Gifted Child Quarterly
http://gcq.sagepub.com/
Applicability of the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production for Assessing Creative Potential of
Hong
Kong Adolescents
Elisabeth Rudowicz
2004 48: 202 Gifted Child Quarterly
DOI: 10.1177/001698620404800305
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/48/3/202
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
Additional services and information for
National Association for Gifted Children can be found at: Gifted Child Quarterly
Email Alerts:
http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav Reprints:
http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav Permissions:
http://gcq.sagepub.com/content/48/3/202.refs.html Citations: What is This?
Elisabeth Rudowicz City University
of Hong Kong
This study explored the applicability of the Test of Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT-DP) in the Hong Kong Chinese cultural context. The psychometric properties of scores on the TCT-DP were examined in a sample of 2,368 Hong Kong Chinese students aged 12 to 16. The study compared the TCT-DP’s internal consistency, interrater, and test-retest reliability coefficients for the Hong Kong sample to previously reported findings for European samples. Structural, concurrent, and discriminant validity of the test scores were evaluated. Our data provided encouraging empir ical evidence for the reliability and structural and discriminant validity of the TCT-DP. The psychometric properties of the test were comparable to those obtained for European samples. However, the very low stability of Humor and Unconventionality b scales is of some concern. No sex differences were observed with regard to the test scores.
Interest in the measurement of creativity was fueled a half-century ago by Guilford’s presidential address to the American Psychological Association, in which he challenged researchers to study creativity as a unique characteristic of human beings. Guilford’s (1956) model of the structure of the intellect provided the theoretical g round for the development of creativity measures. In his model of the intellect, abilities such as fluency, flexibility, originality, redefinition, and elaboration of thought were labeled as “divergent thinking.” Guilford further suggested that divergent thinking is a major cognitive process important in creativity. Consequently, he and his colleagues developed a wide variety of divergent thinking tests (Christensen, Guilford, Merrifield, & Wilson, 1960; Guilford, 1976).
Guilford’s measurement efforts not only initiated the psychometric approach to the scientific study of creativity, but also suggested that creativity could be studied in ordinary people, as components of creativity can be quantified and arranged along a continuous score distribution. Thus, individuals can display differing levels and degrees of creativity.
In past studies, performance on creativity tests was found to correlate to an acceptable degree with creative behavior. Thus, creativity tests are considered to be useful screening and diagnostic tools in both research and education. In the educational context, assessment of creativity should be seen as a part of the diagnostic process and used not merely for evaluation and selection processes, but also and pr imarily for educational provisions. When employed for selection of creatively gifted students, divergent thinking tests should be used in conjunction with other ratings such as creative products, creative personality checklists, and self-ratings; and results should be interpreted in the context of the student’s sociocultural background to avoid excluding students with special creative talents.
The creativity scores obtained by the TCT-DP demonstrate the relative independence from the Raven’s Progressive Matrices scores, but show a positive moderate correlation with students’ self-evaluations. Teachers, however, seem to be rather poor raters of students’ creativity as their ratings show a negligible correlation with the TCT-DP scores. It is vital for educational endeavor that teachers have an ability to recognize the creative potential of their students. Thus, teachers should become more aware of the issues involved in recognizing creative behaviors of their students.
Departure from an all-or-none dichotomy in the perception of creativity led to the idea that creativity can be improved as a result of training. This brought on the development of educational programs during the 1960s and 1970s aimed at fostering creativity (David & Scott, 1978; Flanagan & Gallup, 1967; Khatena, 1973; Renzulli & Callahan, 1975; Renzulli, Owen, & Callahan, 1974; Steinmetz, 1968; Treffinger, Speedie, & Brunner, 1974) and, in the 1980s,the conceptualization and identification of the gifted and talented (Gagné, 1985; Renzulli, 1982, 1988; Renzulli & Delcourt, 1986; Wallace & Acklaw, 1982), which in turnfacilitatedattention to creativity measures.
Those who undertook the task of developing creativity tests faced major difficulties. These included the complexity of the creativity construct and the absence of a simple and generally accepted theory of creativity that could direct ef forts at establishing assessment criteria and procedures. In spite of these hindrances, a variety of creativity tests have been developed. Torrance and Goff (1989) identified approximately 250 so-called “creativity tests.” The most salient features of these creativity tests are their conceptual diversity and cultural homogeneity. The former reflects the complexity of creativity concepts and the latter reflects the limited number of cross-cultural studies devoted to the measurement of creativity.
