A summary of the analyses of
variance, F values, and means and standard deviations was
obtained.
Pearson product-moment correlations were computed
in various combinations to test four major hypotheses
239
involving the relationships between the specific factors of
creativity, between each specific factor of creativity and
total creativity, between creativity and intelligence,
between creativity and reading achievement, and between
creativity and self-perception. The .0 5 level of confi
dence was required when statistical tests were applied.
The IBM computer 158 was employed to perform the statis
tical computations of the correlation coefficients.
Descriptive statistics, including means and standard devi
ations, and correlation matrices were obtained.
Summary of Findings
The research findings of the study were reported in
three sections. Descriptive empirical findings for crea
tivity subtests and total creativity, intelligence, achieve
ment, and self-perception were presented by grade level, by
selection criteria, by sex, and for the total sample. The
first three hypotheses were investigated through analyses
of variance and the last four hypotheses were examined
through Pearson product-moment correlations; their respec
tive major and minor findings were reported in Chapter IV.
The findings pertain only to mentally gifted minors.
Findings are summarized as follows:
1. There are no significant differences on the
specific empirically-measured factors of creativity or
240
total creativity between those individuals identified as
mentally gifted pupils by intelligence test data and those
identified by judgment at the fourth and sixth grade levels.
There are no significant differences on the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, except Origi
nality, or total creativity between those individuals
identified as mentally gifted pupils by intelligence test
data and those identified by judgment at the fifth grade
level. There are significant differences on Originality
between those selected by test data and those selected by
judgment at the fifth grade level, those selected by test
data scoring higher on Originality.
2. There are no significant differences on the
specific empirically-measured factors of creativity or
total creativity between gifted boys and gifted girls at
the fourth grade level. There are no significant differ
ences on the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity, except Originality and Elaboration, between
gifted boys and gifted girls at the fifth grade level.
There are significant differences on Originality, Elabora
tion, and total creativity between gifted boys and gifted
girls at the fifth grade level, boys scoring higher on
Originality, Elaboration, and total creativity than girls.
There are no significant differences on the specific
empirically-measured factors, except Sensitivity to
241
Problems, or total creativity between gifted boys and
gifted girls at the sixth grade level. There are signifi
cant differences on Sensitivity to Problems between gifted
boys and gifted girls at the sixth grade level, boys scor
ing higher on Sensitivity to Problems than girls.
3. There are no significant interaction effects
between selection criteria and sex on any of the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, except Elabora
tion, or total creativity for mentally gifted pupils at the
fourth grade level. There are significant interaction
effects between selection criteria and sex on Elaboration
for fourth grade mentally gifted pupils. There are no
significant interaction effects between selection criteria
and sex on the specific empirically-measured factors of
creativity, except Sensitivity to Problems and Flexibility,
for mentally gifted pupils at the fifth grade level. There
are significant interaction effects between selection
criteria and sex on Sensitivity to Problems, Flexibility,
and total creativity for fifth grade mentally gifted
pupils. There are no significant interaction effects
between selection criteria and sex on the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, except Sensi
tivity to Problems and Flexibility, or total creativity
for mentally gifted pupils at the sixth grade level. There
are significant interaction effects between selection
242
criteria and sex on Sensitivity to Problems and Flexibility
for sixth grade mentally gifted pupils.
4. There are low to moderate, positive, and sig
nificant correlations between all specific empirically-
measured factors of creativity, except for the Sensitivity
to Problems-Elaboration intercorrelation and where Origi
nality is intercorrelated with every other specific
empirically-measured factor of creativity. There are low,
negative, and significant correlations between Originality
and every other specific empirically-measured factor of
creativity. There are moderate to moderately high, posi
tive, and significant correlations between all specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, except Origi
nality, and total creativity. There is no significant
correlation between Originality and total creativity.
There exist some discernible differences in the creativity
subtest intercorrelations and creativity subtest-total
creativity correlations according to grade level and to
selection criteria, but not according to sex classifica
tion .
5. There is a low, positive, and significant
correlation between intelligence and the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, Fluency, and
Flexibility. There is a low, negative, and significant
correlation between intelligence and the specific
243
empirically-measured factor of creativity, Originality.
There is no significant correlation between intelligence
and the specific empirically-measured factors of crea
tivity, Redefinition, Sensitivity to Problems, and Elabora
tion. There is no significant correlation between intel
ligence and total creativity. There exist some discernible
differences in the relationship between intelligence and
certain specific empirically-measured factors of creativity
according to selection criteria and to sex classification,
but not according to grade level.
6. There is a low, positive, and significant
correlation between reading achievement and the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, Redefinition,
Flexibility, and Elaboration. There is a low, negative,
and significant correlation between reading achievement and
the specific empirically-measured factor of creativity,
Originality. There is no significant correlation between
reading achievement and the specific empirically-measured
factors of creativity, Sensitivity to Problems and Fluency.
There is no significant correlation between reading achieve
ment and total creativity. There exist some discernible
differences in the relationship between achievement and
certain specific empirically-measured factors of creativity
according to grade level, but not according to selection
criteria or to sex classification.
244
7- There is a lowj positive, and significant
correlation between self-perception and the specific
empirically-measured factors of creativity, Redefinition,
Sensitivity to Problems, Fluency, and Flexibility. There
is no significant correlation between self-perception and
the specific empirically-measured factors of creativity,
Originality and Elaboration. There is a low, positive,
and significant correlation between self-perception and
total creativity. There exist some discernible differences
in the relationships between self-perception and certain
specific empirically-measured factors of creativity and
total creativity according to grade level, selection cri
teria, and sex classification.
Conclusions
Conclusions were drawn from the research findings
obtained from the present study. Major conclusions
include the following:
1. The use of judgment criteria as legally
acceptable criteria in identifying mentally gifted minors
does not appear to be any more effective than traditional
intelligence test criteria in selecting pupils at the
fourth, fifth, and sixth grade levels with outstanding
creative potential. If the goal behind the addition of
judgment criteria as a means of identifying mentally
245
gifted minors is that of broadening the definition of
giftedness to include more highly creative pupils, who
heretofore have been overlooked because of the restric
tions of intelligence test data, the results of- the study
indicate that the objective has not been successfully
accomplished. In essence, subjective judgment criteria as
presently utilized appear to be as restrictive as objective
intelligence test criteria in categorically discriminating
against highly creative individuals.
The implication which follows is that teachers are
relatively ineffective In judging and identifying highly
creative youngsters. This conclusion is similar to that
of several earlier studies which have demonstrated the
ineffectiveness of teacher judgments in identifying or
nominating very creative pupils. Teachers, who generally
vary in their ability to rate pupils against a test cri
terion, are frequently heavily influenced by high achieve
ment or high intelligence scores and erroneously assume
these criteria are synonymous with high creative potential.
2. The results of the study suggest the existence
of sex differences on certain measured creative thinking
abilities for mentally gifted pupils. However, these
apparent differences for gifted boys and gifted girls on
specific creative thinking abilities acquire more import
246
when considered in relation to selection criteria used in
identifying these gifted students.
The patterning of sex differences on measured
creativity for gifted pupils would seem to be of greatest
practical significance when examined in conjunction with
developmental age trends.
3. The findings of the study suggest that one of
the best methods of identification of mentally gifted
minors with outstanding creative potential is the use of
tests of creativity. It appears that tests of creativity
would be most valuable if used as a supplement to the
current methods of identification— intelligence test data
and subjective Judgment— of mentally gifted minors. The
measurement of the specific factors of creativity rather
than Just total creativity appears to have great value in
assessing the special creative strengths of individual
gifted students.
Currently, several theoretical issues and methodo
logical problems regarding tests of creativity in the areas
of validity, reliability, test administration, test scor
ing, and norms remain unresolved. It is apparent that much
additional research on tests of creativity is essential if
these theoretical issues and methodological problems are
to be overcome.
247
4. Measured creativity appears to be relatively
independent of either intelligence or reading achievement.
In general, there does exist a low degree of correlation
between measured creative thinking abilities and the vari
ables of intelligence and reading achievement. However,
the small amount of shared variance between measured crea
tivity and these two other variables suggests that neither
an intelligence test score nor a standardized reading
achievement score is a good predictor of outstanding
creative abilities.
Consequently, if teachers are heavily influenced by
high intelligence scores or high standardized reading
achievement scores in judging the creative abilities of
students nominated for mentally gifted minor programs, this
basis of judgment or nomination appears to be erroneous.
It may be that many creatively gifted students are over
looked by teachers nominating mentally gifted minors, with
the preference going to highly intelligent students or high
achievers.
5. Measured creativity appears to be minimally
related to self-perception. Although the present study
indicates that specific creative thinking abilities are
significantly related to self-perception, the actual amount
of shared variance is slight, generally less than 10 per-
248
cent of the total variance* and consequently of little
practical educational significance.
However* the varying relationships between measured
creative thinking abilities and self-perception when grade
level* selection criteria* and sex are taken into consid
eration do raise some interesting questions. In particular*
what of the question of developmental age trends for boys
and girls as they relate to self-perception and the sub
sequent effect on creative thinking abilities?’ Further
more* do gifted students selected by the more restrictive
test data criteria feel differently about themselves than
gifted students selected by the less restrictive judgment
criteria and is there any relation between these self
perceptions and the creative thinking abilities of gifted
students?
Recommendation s
Recommendations developed from the findings of the
present study include the following:
1. Further investigation into differential
selection criteria useful in identifying mentally gifted
minors with divergent thinking talents and from diverse
backgrounds; inquiry into the relation between such
criteria and empirically-measured creativity* as well as
"real life" creative production.
249
2. Further inquiry into developmental age and sex
trends as they relate to creative thinking abilities and
establishment of differential age and sex criteria for
creative thinking abilities.
3. Additional investigation into the relationship
between measured creativity and achievement, using grade
point average as the achievement variable rather than a
standardized reading achievement score.
4. Further in-depth exploration of the relation
ship between specific measured creative abilities and
self-perception.
5. Further evaluation of the subtests included in
the Group Test of Creativity to clearly establish the
independence of the subtests from each other and to deter
mine the appropriate weighting of each subtest in relation
to the entire test of creativity.
6. Development, implementation, and evaluation of
procedures for training teachers to be more effective
judges of students with outstanding creative potential.
The primary recommendation from the study for
implementation in local school districts would be that
alternative or supplemental criteria for identifying
mentally gifted minors be utilized in addition to intel
ligence test scores and teacher judgment; empirical as
sessment through use of tests of creativity would serve as
an appropriate supplement to the other types of selection
criteria. The inclusion of tests of creativity would help
to insure that students with exceptional creative poten
tial, especially those from disadvantaged and minority
group backgrounds, would have equal opportunities to be
selected to participate in mentally gifted minor programs
and develop their individual talents.
R EFERENCES
251
REFERENCES
Abraham, W. Common sense about-gifted children. New York:
Harper & Bros., 1958.
Adler,, S. Data gathering: The reliability and validity of
test data from culturally different children. Journal
of Learning Disabilities, 1973* 6, 429-434.
Albert, R. S. Genius: Present-day status of the concept
and its implications for the study of creativity and
giftedness. The American Psychologist, 1969* 8* 7^3-
753.
Alzobaie, A. J., Metfessel, N. S., & Michael, W. B.
Alternative approaches to assessing the intellectual
abilities of youth from a culture of poverty. Educa
tional and Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 449-
7_ _
Anastasi, A. Differential psychology. New York: Macmillan,
1958.
Anastasi, A. Psychological testing (3-Pd. ed.). New York:
Macmillan, 1963.
Anastasi, A., & Schaefer, C. E. Note on the concepts of
creativity and intelligence. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1971* 5* 113-115.
Anastasiow, N. J. A report of self-concept of the very
gifted. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1964, 8, 177-178.
Barbe, W. B. Psychology and education of the gifted.
New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1935•
Barron, F. The disposition toward originality. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1955* 51* 478-485.
Barron, F. The dreams of art and poetry. Psychology
Today, December 1968, pp. 19-23.
Barron, F. Creative person and creative process.
New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 196 9.
252
253
Berger* R. M., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R.
A factor-analytic study of planning. Psychological
Monographs, 1957, 71(6 , Whole No. 423).
Biggs, J. B., Fitzgerald, D., & Atkinson, S. M. Convergent
and divergent abilities in children and teachers' rat
ings of competence and certain classroom behaviors.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1971, 4l,
227-236.
Boersma, F. J., & O'Bryan, K. An investigation of the
relationship between creativity and intelligence under
two conditions of testing. Journal of Personality,
1 9 6 8, 3 6, 341-348.
Bowers, J. Interactive effects of creativity and IQ on