The major ity of existing creativity tests are firmly grounded in Western concepts of creativity and have been developed on North American samples. Thus, there are growing concerns about the suitability of employing them to test other cultural populations. Almost half a centur y ago, Stein(1953)cautioned that creativity must be defined and measured in terms of the culture in which it appears, since a creative product must be recognized and accepted within the sociocultural context in which it was created. Yet, the cultural aspects of creativity have only been studied explicitly in recent years (Chan & Chan, 1999; Khaleefa, Erdos, & Ashira, 1996; Lim & Plucker, 2001; Niu & Sternberg, 2001; Raina, Kumar, & Raina, 1980; Rudowicz & Hui, 1996, 1997, 1998) The results of these studies have unveiled both overlaps and differences in creativity concepts embodied in different cultural traditions. As yet, findings from these studies have not been reflected or empirically tested in regard to the content orevaluation criteria of existing creativity tests. Therefore, there are psychometric concerns pert aining to reliability and validity of creativity measures due to both a lack of systematic empirical data (Cropley, 2000; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989) and a lack of reliability
and validity studies in other cultural contexts (Khaleefa, Erdos, & Ashria, 1997; Rudowicz, 2003).
This study was undertaken to investigate the psychometric properties of a relatively new and simple creativity test, the Test of Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (TCT-DP), in the Hong Kong Chinese cultural setting. The study also aimed to compare the results obtained in the Hong Kong sample with previously reported findings (Jellen & Urban, 1989; Urban & Jellen, 1996).
The TCT-DP was originally developed on German samples. Although it was later used to evaluate the creative potential of children and adults in a number of countries (Jellen & Urban, 1989; Kovac, 1996; Stypulkowska, 2000), its psychometric properties were tested primarily with European samples, and the results were somewhat inconsistent There has been a notable lack of psychometric data from countries outside Europe. A review of the literature did not reveal any studies in which the TCT-DP was used for research or educational purposes in Hong Kong or with other Chinese populations.
The current study should increase our understanding of the psychometric characteristics of TCT-DP scores in a Chinese cultural setting. We did not envisagethat our results would overrule the current knowledge about the TCT-DP. Rather, our data was intended to add more pertinent information on the reliability and validity of the test scores obtained from the Hong Kong Chinese sample. If the test reliability and validity were acceptable for the Hong Kong sample, the TCT-DP could have some potential for identifying creatively gifted children. Currently, only the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) has been translated and adapted for the use in Hong Kong (Spinks, Ku-Yu, Shek, & Bacon-Shone, 1995).The efficiency of administrating and scoring the TCT-DP compares favorably with the TTCT and could provide some advantages for use in a wider context.
Theoretical Foundations of the Test
The authors of the TCT-DP (Urban, 1991; Urban & Jellen, 1996) drew upon Csikszentmihalyi’s (1990) evolutionary views and Taylor’s (1988) anthropological views of
creativity, as well as Amabile’s (1983) social approach. They consider the creative process as an interaction between cognitive abilities, personal characteristics, and social environments. Urban and Jellen (Urban, 1997; Urban & Jellen) have attempted to integrate factors contributing to the creative problem solving process in their componential model of creativity. The model includes six interactive components that work together as a functional system: (a) divergent thinking, (b) general knowledge and thinking base, (c) specific knowledge and skills, (d) focusing and task commitment, (e) motivation, and (f) openness and tolerance of ambiguity. No single component alone is sufficient for the creative process. Thus, divergent thinking is considered essential for the creative process and production, but it can only work together with the other components.
This model is embedded in a three-tiered ecological framework. The first tier, direct or micro-environment (including family and educational institutions), provides resources and climate for creativity development or deterioration. The second tier, macro-environment (including sociocultural and political conditions in a given society), may be conducive or detrimental to creativity in general or to some domains of the creative development. The third tier, meta-environment, refers to evolutionary, historical, and global/world developments.