ninth grade achievement. Journal of Educational Meas
urement , 1 9 6 9, 173-176.
Bruch, C. B. Modification of procedures for identifica
tion of the disadvantaged gifted. Gifted Child Quar
terly, 1971, 15, 267-272.
Bruch, C. B., & Torrance, E. P. Reaching the creatively
gifted. The National Elementary Principal, 1972,
51(5), 69-75.
Bruininks, R. H., & Feldman, D. H. Creativity, intelli
gence, and achievement among disadvantaged children.
Psychology in the Schools, 1970, 7., 260-264.
Burns, M. J. Selected characteristics of a children's
individual test of creativity. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Southern California, 1 9 6 9.
Buros, 0. K. (Ed.). The seventh mental measurements year
book. Highland Park, N.J.: Gryphon Press, 1972.
Burt, C. Critical notice of creativity and intelligence
by J. W. Getzels and P. W. Jackson. British Journal
of Educational Psychology, 1962, 32, 292-298.
California Administrative Code, Title 5 . Sacramento:
Department of General Services of the State of Califor
nia, 1961-1974.
California Education Code. Sacramento: Department of
General Services of the State of California, 1961-1974.
254
California Public School Directory. Sacramento: Bureau
of Publications of the California State Department of
Education* 1973.
California Public School Directory. Sacramento: Bureau
of Publications of the California State Department of
Education* 1974.
California State Department of Education. Principles,
objectives, and curricula for programs in the educa
tion of mentally gifted minors. Sacramento: Bureau
of Publications of the California State Department
of Education* 1971.
Cantey* R. E, The relationship of father-absence* socio
economic status, and other variables to creative
abilities in fifth grade boys. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation* University of Southern California* 1973-
Carlier* M. Flexibility* a dimensional analysis of modal
ity of d i v e r g e n t thinking. Perceptual and Motor
Skills* 1971, 32, 447-450.
Carlier* M. Une modalite de la creativite: La flexibilite*
ses relations avec 11 intelligence et les aptitudes
primaires. (A modality of creativity: Flexibility,
and its relation to intelligence and primary atti
tudes.) Revue de Psychologie Appllquee, 1970* 20* 151-
164. (Psychological Abstracts, 1971* 46, No. 4 9 8 6.)
Carroll* L. J.* & Laming, L. R. Giftedness and creativity:
Recent attempts at definition: A literature review.
The Gifted Child Quarterly, 1974* 18* 8 5-9 6.
Chambers* N. S. An investigation into group and individ
ual assessment of creativity. Unpublished disserta
tion* University of South Carolina* 1970.
Chauncey* H. How tests help us identify the academically
talented. National Education Association Journal*
1958* 47* 230-231.
Check* J. F. Analysis of differences in creative ability
between white and Negro students* public and parochial*
three different grade levels* and males and females.
APA Experimental Publication System, December 1970,
9(Ms. No. 349-34).
255
Christensen, P. R., Guilford., J. P., & Wilson, R. C.
Relations of creative responses to working time and
instructions. Journal of Experimental Psychology,
1 9 5 7, 53, 82-88.
Cicirelli, V. G. Form of the relationship between creativ
ity, IQ,, and academic achievement. Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 1 9 6 5, 56, 303-308.
Clark, P. M., & Mirels, H. L. Fluency as a pervasive
element in the measurement of creativity. Journal of
Educational Measurement, 1970, 7., 8 3-8 6.
Covington, M. V. A childhood attitude inventory for prob
lem solving. Journal of Educational Measurement, 1966,
3, 234.
Cronbach, L. J. Intelligence? Creativity? A parsimonious
reinterpretation of the Wallach-Kogan data. American
Educational Research Journal, 1 9 6 8, 5., 491-511.
Cropley, A. J. A five-year longitudinal study of the
validity of creativity tests. Developmental Psychol
ogy, 1 9 7 2, 6, 119-124.
Cropley, A. J., & Clapson, L. G. Long term test-retest
reliability of creativity tests. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1971, 41, 206-208.
Crutchfield, R. S. Creative thinking in children: Its
teaching and testing. In H. Brim, R. Crutchfield, &
W. Holtzman (Eds.), Intelligence: Perspectives 1 9 6 5.
New York: Harcourt, Brace & World, 1 9 66.
Dacey, J. S., & Madaus, G. F. An analysis of two hypothe
ses concerning the relationship between creativity and
intelligence. Journal of Educational Research, 1971,
64, 214-216.
Dauw, D. C. Life experiences of original thinkers and
good elaborators. Exceptional Children, 1965, 32, 433-
440.
Davis, G. A. Instruments useful In studying creative
behavior and creative talent: Part II, noncommercially
available instruments. Journal of Creative Behavior,
1971, 5, 162-165. (a)
256
Davis, G. A. Training creativity in adolescence: A dis
cussion of strategy. In G. A. David & J. A. Scott,
Training creative thinking. New York: Holt, Rinehart
& Winston, 1971. (b}
DeHaan, R. P. Identifying gifted children. School Review,
1957, 65, 41-48.
DeHaan, R. P., & Havighurst, R. J. Educating gifted chil
dren. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1961.
Dellas, M., & Gaier, E. L. Identification of creativity:
The individual. Psychological Bulletin, 1970, 73, 55-
73-
Dixon, W. J. Biomedical computer programs. Los Angeles:
University of California, 1 9 6 5•
Duncan, D. K. Programs for mentally gifted minors and
other gifted students in the unified school districts
of California. Unpublished doctoral dissertation.
University of Southern California, 1964.
Eastwood, G. R. Longitudinal consistency of elaboration
scores. The Journal of Experimental Education, 1965,
34, 52-54.
Educational Policies Commission. Education of the gifted.
Washington, D.C.: National Educational Association,
1950.
Feldhusen, J. P., Treffinger, D. J., & Bahlke, S. J.
Developing creative thinking; The Purdue creativity
program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1970, 4, 8 5-
90.
Feldhusen, J. P., Treffinger, D. J., Van Mondfrans, A. P.,
& Perris, D. R. The relationship between academic
grades and divergent thinking scores derived from four
different methods. The Journal of Experimental Educa
tion, 1971, 40, 35-40.
Felder, D. W., & Treffinger, D. J. Self-concept, diver
gent thinking abilities, and attitudes about creativity
and problem solving. Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue Uni
versity^ 1971• (ERIC Document Reproduction Service
No. ED 047 347)
Fliegler, L. A., & Bish, C. E. The gifted and talented.
Review of Educational Research, 1959, 29, 408-450.
257
Fox* L. L. A study of relationships between grades and
measures of scholastic aptitude, creativity and atti
tudes in Junior college students. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation* University of Southern California* 1967•
French* J. W. The description of aptitude and achievement
tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometric Mono
graphs , 1951j No. 5-
Frick* J. W.* Guilford* J. P.* Christensen* P. R.* &
Merrifield* P. R. A factor-analytic study of flexibil
ity in thinking. Educational and Psychological Meas
urement , 1 9 5 9j 1 9* 469-4-96.
Frierson* E. C. The gifted. Review of Educational
Research, 1 9 6 9* 39* 2 5-3 7.
Fulgosi* A.* & Guilford* J. P. Short-term incubation in
divergent production. Journal of Creative Behavior*
1970* 4, 131-132.
Gallagher, J.* & Rogge* W. The gifted. Review of Educa
tional Research* 1 9 6 6, 3 6, 37-55•
Gallegos* A. M. The gifted poor. Educational Leadership*
1973, 30, 749-753.
Galton* F. Hereditary genius. New York: Macmillan* 1 8 6 9.
Gardner* J. W. Excellence: Can we be equal and excellent
too? New York: Harper & Row* 1961.
Gerlach* V. S.* Schutz* R. E.* Baker* R. L.* & Mazer* G. E.
Effects of variations in test directions on originality
test responses. Journal of Educational Psychology*
1964* 55* 79-83.
Getzels* J. W.* & Jackson* P. W. Creativity and intelli
gence. New York: Wiley* 1 9 6 2.
Getzels* J. W.* & Madaus* G. F. Creativity. In R. J.
Ebel (Ed.)* Encyclopedia of educational research
(4th ed.). New York: Macmillan* 1 9 69.
Ghiselin* B. (Ed.). The creative process. New York:
Mentor* 1955*
Golann* S. E. Psychological study of creativity. Psycho
logical Bulletin* 1 9 6 3* 60, 548-565-
Gordon* W. J. J. Synectics. New York: Harper & Row* 1 9 6 1.
258
Gowan, J. C. The relationship between creativity and
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1971* 14, 239-243.
Gowan, J. C., & Demos, G. D. The education and guidance