Keeping in mind that the creative process is dependent on personal and cognitive traits and influenced by environment(s), the authors of the TCT-DP have proposed a process-orient ed definition of creativity. According to this definition, the creative process can be characterized by a number of factors. One such factor is a good grasp of a given problem and sensitivity to its implications. Another is an insightful and broad perception of existing information searched for purposefully. Further factors are flexibility and imagination in utilizing unusual associations that are problem-oriented, as well as the ability to restructure and synthesize data into a new solution-gestalt.The creative process would eventuate in a generation of a new, unusual product that may be experienced by others as meaningful and significant. The creative process can occur on different levels of consciousness. The process is seen as multidimensional and dependent on personal characteristics and environmental conditions (Urban 1991; Urban & Jellen, 1996).
Major Premises of the TCT-DP’s Construction
The authors of the test make it clear that such a complex concept as creativity cannot be transferred directly into a diagnostic instrument. Thus, no single instrument
will give sufficient information about an individual’s creative potential and creative abilities in a variety of situations. Assessment and evaluation of creativity should be seen as a part of the diagnostic process used not merely for classification and selection purposes, but primarily for improvement of educational provisions.
According to the authors (Urban & Jellen, 1996), the construction of their test took into account the following premises: (a) the test should be applicable to a broad age range; (b) the instrument should be able to identify individuals with high creative potentials, as well as individuals with low potentials; (c) the instrument should be simple and economic regarding its administration, scoring, and interpretation; (d) the test should be culture fair; (e) the instrument, in spite of being based on a drawing, should not disadvantage individuals lacking artistic or technical skills; and (f) scoring should include both qualitative and quantitative aspect of the final product.
Construction and Scoring of the TCT-DP
The TCT-DP consists of one single page of A4 paper with a 6.25-inch square frame drawn on it. Five figural fragments are drawn inside the frame. These fragments can be described as (a) a semicircle, (b) a dot, (c) a 90degree angle, (d) a curved line, and (e) a short broken line. Outside the square frame, there is a sixth figural fragment: a small square with one open side. Participants are advised, “The ar tist who started it was interrupted before he or she actually knew what should become of it,” and are subsequently asked “to continue with this incomplete drawing.” The participants are allowed to draw whatever they wish and are assured that they “can’t draw anything wrong. Everything you put on the paper is correct.” They are also told, “Don’t worry about the time. But we don’t have a whole hour to complete this drawing” (Urban & Jellen, 1996).
The drawing production is evaluated along the following 11 cr iteria:
1. Continuations (Cn): Any use, extension, or continuation of the six figural fragments.
2. Completions (Cm): Any additions or supplements made to the extended figural fragments.
3. New elements (Ne): Any new element created in addition to the given fragments.
4. Connections made with a line (Cl): Any connection made between one figural fragment and another.
5. Connections that contribute to a theme (Cth): Any f igure that contributes to a theme or “gestalt.”
6. Boundary breaking that is fragment-dependent (Bfd): Any
use of the element located outside the square frame.
7. Boundary breaking that is fragment-independent (Bfi): Any drawing that breaks the boundary of the large square frame, but is independent from the small open square.
8. Perspective (Pe): Any attempt to break away from twodimensionality.
9. Humor and emotionality (Hu): Any drawing that elicits a humorous response or shows affection/emotion.
10. Unconventionality (Uc) with four sub-criteria: (a) Any manipulation of the test material (Uca); (b) any surrealistic or abstract element (Ucb); (c) any use of symbols or signs (Ucc); and (d) any unconventional usage of the given fragments (Ucd).
11. Speed (Sp): Drawings that accumulated at least 25 points from the above 10 criteria are awarded up to a maximum of 6 points for speed. No points are awarded if more than 12 minutes are taken to complete the drawing.
Scores for all the criteria, with the exception of Unconventionality, range from 0 to 6 points. The Unconventionality scores on each criterion could be either 0 or 3. The highest total possible score is 72 points. A total creativity score is obtained by summing up points obtained from each of the 11 criteria, with no transfor mation. Urban and Jellen (1996) emphasized that a score on a single criterion cannot be indicative of creativity because “g estalt” is more than the sum of its parts.
In spite of the authors’ claim that the TCT-DP belongs to a new generation of creativity tests, it seems that the instrument belongs to a group of figural divergent thinking tests. As Davis (1995) observed, “The TCT-DP is similar in some respects to the streamlined scoring of the Figural Torrance Test, despite the authors’ claim to the contrary” (p. 90). Both the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1990) and the TCT-DP award points along quantitative and qualitative criteria. A number of qualitative cr iteria are extremely similar, specifically affectivity (emotional expressiveness, TTCT), unconventionality (originality, TTCT), humor, and boundary breaking (Torrance).
The TCT-DP, however, is worthy of research, as divergent thinking tests have proved to be useful instruments in identifying creatively gifted students. And the TCT-DP is a simple and economical instrument that might be used to assess the creative potential of individuals representing g roups of various ages, intellectual potentials, and socioeconomic or cultural groups. The completion of the test normally takes less than 15 min-
utes and scoring, with experience, requires about 3 minutes (the authors claim just 1 to 2 minutes). The test can be used in both individual and group settings. In addition,the TCT-DP’s reliability and validity measures obtained from German, Polish, and Hungarian samples are encouraging, although the information provided by the authors in the test manual is not as thorough as one would like.
The test manual (Urban & Jellen, 1996) reports that the TCT-DP displayed test-retest rank correlation ranging from r = .38 to r = .78 and interrater reliabilities above .89. The respective figures for Polish samples were r = .46 and above .87 (Matczak, Jaworowska, & Stanczak, 2000). The construct validity of the test was evaluated by the relationship between the TCT-DP scores and intelligence test scores. The correlation coefficients were moderate for a general sample and close to zero for a group of mathematically talented students. Additionally, cor relations ranging from as low as -.15 to as high as .82 were observed between the TCTDP scores and teachers’ ratings. The predictive validity of the TCT-DP was examined on the Polish samples comparing the TCT-DP scores among students of fine arts, students of creative media, teachers, public servants, and students of military schools. As expected, students prepar ing t hemselves for the creative professions (fine arts, creative media) scored much higher on t he TCT-DP than public servants and military school students. The dif ferences were statistically significant (Matczak et al.).
Sampling and Sample Characteristics
Eighty secondary schools subsidized by the Hong Kong Government were randomly selected for this study by the Department of Education. Secondary schools in Hong Kong are grouped according to academic abilities of their students and classified as high, medium, and low. Admissions to schools of different bands rely primarily on the results of standardized tests in two subjects: English and mathematics. The tests are administered by the Department of Education at the end of primary school (around the age of 11).Among the randomly selected schools, 26 schools were categorized as high-ability schools, 27 as medium, and 27 as low. A letter was sent to the principals of each selected school to invite them to participate in the study. In
Demographic Characteristics of the Test-Retest Samples
School Band1 Gender2 A ge2 Sample
N Test 1,4743835111221113676709 1074403106
Note. 1 Secondary schools in Hong Kong are grouped according to the academic abilities of their students and classified as high, medium, and low.
2 Some data regarding gender and age of participants were missing. Thus, the sum of n participants for these categories may differ from the N for the entire sample.
response to this invitation, 23 schools (6 high, 5 medium, and 12 low) agreed to participate. The overall response rate was 29%, with response rates of 23%, 19%, and 44% from high, medium, and low schools, respectively. The principals of the high-band schools were concerned about losing valuable teaching time to testing, whereas the principals of the low-band schools expressed hope that the outcome of the study would allow them to under st and their students better and in turn improve the effectiveness of their educational endeavor. Thus, this sample, as compared with the or iginal randomly drawn sample, overrepresented students of low-band schools and underrepresented students of medium- and high-band schools.The schools were located in different parts of Hong Kong, namely, Hong Kong Island (5 schools), Kowloon (6 schools), and the New Territories (12 schools).
All participants were ethnic Chinese, and 89% had resided in Hong Kong for more than 11 years. Details of demographic characteristics of the main and retested sample are presented in Table 1. The main sample included 2,368 students, 62.2% of which came from schools labeled as low, 16.2% from schools labeled as medium, and 21.6% from schools labeled as high. The proportion of boys (51.8%) and girls (48.2%) was well balanced. The age of the respondents ranged from 12 to 17.