of the ablest. Springfield, 111.: Charles C. Thomas,
1964.
Greenberger, E. Correlates of problem-solving flexibility.
Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Study
of Social Organization of Schools, 1970.
Guilford, J. P. Creativity. The American Psychologist,
1950, 5, 444-454.
Guilford, J. P. The structure-of-intellect. Psychological
Bulletin, 1956, 53, 277-295-
Guilford, J. P. Three faces of intellect. American Psy
chologist, 1 9 5 9, 14, 469-479-
Guilford, J. P. Fundamental statistics in psychology and
education (4th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, 19o5.
Guilford, J. P. Creativity: Yesterday, today, and to
morrow. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1967, 1, 3-13-
(a)
Guilford, J. P. The nature of human intelligence.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1967.
Guilford, J. P. Factors that aid and hinder creativity.
In J. P. Guilford (Ed.), Intelligence, creativity, and
their educational implications. San Diego: Knapp,
-----
Guilford, J. P. A general summary of twenty years of
research on aptitudes of high level personnel. Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory, Final Report.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1969-
Guilford, J. P. Creativity: Retrospect and prospect.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1970, 4, M9-168. (a)
Guilford, J. P. Traits of creativity. In P. E. Vernon
(Ed.), Creativity. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. (b)
Guilford, J. P. Some misconceptions regarding measurement
of creative talents. Journal of Creative Behavior,
1971, 5, 77-87.
259
Guilford., J. P.; & Christensen; P. R. A factor-analytic
study of verbal fluency. Reports from the Psychologi
cal Laboratory; No. 17. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California; i9 6 0.
Guilford; J. P., & Hoepfner; R. Current summary of
structure-of-Intellect factors and suggested tests.
Reports from the Psychological Laboratory; No. 30.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California; 1963-
Guilford; J. P.; & Hoepfner, R. Sixteen divergent produc
tion abilities at the ninth-grade level. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1966, jL, 43-46.
Guilford, J. P., & Merrifield, P. R. The structure of
intellect model: Its uses and implications. Reports
from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 25. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California, i9 6 0.
Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Cox, A. B. Creative
thinking in children at the junior high school levels.
Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, No. 26.
Los Angeles: University of Southern California, 1961.
Harvey, 0. J., Hoffmeister, J. K., Coates, C., & White,
B. J. A partial evaluation of Torrance's tests of
creativity. American Educational Research Journal,
1970, 7, 359-372.
Hinton, B. L. Personality variables and creative poten-
tial. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1970, 4, 210-216.
Hoepfner, R., Guilford, J. P., & Bradley, P. Information
transformation abilities. Educational and Psychologi
cal Measurement, 1970, 30, 7 6 5-6 0 2.
Holland, J. L. Some limitations of teacher ratings and
predictors of creativity. Journal of Educational Psy
chology, 1959, 50, 219-223.
Hollingworth, L. S. Children above l80 IQ, Stanford-
Binet. New York: World Book, 1942.
Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. The person, the product,
and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment
of creativity. In J. Kagan (Ed.), Creativity and
learning. Boston: Houghton Mifflin^ 1 9 6 7.
Johnson, D. M. Problem-solving processes. American Psy
chologist, 1962, 17, 327. (Abstract)
260
Kaltsounis. B. Differences in creative thinking of black
and white deaf children. Perceptual and Motor Skills*
1971, 32* 243-248.
Kerlinger* F. N. Foundations of behavioral research. New
York: Holt* Rinehart & Winston* 1964.
Kettner* N. W.* Guilford* J. P.* & Christensen* P. R. A
factor-analytic study across the domains of reasoning*
creativity, and evaluation. Psychological Monographs*
1959, 73(9, Whole No. 479).
Khatena* J. Adolescents and the meeting of time deadlines
in the production of original verbal responses. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 1971, 15, 201-204.
Khatena* J. Developmental patterns in production by chil
dren aged 9 to 19 of original verbal images as measured
by sounds and images. Psychological Reports, 1972* 30*
649-650.
Khatena* J. Vividness of imagery and creative self-
perceptions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1975, 19, 33-37.
Khatena* J.* & Torrance* E. P. Attitude patterns and the
production of original verbal images: A study of con
struct validity. Gifted Child Quarterly* 1971, 15,
117-122.
Kirk* R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behav
ioral sciences. Belmont* Calif.: Brooks/Cole* 1968.
Kirk* S. A. Educating exceptional children. Boston:
Houghton Mifflin* 1972.
Klausmeier, H. J.* Harris* C. W.* & Ethnathios* Z. Rela
tionships between divergent thinking abilities and
teacher ratings of high school students. Journal of
Educational Psychology* 1 9 6 2* 53, 72-75.
Kogan* N. Creativity and sex differences. Journal of Cre
ative Behavior* 1974* 8* 1-13.
Kuusitnen* S. Evidence for a curvilinear relationship
between complexity and originality. Journal of Person
ality* 1970* 38, 329-343.
Lauritzen* E. S. Semantic divergent thinking factors among
elementary school children. Unpublished doctoral dis
sertation* University of California at Los Angeles*
1963.
261
Leese, J., & Fliegler, L. A. Curriculum planning for the
giffeed. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1961.
Long, B., Henderson, E. H., 8 c Ziller, R. C. Self-social
correlates of originality in children. Newark: Uni-
versity of Delaware, 1965.
Los Angeles City Unified School District. Programs for
gifted: Pupil progress evaluation: 1972-1973. Special
Instructional Programs Branch, 1973*
Lowenfeld, V. Creativity: Education's stepchild. In S. J.
Parnes 8 s H. P. Harding (Eds.), A source hook for crea-
tive thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons,
1962.
Lowenfeld, V., 8 s Brittain, W. L. Creative and mental
growth (4th ed.). New York: Macmillan, 1964.
Lucito, L. J. Gifted children. In L. M. Dunn (Ed.),
Exceptional children in the schools. New York: Holt,
Rinehart 8 s Winston, 1963*
MacKinnon, D. W. The study of creativity. The creative
person. Lake Tahoe Conference Proceedings. Berkeley
Institute of Personality Assessment and Research,
University of California at Berkeley, 1 9 6 1.
MacKinnon, D. W. Personality and the realization of crea
tive potential. American Psychologist, 1965; 20, 273-
281.
Maltzman, I. On the training of originality. Psychologi
cal Review, i9 6 0, 6j_, 229-242.
Martinson, R. A. Issues in the identification of the
gifted. Exceptional Children, 1 9 6 6, 33, 13-16.
Marland, S. P. Our gifted and talented children--A price
less national resource. Intellect, 1972, 101, 16-19*
Maslow, A. H. The creative attitude. The Structurist,
1963; 3, 4-10.
McNemar, Q,. Lost: Our intelligence. Why? American Psy
chologist, 1964, 19, 871-882.
Mearig, J. S. Sex and cultural differences in performance
on certain verbal creativity measures. Journal of
Educational Research, 1967; 23, 83-90*
262
Mednick, S. A. The associative basis for the creative
process. Psychological Review , 1962., 69* 220-232.
Mednick, S. A & Mednick, M. T. Examiner's manual: Remote
associates test: College and adult forms 1 and 2.
Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1967•
Meeker, M. N. The structure-of-intellect: Its use and
interpretation. Columbus, Ohio: Charles Merrill, 1 9 6 9*
Merrifield, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., &
Erick, J. W. A factor-analytic study of problem
solving abilities. Reports from the Psychological
Laboratory No. 22. Los Angeles: University of South
ern California, i9 6 0.
Merz, W. R., & Rutherford, B. M. Differential teacher
regard for creative students and achieving students.
California Journal of Educational Research, 1972, 23,
63-90.
Messick, S., & Anderson, S. Educational testing, individ
ual development, and social responsibility. In R. W.
Tyler & R. M. Wolf (Eds.), Crucial issues in testing.
Berkeley: McCutchan, 197^-•
Metfessel, N. S. A summary statement regarding creative
abilities. Report from Project Potential. Los
Angeles: University of Southern California, 1 9 6 5. (a)
(Mimeographed)
Metfessel, N. S. Project Potential interpretative guide:
Self-perceptionT Los Angeles: University of Southern
California, 1 9 6 5• (b)
Metfessel, N. S. The school psychologist's role in devel
oping creativity. In J. P. Magary (Ed.), School psy
chological services in theory and in practice: A hand
book. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1 9 6 7.
Metfessel, N. S., Murry, M. A., & Poster, J. T. Twenty-
six correlates of creative behavior with examples of
classroom processes and their development. Report from
Project Potential. Los Angeles: University of South
ern California, 1 9 6 5. (Mimeographed)
Metfessel, N. S., & Risser, J. J. Group test of creativ
ity. Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research,
University of Southern California, 1965- (a)
263
Metfesselj N. S.* & Risser* J. J. Individual test of crea
tivity. Los Angeles: Bureau of Educational Research.,
University of Southern California* 1965. (b)
Metfessel., N. S., Risser* J. J., Fridley* D.* & Hammond* M.
Group test of creativity (Rev. ed.). Los Angeles:
Project Potential* University of Southern California*
1972. (a)
Metfessel* N. A.* Risser* J. J.* Fridley* D. * & Hammond* M.
Group test of creativity: Administration manual and
scoring guide (Rev. ed.J. Los Angeles: University of
Southern California* 1972. (b) (Mimeographed)
Morrison* A. J.* McIntyre* D. * & Sutherland* T. Teachers'
personality ratings of pupils in Scottish primary
schools. British Journal of Educational Psychology*
1965, 35, 306-319.
Murray* H. A. Vicissitudes of creativity. In H. H. Ander
son (Ed.)* Creativity and its cultivation. New York:
Harper & Row* 1959-
Nahira* K.* Guilford* J. P.* Hoepfner* R.* & Merrifield*
P. R. A factor analysis of the semantic-evaluation
abilities. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory*
No. 32. Los Angeles: University of Southern Califor
nia* 1964.
NIcholls* J. G. Some effects of testing procedure on diver
gent thinking. Child Development, 1971, 42* 1647-1651.
Nie* N.* Bent* D.* & Hull* C. H. Statistical package for
the social sciences. New York: McGraw-Hill* 1970.
Nivette* J. D. An Investigation into some critical factors
in a group test of creativity. Unpublished master's
thesis, University of Southern California, 1 9 6 6.
Norton* M. S. What are some of the important factors to
consider in a program of identifying the gifted pupils
in mathematics and science? School Science and Mathe
matics* 1957, 57, 103-108.
Noy* P. The "youth protest" and the "age of creativity."
Journal of Creative Behavior* 1970* 4* 223-233-
Office of Program Evaluation and Research. California
State Testing Program, 1971-72 & 1972-73: Profiles of
school district performance. Sacramento: California
State Department of Education* 1974.
264
Orpet, R. E. , & Meyers., C. E. Six structures of the intel
lect: Hypotheses in six-year old children. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1 9 6 6, 5 7 . , 341-346.
Osborn, A. P. Applied imagination (3rd. ed.). New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 19b 3-
O'Shea, H. E. The school psychologist and the gifted child.
School psychological services in theory and practice:
A handbook. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall,
IW T
Palos Verdes Peninsula Unified School District. Statisti
cal report: Fiscal year 1970-1971. Rolling Hills,
California, 1971*
Parnes, S. J. Can creativity be increased? In S. J. Parnes
& H. F. Harding (Eds.), A source book for creative
thinking. New York: Charles Scribner's Sons, 1962.
Parnes, S. J. Creative behavior guidebook. New York:
Charles Scribner's Sons, 1967-
Parnes, S. J. Creative potential and the educational
experience. Creativity: The state of the art. Report
of a national seminar. Dayton, Ohio: Institute for
Development of Educational Activities, 1971* (a)
Parnes, S. J. Creativity: Developing creative potential.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1971* 5 . , 19-36. (b)
Passow, A. H. The gifted and the disadvantaged. The
National Elementary Principal, 1972, 51, 24-31.
Pegnato, C. C., & Birch, J. W. Locating gifted children
in junior high school. Exceptional Children, 1959, 25,
300-304.
Raina, M. A study of sex differences in creativity in
India. Journal of Creative Behavior, 19^9, 3 . , 111-114.
Razik, T. A. Psychometric measurement of creativity. In
P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. New York: Harper &
Row, 1970.
Renzulli, J. S. The identification and development of
talent potential among the disadvantaged. Contemporary
Education, 1971, 8, 65-71-
Renzulli, J. S. Talent potential in minority group stu
dents. Exceptional Children, 1973, 3 9 . , 437-444.
265
Risser, J. J. An individual testing approach to assess
creative abilities. Unpublished doctoral disserta
tion, University of Southern California, 1966.
Roe, A. A psychological study of eminent psychologists and
anthropologists, and a comparison with biological and
physical scientists. Psychological Monographs, 1953*
67(2, Whole No. 3 5 1).
Rogers, C. R. Towards a theory of creativity. In P. E.
Vernon (Ed.), Creativity. New York: Harper & Row,
1970.
Rossman, J. The psychology of the inventor. Washington,
D.C.: Inventors Publishing Co., 1931-
Rotter, D. M., Langland, L., & Berger, D. The validity of
tests of creative thinking in seven-year old children.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 1971, 15> 273-277, 29 6.
Roweton, W. E. Creativity: A review of theory and research
(Theoretical Paper No. 24). Madison, Wis.: University
of Wisconsin, Wisconsin Research and Development Center
for Cognitive Learning, March 1970.
Satnuda, R. J. Racial discrimination through mental test
ing: A social critic's point of view. ERIC-IRCD Bul
letin, May 1973, No. 42, 1-16.
Sato, I., & Ponce, R. H. Quo vadis, gifted? Thrust, 1973,
2(6), 20-23.
Schaefer, C. E. The self-concept of creative adolescents.
Journal of Psychology, 1 9 6 9, 72, 233-242.
Schaefer, C. E. Predictive validity of the biographical
inventory creativity: Five-year follow-up study.
Psychological Reports, 1972, 30, 471-476.
Schermann, A. A research institute's approach to gifted
ness. In E. P. Willenberg (Chm.), Special education:
Strategies for educational progress. Paper presented
at the meeting of the Council for Exceptional Children,
Toronto, Canada, April 1 9 6 6.
Seagoe, M. V. Terman and the gifted. The National Ele
mentary Principal, 1972, 51(5), 76-76.
Serebriakoff, V. IQ: A MENSA analysis and history.
London: Hutchinson and Co., 1 9 6 6.
266
Speedie, S. M.* Asher, J. W., & Treffinger, D. J. Comment
on "Fluency as a pervasive element In the measurement
of creativity." Journal of Educational Measurement,
1971, 8, 125-127.
Starkweather, E. K. Creativity research instruments
designed for use with preschool children. Journal of
Creative Behavior, 1971 j 5.* 245-254.
Stauts, D. M. Teacher assessment of creative potential in
fifth-grade students"! Unpublished doctoral disserta-
tion, University of Southern California, 1973.
Sullivan, J. The relationship of creative and convergent
thinking to literal and critical reading ability of
children in the upper grades. The Journal of Educa
tional Research, 1973* 8 _ , 374-377.
Sumption, M. R., & Luecking, E. M. Education of the
gifted. New York: Ronald Press^ i9 6 0.
Tannenbaum, A. J. A backward and forward glance at the
gifted. The National Elementary Principal, 1972, 51(5)*
15-23.
Taylor, C. W. A tentative description of the creative
individual. In S. J. Parnes & H. F. Harding (Eds.),
A source book for creative thinking. New York: Charles
Scribner's Sons, 1962.
Taylor, C. W. (Ed.). Creativity: Progress and potential.
New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Taylor, C. W. Cultivating new talents: A new way to reach
the educationally deprived. Journal of Creative Behav
ior, 1968, 1, 83-90.
Taylor, C. W. The highest talent potentials of man.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 1969* 13* 9-30.
Taylor, C. W., & Ellison, R. L. Biographical predictors of
scientific performance. Science, 1 9 6 7* 155* 1075-1080.
Taylor, C. VI., & Holland, J. Predictors of creative per
formance. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Creativity: Progress
and potential. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1964.
Taylor, C. W., & Parnes, S. J. Humanizing educational sys
tems: A report of the eighth international creativity
research conference, June 1970. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1970, 3* 169-182.
267