Two schools (one high and one low) with a combined total of 269 students agreed to participate in the retest. Unfor tunately, none of the medium schools agreed to offer their assistance in the second part of data collection. Among the retested students, 47.5% were boys and 44.7% girls. They were almost equally distributed between schools labeled as high (50.2%) and low (49.8%). The respective percentages of participants aged 12, 13, 14, 15, and 16 years were 3.2%, 29.9%, 45.5%, 17%, and 4.4 %.
Instruments
In addition to the TCT-DP, the following instruments were used:
1.Raven’s (1986) Standard Progressive Matrices: A Chinese version of the instr ument was administered to measure intelligence. Reliability and validity of the test scores, as well as norms for the Hong Kong population, have been well established (Lynn, Chan, & Eysenck, 1991). The internal consistency between the scores of the 60 items on the scale used in this study was very high, with Cronbach’s α equal to .92. The raw Raven’s score can range from 0 to 60 points.
2. The Teachers’ Evaluation Scale: This scale aimed at collecting data regarding the participants’ creativity. Teacherswere given a list of the students’ names with the following instruction: “Please rate the creativity of each student listed below. Base your ratings on your own observation of a given student’s behavior.” The ratings were on a 5-point scale, ranging from 1, not creative at all, to 5, exceptionally creative
3.Current grades were used to measure a student’s academic achievement. Raw grades, based on a scale from 0 to 100, were used for seven subjects: Chinese, English, mathematics, science, Chinese history, world history, and geography. The current grades refer to the marks of current examinations released to us by schools.
Procedure
This study was an integral part of an extensive project on school underachievement. Students in par ticipating schools were given a brief description of the main objective of the project—that is, exploration of students’ lear ning—and were encouraged to take part in the study. No inducements were offered to participating students.
Participating students were asked to provide their student numbers; they were advised that the number was needed to match their responses given in different testing settings. Participants were assured that all information gathered in the study would be kept strictly confidential and would only be used for research purposes.
The TCT-DP instruction was translated into Chinese using a back translation procedure. Form A of the TCT-DP was administered in a group setting with about 35 students per group. The test was administered by a researcher accompanied by a helper. A standardized verbal instruction was given to students in Cantonese. The same instruction was also written in Chinese on the top of a test form.
After completing the test, students were asked the following questions: (a) “How much interest did you have in drawing this picture?”; (b) “How much practice do you have in drawing?”; (c) “If you were to assess your picture, what grade would you give it?”; and (d) “How much creativity do you think you have?” Students were asked to rank their responses on a 1 to 5 scale (where 1 = low or little and 5 = high or a lot). In this first testing situation, students were also asked to provide some basic demographic information. The Raven’s Matrices test was administered in a second session.
The same group procedure was followed in the retesting situation. The retest was administered to groups of about 35 students each, but this time no demographic dat a were collected. In both the test and retest situations, Form A of the TCT-DP was used and students were timed. The test and retest were scheduled 3 months apart. No feedback was given to students about their performance in the first testing situation.Since one of the researchers involved in the project was experienced with the TCT-DP scoring procedures, she trained a research assist ant who scored the test for the entire sample in both testing (test and retest) situations.
Interrater Reliability and Internal Consistency
The interrater reliability between the two raters was tested on 196 cases. The correlation coefficients varied with the subscales and ranged from .99 for Completion (Cm) to .62 for Humor (Hu). The reliability of the composite score for the two raters was .76. The data presented in Table 2 show that 10 of the 12 scales had an interrater reliability of .85 or greater and the other 2 scales of
Interrater Reliability of the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (N = 196)
Interrater
Scalecorrelation
Humor (Hu).615*
Continuation (Cn) .985*
Completion (Cm) .991*
Introduction of new elements (Ne) .981*
Connection made with lines (Cl) .964*
Connection that contribute to a theme (Cth).869*
Fragment-dependent boundary breaking (Bfd) .961*
Fragment-independent boundary breaking (Bfi).921*
Perspective (Pe) .858*
Unconventionality A (Uca): manipulation1 –
Unconventionality B (Ucb): symbolic, abstract, fictional.675*
Unconventionality C (Ucc): symbol-figure combination .946*
Unconventionality D (Ucd): nonstereotypical utilization of given fragments/figures
Speed2 .854*
Composite .763*
Composite score including no subscore for humor .826*
Note. * p < .01
1 No scores were earned on this scale.
2 This is an objective criterion, thus no interrater reliability was calculated.
.60–.69. The median interrater reliability was .93. Interrater reliability for Speedwas omitted in the analysis, as this is an objective criterion.