Terman, L. M. (Ed.). Genetic studies of genius (Vol. l).
Palo Alto, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1925-
Terman, L. M. Scientists and non-scientists in a group of
800 gifted men. Psychological Monographs, 1954, 68(7*
Whole No. 378).
Thompson., M. Identifying the gifted. The National Elemen-
tary Principal, 1972, 51(5)* 37-44.
Thurstone, L. L. A factor analysis study of perception.
Psychometric Monographs, 1944, No. 4.
Torrance, E. P. Educational achievement of the highly
intelligent and the highly creative: Eight partial
replications of the Getzels-Jackson study. Minneapolis:
Bureau of Educational Research, University of Minne
sota, i9 6 0.
Torrance, E. P. Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs*
N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1962.
Torrance, E. P. Gifted children in the classroom. New
York: Macmillan, I9 6 5. (a)
Torrance, E. P. Rewarding creative behavior: Experiments
in classroom creativity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.:
Prentice-Hall, 1965. (b)
Torrance, E. P. The Torrance tests of creative thinking:
Norms technical manual (Research ed.). Princeton,
N.J.: Personnel Press, 1 9 6 6.
Torrance, E. P. Non-test ways of identifying the crea
tively gifted. In J. C. Cowan, G. D. Demos, & E. P.
Torrance (Eds.), Creativity: Its educational implica
tions . New York: Wiley, 1 9 6 7.
Torrance, E. P. A longitudinal examination of the fourth
grade slump in creativity. Gifted Child Quarterly,
1968, 12, 195-199.
Torrance, E. P. Creative positives of disadvantaged chil
dren and youth. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1969* 13* 71-
8 1. (a) “
Torrance, E. P. Curiosity of gifted children and perform
ance on timed and untimed tests of creativity. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 1 9 6 9* 13* 155-158. (b)
268
Torrance, E. P. Encouraging creativity in the classroom.
Dubuque, Iowa! Win. C! Brown, 1970. (a)
Torrance, E. P. Individual differences in creativity
among secondary students. The High School Journal,
1970, 53, 429-439. (b)
Torrance, E. P. Are the Torrance tests of creative think
ing biased against or in favor of disadvantaged groups?
Gifted Child Quarterly, 1971, 15, 75-80. (a)
Torrance, E. P. The creative person. In L. C. Deighton
(Ed.), The encyclopedia of education. New York:
Macmillan, 1971- (b)
Torrance, E. P. Stimulation, enjoyment, and originality in
dyadic creativity. Journal of Educational Psychology,
1971, 62, 45-48. (c)
Torrance, C. P. Creative young women in today's world.
Exceptional Children, 1972, 3 8, 597-602. (a)
Torrance, E. P. Predictive validity of the Torrance tests
of creative thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior,
1972, 6, 236-251. (b)
Torrance, E. P., & Aliotti, N. Sex differences in levels
of performance and test-retest reliability on the Tor
rance tests of creative thinking. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 1 9 6 9, 3, 52-57-
Torrance, E. P., & Dauw, D. C. Mental health problems of
three groups of highly creative high school seniors.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 1 9 6 5, 9, 123-127*
Torrance, E. P., & Dauw, D. C. Attitude patterns of crea
tively gifted high school seniors. Gifted Child Quar
terly, 1 9 6 6, 10, 53-57.
Torrance, E. P., & Phillips, V. K. A three year study of
continuity of creative growth under a cognitive-
structured approach to educational stimulation.
Athens: University of Georgia, Research and Develop
ment Center in Educational Stimulation, 1 9 6 9.
Toynbee, A. Is America neglecting her creative minorities?
In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Widening horizons of creativity.
New York: Wiley, 1964.
269
Treffinger, D. J., Feldhusen, J. F., & Thomas, S. B. The
relationship between teachers' divergent thinking abil
ities and their ratings of pupils' creative thinking
abilities. Measurement & Evaluation in Guidance, 1970,
3, 169-178.
Treffinger, D. J., & Poggio, J. P. Needed research on the
measurement of creativity. Journal of Creative Behav
ior, 1972, 6, 253-267.
Treffinger, D. J., Renzulli, J. S., & Feldhusen, J. P.
Problems in the assessment of creative thinking.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1971, 5 . , 104-112.
Tyler, R. W. A perspective on the issues. In R. W. Tyler
& R. M. Wolf (Eds.), Crucial issues in testing.
Berkeley: MeCutchan, 1974.
U.S. Office of Education. Education of the gifted and
talented: Report to the Congress of the United States.
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1971.
U.S. Bureau of the Census. 1970 Census users1 guide, part
II. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office,
1970.
Van Mondfrans, A. P., Peldhusen, J. P., & Perris, D. R.
Pour methods of testing for divergent thinking. Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the National Council
on Measurement in Education, Los Angeles, February
1969.
Van Mondfrans, A. P., Peldhusen, J. F., Treffinger, D., &
Ferris, D. R. The effects of instructions and working
time on divergent thinking scores. Psychology in the
Schools, 1971, 8, 65-71.
Vernon, P. E. Effects of administration and scoring on
divergent thinking tests. British Journal of Educa
tional Psychology, 1971, 4lj 245-257.
Vernon, P. E. Creativity: A current bandwagon. (Review
of creativity and education by H. Lytton.) The
Canadian Psychologist, 1973, l4(l), 51-58.
Wallaeh, M. A., & Kogan, N. Modes of thinking in young
children. New York: HoTfTj Rinehart & Winston, 1 9 6 5.
270
Wallas5 G. The art of thought. New York: Harcourt,
Brace, 1926.
Ward, V. S. (Chm.). The gifted student. A manual for
program Improvement. Atlantic: Southern Regional
Educa11on Board, I9 6 2.
Ward, W. C. Rate and uniqueness in children's creative
responding. Child Development, 1969j 40, 8 7 0- 8 7 8.
Warner, W. L., Meeker, M., & Eells, K. Social class in
America. New York: Harper & Row, i9 6 0.
Welsh, G. S. Perspectives in the study of creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1973j 1 _ > 231-246.
Williams, P. E. Media for developing creative thinking in
young children. Buffalo, N.Y.: Creative Education
Foundation, 1968 (Occasional Paper #3).
Williams, F. E. Models for encouraging creativity in the
classroom hy integrating cognitive-affective behaviors.
Educational Technology, 1969* 9j 7-13.
Williams, F. E. Teaching for creativity. Instructor,
December 1971j PP* 42-44.
Williams, F. E., & Eberle, R. F. Creative production in
the classroom. Edwardsville, 111.: American of
Edwardsville, 1 9 6 7.
Williams, T. M., & Fleming, J. W. Methodological study of
the relationship between associative fluency and intel
ligence. Developmental Psychology, 1969* 1 . * 155-162.
Williams, R. I. Black pride, academic relevance, and
individual achievement. In R. W. Tyler & R. M. Wolf
(Eds.), Crucial issues in testing. Berkeley: McCutchan,
1974.
Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. The
measurement of individual differences in originality.
Psychological Bulletin, 1953> 50 j 362-370.
Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P. Christensen, P. R., & Lewis,
D. J. A factor-analytic study of creative thinking
abilities. Psychometrika, 1954, 19, 297-311.
Witty, P. A. The education of the gifted and the creative
in the U.S.A. Gifted Child Quarterly, 1971^ 15j 109-
116. —
271
Wodtke, K. H. Some data on the reliability and validity
of creativity tests at the elementary school level.
Educational and Psychological Measurement, 1964, 24,
399-406.
Yamamoto, K. Creative thinking: Some thoughts on research.
In J. C. Cowan, G - . D. Demos, & E. P. Torrance (Eds.),
Creativity: Its educational implications. New York:
Wiley, 1967. (a)
Yamamoto, K. Validation of tests of creative thinking: A
review of some studies. In R. L. Mooney & T. A. Razik
(Eds.), Explorations in creativity. New York: Harper
& Row, 1967. (b)
APPENDICES
272
APPENDIX A
DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
BY SELECTION CRITERIA AND SEX GROUP
273
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RAW SCORE DATA
BY SELECTION CRITERIA
Variable
Test Data Judgment
N Mean
SD N Mean SD
RED
174 19.05
7.54 32
16.31
5 .8 6
SEN
173 5-73 2.71
32 5 .1 8 2.86
FLU 174 15.21 6.49
32
13-75 4.55
FLEX 172 6 .5 2 3.38 32 6.40
3 . H
ORI
173 9.93
7.74 32
14. 25
5.92
ELAB 174 15.72 9.34 32 15.50 7-78
TOTAL GTOC
175 71.93
20 .1 2 32 71.40
14.77
IQ
178 140.47
9 .0 1
33
124.06
7.77
ACH 126 83.30 15.52
13 75.15 19.23
SELF-PERC 88 17.21 3 .2 2
29 16.93 3.71
274
275
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS FOR RAW SCORE DATA
BY SEX CROUP
Variable
Test Data Judgment
N Mean SD N Mean SD
RED 120 17-83
7.40 88 19.64 7 .1 6
SEN 120 5.23 2.53 87
6. 20
2.93
FLU 120 14.07 5.96 88 1 6 .1 8 6.41
FLEX
119 5.97 3.31 87
CO
r —1
•
3. 24
ORI
119 10.73 7.49 88
10.53
7.82
ELAB 120 15.60 9.74 88 15.72 8.11
TOTAL GTOC 121
69.25
18.82 88 75.26 19.52
IQ, 121 138.36 10.20 90 137.30
11. 25
ACH
77
81.76 17.82 62
83.51
14.38
SELF-PERC
69 16.53
2.32
49
18.00
3.97
APPENDIX B
ANALYSES OP VARIANCE: MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR CREATIVITY SUBTESTS AND TOTAL CREATIVITY
276
Selection Criteria f t Selection Criteria
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: REDEFINITION
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Test Data
J udgment
Sex
Boy Girl X
X
12.85
16.53 14.69
SD
6.54
5-51
X 13-50 14.00
13.75
SD 2.64 4.96
X
13.17
15.26
3 AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Sex
Test Data
Judgment
Boy Girl
X
X
3.57 3.92
3.74
SD 1.66 1.75
X 2.50 3.75
3.13
SD
0.57 0.95
X
3.03
277
3.83
278
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLUENCY OF THINKING
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
o 3
0
-p
•H
o
c
o
•H
-P
O
0
i — I
0
CO
Test Data
Judgment
Sex
Boy Girl
X
9-09 1 2 .7 6 10.94
SD
4.43
6.59
X
13.25 14.00 1 3 -6 2
SD 3.30
1.15
X
11.17
13.38
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Sex
c 6
•H
0
* p
■H
O
£
o
•H
-P
O
0
i — I
0
CO
Test Data
Judgment
SD
X
SD
Boy Girl X
3.33 4.84 4.08
2.33 2.73
3-75
4.75
4. 25
2. 21 2 .8 7
X 3.54 4.79
Selection Criteria Selection Criteria
279
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ORIGINALITY
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Test Data
Judgment
X
SD
X
SD
X
Sex
Boy Girl X
12.66 16 .9 2 14.79
6.49 4.4o
18.75
18 .0 0 18.37
3.77 3.55
15.70 17.46
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ELABORATION
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Sex _
Boy Girl X
Test Data
Judgment
X
SD
X
SD
8 .2 8
13-53
10.90
6.48 6 .35
17-75
12.00 14.87
10.34
2.58
x 13.01 12.76
Selection C r ite r ia
280
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: TOTAL CREATIVITY
(L.A. Fourth Grade)
Sex
Boy Girl
Test Data
X 51.38
68.53
SD 1 6. 20 1 6 .5 8
Judgment
X 69.50 6 6 .5 0
SD 4.04
9.74
X
59.95
68.00
X 60.44 67.51
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: REDEFINITION
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
281
Sex
• H
u
o
p
•H
U
O
£
o
•H
P
O
C D
1 —t
C D
CO
Test Data
Judgment
Boy Girl X
X
15-09
1 5 .6 6
15.37
SD 6.45 7-64
X 17.66 9.40 13.53
SD
6.35
1 0 .8 0
X 1 6 .3 7 12.53
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
•H
£
C D
■ * 3 Test Data
•rl
u
o
£
o
•H
P
O
C D
r H
0 Judgment
Sex
Boy Girl
X
4.77
5. 26
SD 1. 92 2.86
X
5.25
2.40
SD
1.91
2.60
X 5.01
3.83
X
5.01
3.82
282
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLUENCY OF THINKING
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
o 3
•H
! h
< D
-P
•H
d
O
d
o
■rH
-P
O
( D
i —I
< L >
CO
Test Data
Judgment
Sex
Boy Girl
X 1 1. 27 11 .86
SD
4.71 5-90
X 13.41 8.40
SD 4. 20 9-50
X 12.34 10.13
X
11.57
10.90
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Sex
a s
•H
u
C L )
-P
•H
d
O
c
o
•H
-P
O
Q >
i —I
Q J
CO
Test Data
Judgment
Boy Girl X
X 4.90
6.33
5 .6 1
SD 3 .0 0 3.45
X
6.91
2.8 0 4.85
SD
1-97
4.14
X 5-90 4.56
Selection C rite ria Selection C r ite r ia
283
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ORIGINALITY
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Test Data
J udgment
SD
X
SD
Sex
Boy Girl
16 .72
5 .2 2
15.53
6.42
14.66
4.14
6.00
6 .3 8
x 15 .6 9 11.16
X
16.12
10.73
MEANS AND STANDARD DEIVATIONS: ELABORATION
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Sex
Test Data
Judgment
Boy Girl
X 15.50 12.73
SD 7.68 6. 6l
X 16.16 6.80
SD 8.06
7.15
X
14.11
11.48
x 15.83 9.76
Selection C r ite r ia
284
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: TOTAL CREATIVITY
(L.A. Fifth Grade)
Test Data
J udgment
X
SD
X
SD
Sex
Boy Girl X
6 8. 27
6 7. 20 67.73
16.09 27.31
74.08 3 6 .6 0 55.34
12.35 38.31
x 7 1 .1 7 51-90
Selection Criteria s Selection Criteria
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: REDEFINITION
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
285
Sex
Boy Girl
X 1 6.86
19.75
Test Data
SD
6.09 9.27
X 15.50 16.25
Judgment
SD
4.51
10.80
X 16.18 18.00
X
18.30
15.87
3 AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: SENSITIVITY TO PROBLEMS
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Sex
Test Data
Judgment
Boy Girl X
X 5.86 6.00
5.93
SD 2 .6 1 3.01
X 4.00 10.50 7.25
SD 6.11 • 57
4.93 8.25
286
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLUENCY OF THINKING
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
•H
S h
0 )
-P
•H
P h
O
a
o
• H
P >
O
c u
rH
( L >
CO
Test Data
Judgment
Sex
Boy Girl X
X 14.60 13-75
1 4 .1 7
SD
5.73 5.89
X 1 0 .0 0 13-25 1 1 .6 2
SD
4.93 4.35
X 12.30 13.50
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: FLEXIBILITY OF THINKING
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Sex
o Test Data
-p
•H
U
O
£
O
• H
P>
o
^ J udgment
C D
CO
Boy Girl X
X
6.73
5.41
6.07
SD 2 .8 1
3.75
X 5 -0 0 10.50 7.70
SD 6 .1 1 1.73
X 5.86
7.95
Selection C rite ria Selection C r ite r ia
287
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ORIGINALITY
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Sex
Boy Girl
Test Data
Judgment
X
SD
X
SD
X
16.33
15.50
15 .9 1
4.04 7.44
17.50 14.00
15.75
9.00 4 .7 2
X 16.91 14. 75
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: ELABORATION
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Sex
Boy Girl
X 11.46
14.83
Test Data
SD 5.18 8.32
X 13-00 13.25
Judgment
SD
2.51
7-02
X 12.23 14.04
X
13.14
13.12
Selection Criteria
MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS: TOTAL CREATIVITY
(L.A. Sixth Grade)
Test Data
Judgment
Sex
Boy Girl X
X 72.86 75-25 7^-05
SD
15.71 28.83
X 65.00 77.75 71.37
SD 21.16 19.92
X 68.93 76.50
APPENDIX C
THE GROUP TEST OF CREATIVITY
289
^ c-pj/zn F\nzr"
L J
I kJ~i
N E W T O N S. M ETFESSEL. Ph. D., Principal Investigator
Director, Project Potential
University of Southern California
G T O C
G R O U P TEST O F CREATIVITY
These materials m ay be reproduced only with permission of the
Director, Project Potential, University of Southern California.
N o further reproduction permitted, without written permission
from the sam e source.
290
291
G T O C
G r o u p T e s t o f C r e a t i v i t y
N a m e_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _S e x _ _ _ D a t e o f B i r t h _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
M o n t h D a y Y e a r
A d d r e s s _ _ __ __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _D a t e o f T e s t _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
M o n t h D a y Y e a r
S c h o o l G r a d e
T e a c h e r ^ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
B i r t h p l a c e _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o f f a t h e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o f m o t h e r _
O c c u p a t i o n o f f a t h e r _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _o f m o t h e r _ _ _ _ _
FACTORS SCORES
R S S S
Redefinition A + Redefinition B
Sensitivity to Problems
Fluency of Thinking
Flexibility of Thinking
Originality
Propensity for Elaboration
Total
R e m a r k s
E x a m i n e r
292
R E D E F I N I T I O N A
L i s t a l l t h e t h i n g s t h i s p i c t u r e c o u l d b e
1.
2. ____
3.
4. _ _ _ ________________________________________________________
5._______________________________________________________________
6.
7.___________________________________________________
8. _____________________________
9. ■ ________________________________________________________
10.
11. _____________________________________________________________
12.
13._______________________________________________________________
14._______________________________________________________________
15._______________________________________________________________
16. _____________________________________________________________
17.___ _ ____________________________________________________ '
18. | __________
19. ■ ______________
20.
REDEFINITION 8
L i s t a l l t h e t h i n g s t h i s p i c t u r e c o u l d b e
S E N S I T I V I T Y T O P R O B L E M S
P r o b l e m s y o u m i g h t h a v e u i t h a b r o o m :
A . M i g h t g e t a s p l i n t e r i n y o u r h a n d .
B . B r i s t l e s m i g h t m i s s s o m e o f t h e d i r t .
295
F L U E N C Y O F T H I N K I N G