These interrater reliability coefficients could be considered high for all subscales except Humor and Unconventionality b (Ucb). It is worth noting, however, that only a small number of students, around 3%, were awarded any points on these latter two scales.The composite interrater correlation coefficient obtained for the Hong Kong sample matched those reported in the test manual (Urban & Jellen, 1996). They ranged between .89 and .97 for the German sample and .70 for the Hungarian sample. Because both the German and Polish tests manuals, nor anyother publications regarding the use of the test, did not present interrater reliability coefficients for
the subscales of the test, comparisons between samples regarding interrater agreement could not be made.
Internal consistency for the 13 scales (excluding Speed) of the TCT-DP, for both the main test and the retest, was measured by Cronbach’s alpha coefficients. The respective alphas were .73 (N = 2,335) and .75 (N = 269).
Test-Retest Reliability
Test-retest reliability evaluates the stability of the testee’s scores. On the one hand, creative potential could be considered as a relatively stable characteristic of a person, and the TCT-DP scores should thus display stability between testing situations over a period of time. On the other hand, due to the role of emotion, motivation, and situational context in determining participant’s responses to a creativity test, it may be not possible to expect high st ability in measures of creative potential.
In our sample,test-retest correlation coefficients for the 12 subscale scores were low. Nine coefficients were below .22; three were above .30, but none exceeded .40 (see Table 3). The correlation coefficients, although low, were statistically significant at the level p ≤ .01 for seven scales and at the level p ≤ .05 for the other three subscales. Two of the scales, Humor (Hu) and Unconventionality b (Ucb), showed test-retest coefficients that were statistically not significant. The correlation coefficient for the composite score was statistically significant (r = .35, p ≤ .01; r = .41, p ≤ .01).
The stability of testees’ scores in the test-retest situations may be affected by a number of factors. Therefore, it is important to create, so far as possible, an identical environment in both testing situations. Students’ interest in drawing a picture, previous drawing practice, and creative self-efficacy are some of the factors that could be responsible for the score variations between the testretest situations. In our study, these variables were measured in order to assess their impact on the TCT-DP scores.
In the first testing situation, students showed moderate interest in drawing a picture (M = 2.87), with 13.6% declaring no interest at all and 23.2% declaring high to very high interest. The interest in drawing a picture declined in the retest situation, where the percentage of children uninterested in the task increased by 3% and the percentage of highly interested children decreased by around 10% (M = 2.65). The difference between the means of expressed interest in the test-retest situations for the whole group was statistically significant (t [249] =
Test-Retest Reliability of the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production (N = 269)
Scale Correlation
Humor (Hu) .036
Continuation (Cn) .165**
Completion (Cm) .379**
Introduction of new elements (Ne) .188**
Connection made with lines (Cl) .317**
Connection made that contribute to a theme (Cth).301**
Boundary breaking being fragment-dependent (Bfd).149*
Boundary breaking being fragment-independent (Bfi).143* Perspective (Pe) .217**
Unconventionality a (Uca): manipulation2 –
Unconventionality b (Ucb): symbolic, abstract, f ictional .043
Unconventionality c (Ucc): symbol-figure combination.151* Unconventionality d (Ucd): nonstereotypical utilization of given fragments/figures.191** Speed1 –Composite .353** Composite with exclusion of humor.376**
Note.* p ≤ .05, two-tailed test; ** p ≤ .01, two-tailed test
1 Not included in the reliability analysis, since less than 2% participants earned a score along this criterion.
2 No scores were earned on this scale.
2.95, p ≤ .01) and the observed ef fect size small (Cohen’s d = .22 ). The observed drop in interest in the retest situation could be also due to lack of novelty since the same stimulus was given after a relatively short time.
The relationship between performance on the TCTDP and independent variables was further analyzed by performing two sets of stepwise multiple regressions, one for the test and the other for the retest situation. Independent variables included interest in drawing a picture, frequency of drawing practice, and self-assessed creativity, while controlling for gender. Results of the stepwise regression presented in Table 4 show that, in both the test and retest samples, the interest in drawing a picture entered the regression equation model in Model 1 with the respective Beta coefficients of .30 and .25.