D r a u a s m a n y t h i n g s a s y o u c a n u ^ i n g a c i r c l e . L a b e l e a c h d r a u i n g .
296
F L E X I B I L I T Y O F T H I N K I N G
H o u m a n y d i f f e r e n t k i n d s o f t h i n g s c a n y o u d o u i t h a s h o e s t r i n g ?
A . U s e i t t o k e e p s h o e s o n y o u r f e e t .
1* ______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
2. _____________________________
3. ___________________________________________________________________________
4. ___________________________________________________________________________
5. ___________________________________________________________________________
6 . _„ __________________
6.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
297
O R I G I N A L I T Y
U a l k H o m e j
^ ' K
- - - - -- - - I i lV j-
—
d ?
D i g a H o l e
C l i m b a T r e e S i n g a S o n g
D u m p a f e n c e f a l l D o u n S t a i r s
298
P R O P E N S I T Y F O R E L A Q O R A T I O N
I n f i v e m i n u t e s , u s i n g t h e u a v y l i n e s , d r a w a l a r g e d e t a i l e d p i c t u r e .
APPENDIX D
STICK-FIGURE SELF-PERCEPTION RATING: PROJECT POTENTIAL
INTERPRETATIVE GUIDE ON SELF-PERCEPTION, RATING SCALE
299
P R O J E C T P O T E N T I A L
I N T C R P R E T I U E G U I D E : S E L F - P E R C E P T I O N
N. S . N e t f e s s e l
U n i v e r s i t y o f S o u t h e r n C a l i f o r n i a
T h e p u r p o s e o f t h i s r a t i n g s c a l B u a s t o d e v e l o p a n
i n s t r u m e n t w h i c h w o u l d m e e t t h e f a l l o w i n g c r i t e r i a : ( 1 )
p r o v i d e a m e a s u r e o f a s t u d e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f h i m s e l f , ( Z )
b e e a s i l y a d m i n i s t e r e d , ( 3 ) b e e a s i l y s c o r e d , ( 4 ) b e e s s e n
t i a l l y n o n - v e r b a l , ( 5 ) b e a m e n a b l e t o s t a t i s t i c a l i n t e r p r e
t a t i o n , a n d ( 6 ) b e f l e x i b l e e n o u g h t o m e a s u r e m a n y a r e a s
w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g t h e e s s e n t i a l f o r m a t a n d i n s t r u c t i o n s o f
t h e i n s t r u m e n t .
T h e r e a r e a t l e a s t t w o p r o b l e m s i n v o l v e d i n o b t a i n i n g
s e l f - e s t i m a t e s f r o m i n d i v i d u a l s . O n e i s t h e m a t t e r o f
o b t a i n i n g a c c u r a t e r a t i n g s : c a n a s t u d e n t h o n e s t l y r a n k
h i m s e l f c o r r e c t l y , o r w i l l t h e r e b e a r e s p o n s e s e t , e . g . , a
t e n d e n c y t o m a r k e i t h e r i n t h e m i d d l e o r a t t h e e x t r e m e s .
T h e o t h e r p r o b l e m i s t h a t o f r e l i a b i l i t y . H o w e v e r , i f t h e r a
i s g o o d r a p p o r t i n t h e c l a s s r o o m a n d t h e c h i l d r e n p e r c e i v e
t h e t e a c h e r o r t e s t a d m i n i s t r a t o r a s a p e r s o n w o r t h y o f
t r u s t , v a l i d r e s u l t s w i l l b e o b t a i n e d .
I n s t r u c t i o n s f o r S t i c k F i g u r e S e l f - P e r c e p t i o n R a t i n g
G r a d e s K - 6
I n s t r u c t i o n s t h a t a r e t o b e r e a d t o t h e e x a m i n e e w i l l
a p p e a r i n c a p i t a l l e t t e r s . D i s p l a y t h e t e s t w h i l e g i v i n g
i n s t r u c t i o n s ,
I T U I L L H E L P M E A N D O T H E R S H E R E A T S C H O O L T O K N O U H O U
Y O U F E E L A B O U T H O U U E L L Y O U A R E D O I N G . I N O R D E R T G K N O U , I
A M G O I N G T O S H O U Y O U H O U T O P L A Y A G A M E . H E R E A R E F O U R P A G E S
U I T H S T I C K F I G U R E S ( P E R H A P S Y O U K N O U T H A T S T I C K F I G U R E S A R E
D U S T A S I M P L E U A Y O F D R A U I N G A P E R S D N ) . E A C H R O U O F S T I C K
F I G U R E S G O E S F R O M L I T T L E T O B I G ( p o i n t t o e a c h f i g u r e f r o m
l e f t t o r i g h t ) A N D F R O M A S A D F A C E T O A l / E R Y H A P P Y F A C E
( p o i n t t o e a c h f a c e f r o m l e f t t o r i g h t ) . M A R Y K N O U S S H E
O O E S V E R Y U E L L I N S C H O O L , S O S H E U O U L D D R A U A C I R C L E A R O U N D
T H E B I G G E S T S T I C K F I G U R E U I T H T H E H A P P I E S T F A C E ( p o i n t t o
t h e f i g u r e o n t h e f a r r i g h t ) . J O H N N Y K N O U S H E I S N O T T H E
B E S T S T U D E N T I N C L A S S B U T T H A T H E I S C L O S E , S O H E U O U L D
D R A U A C I R C L E A R O U N D T H E S E C O N D F I G U R E F R O M T H E R I G H T ( p o i n t
C o p y r i g h t 1 9 6 5 ; N . S . M e t f e s s o l
300
301
t o t h e s e c o n d f i g u r e f r o m t h e r i g h t ) . D O Y O U U N D E R S T A N D W H Y
3 0 H N N Y I S C I R C L I N G T H I S F I G U R E ( w a i t f o r a n y q u e s t i o n s ) ? Y E S ,
D O H N N Y K N O U S H E I S N O T T H E B E S T S T U D E N T I N C L A S S B U T T H A T H E
I S C L O S E , S O H E C I R C L E D T H I S F I G U R E ( p o i n t a g a i n t o t h e
s e c o n d f i g u r e f r o m t h e r i g h t ) . S A L L Y F E E L S T H A T A B O U T H A L F
O F T H E C L A S S A R E D O I N G U D R K H A R D E R T H A N S H E I S A N D A B O U T
H A L F A R E D O I N G W O R K E A S I E R T H A N S H E I S , S O S H E U O U L D D R A U .
C I R C L E A R O U N D T H E F I G U R E I N T H E M I D D L E ( p o i n t t o U i e t h i r d
f i g u r e f r o m t h e r i g h t ) . D I C K K N O U S T H A T H E I S H A V I N G A
H A R D E R T I M E I N C L A S S T H A N M O S T K I D S B U T I S D O I N G B E T T E R T H A N
A F E U , S O H E U O U L D D R A U A C I R C L E A R O U N D T H E S E C O N D F I G U R E
F R O M T H E L E F T ( p o i n t t o t h e s e c o n d f i g u r e f r o m t h e l e f t ) . D O
Y O U U N D E R S T A N D U H Y D I C K I S C I R C L I N G T H I S F I G U R E ( u a i t f o r a n y
q u e s t i o n s ) ? Y E S , D I C K K N O U S T H A T M O S T O F T H E O T H E R S T U D E N T S
A R E D O I N G B E T T E R T H A N H E I S B U T N O T A L L O F T H E M , S O H E C I R C L E D
. T H I S F I G U R E ( p o i n t a g a i n t o t h e s e c o n d f i g u r e f r o m t h e l e f t ) .
S U S A N S O M E T I M E S D O E S N ’ T L I K E T O T H I N K A B O U T I T , B U T S H E I S '
H A V I N G A V E R Y H A R D T I M E I N S C H O O L A N D K N O U S T H A T T O S H O U U H E R E
S H E I S , S H E U O U L D C I R C L E T H E L I T T L E S T F I G U R E U I T H T H E S A D O E S T
F A C E ( p o i n t t o t h e f i g u r e o n t h e f a r l e f t ) . N O U , I T I S Y O U R
T U R N T O P L A Y T H E G A M E . L I S T E N A N D F O L L O U T H E D I R E C T I O N S
C A R E F U L L Y . L E T ’ S B E G I N . P L E A S E T A K E Y O U R P E N C I L A N D D R A U A
C I R C L E A R O U N D T H E F I G U R E T H A T S H O U S H O U U E L L Y O U D O I N
S C H O O L . . . P L E A S E T U R N T H E P A G E . . . N O U , P L E A S E D R A U A C I R C L E
A R O U N D T H E F I G U R E T H A T S H O U S H O U Y O U R T E A C H E R S F E E L T O U A R D
Y O U . . . P L E A S E T U R N T O T H E N E X T P A G E . . . N O U , P L E A S E D R A U A
C I R C L E A R O U N D T H E F I G U R E T H A T S H O U S H O U Y O U R C L A S S M A T E S F E E L
T O U A R D Y O U . . . P L E A S E T U R N T O T H E L A S T P A G E . . . N O U , D R A U A C I R C L E
A R O U N D T H E F I G U R E T H A T S H O U S H O U Y O U F E E L A B O U T Y O U R S E L F .
T H A T I S T H E E N D O F T H E G A M E . T H A N K Y O U V E R Y M U C H .
302

Asset Metadata

Creator Fairbanks, Mary Kathleen (author)

Core Title The relationship of selection criteria and sex to measured creativity for mentally gifted minors

Contributor Digitized by ProQuest (provenance)

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Education

Publisher University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag education, educational psychology,OAI-PMH Harvest

Language English

Advisor Metfessel, Newton S. (committee chair), Lovell, Constance (committee member), Pullias, Earl Vivon (committee member)

Permanent Link (DOI) https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-c20-553110

Unique identifier UC11226257

Identifier 7528622.pdf (filename),usctheses-c20-553110 (legacy record id)

Legacy Identifier 7528622.pdf

Dmrecord 553110

Document Type Dissertation

Rights Fairbanks, Mary Kathleen

Type texts

Source University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the au...

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus, Los Angeles, California 90089, USA