Summary of Stepwise Regression of Factors Contributing to the TCT-DP Scores
Model 1: Interest in drawing.300.090200.4*
Model 2: Interest in drawing.248 .258.60
Note. * p ≤ .01, two-tailed test
Interest in the drawing task accounted for 9% of the variance in the test and 6.4% in the retest scores. The selfassessed creativity var iable was entered into Model 2 for the test situation, whereas gender entered into Model 2 for the retest. Frequency of drawing practice was consistently removed from the equation models in the test and retest situations.
The above results suggest that students’ interest in the picture should be one of the controlled var iables in the testing situation. In addition, to maintain an element of novelty in both testing situations, the use of an alternative form of the test in the retest situation could be considered. The Form B of the test uses the original design of Form A, but is rotated by 180degrees; however, empirical data presented in the manual point out that, although the differences between group means of the Forms A and B are minimal, the correlations between the two forms are “just satisfactory only.” Therefore, the test authors recommend “always to apply both forms . . . in order to do more justice to individual needs and capabilities” (Urban & Jellen, 1996, pp. 46–47).
Constr uct (Structural) Validity
A confirmatory factor-analytic approach was used to examine the construct validity of the TCT-DP in the Hong Kong sample and to verify the five-factor model identified in a German sample (Urban & Jellen, 1996). The authors of the TCT-DP labeled Factor I as “Direct Fragment-Dependent Usage.” The constituents forming this factor refer to responses that do not go beyond given test stimuli. Factor II was named “Composition.” The components forming this factor pertain to responses that link elements of the composition in a graphic or an abstract way, leading to a compositional whole.Factor III
consists of “Perspective and Speed.” Constituents forming Factor IV, labeled “Unconventionality/Humor,” refer to responses that go beyond the obvious and utilize unusual or unexpected links between graphic or abstract elements of the composition. Factor V, named “New Elements Within and Outside the Frame,” includes constituents associated with responses requiring risk taking. Confirmator y factor analysis via LISREL of the data from the Hong Kong sample did not obtain a good fit for the five-factor model generated in the German study (GFI = .910, CFI = .810, X2 (34) = 1200, p ≤ .000). Although the factor loadings of creativity components on the proposed factors were statistically significant, those of the third factor, Speed (Sp) and Perspective (Pe), were very low in our sample (Table 5). In addition, in the original five-factor model, four factors were quite weak, as they had only two variables loading on them. In both the Ger man sample and the Hong Kong sample, Speed was negatively related to Perspective.
Relatively low factor loadings and R2 for some of the constituents for ming factors in the five-factor model in our Hong Kong Chinese sample prompted an exploration of an alternative factorial model drawn from our empirical data. A principal components factor analysis was performed to examine three- and four-factor solutions. This conventional method of factor extraction was chosen because it is relatively free of any assumptions regarding the distribution, thus the solution can be robust. A varimax rotation was used to maximize the clar ity of the factor structure.The four-factor solution produced the factors that seemed to be interpretable and theoretically meaningful. The four factors accounted for 67.6% of the common variance in the sample. Table 6 lists the rotated factor loadings for the subscales and the item communalities together with the factor loadings
Structure Coefficients From Confirmatory Factor Analysis of the Five-Factor Model
Factor I: Direct fragment-dependent usage
Factor II:Composition
Factor III: Perspective and Speed
Factor IV: Unconventionality/humor
Factor V: New elements
Note. GFI = .910, CFI = .810, X2(34) = 1200, p ≤ .000, AIC for: (a) baseline model = 6209, (b) tested model = 1264, (c) saturated model = 132; * p ≤ .01, two-tailed test
obtained from the German sample (Urban & Jellen, 1996).
Factor I is labeled “Composition and Novelty,” as the four components forming this factor—Connections Made With Lines (Cl), Connections That Contribute to the Theme (Cth), New Elements (Ne), and Perspective(Pe)—pertain to responses that link the existing elements and add the new ones to the composition to create an integrated whole. The two constituents of Factor I, Cl and Cth, formed a factor in the German sample labeled Composition. Factor II, named “Risk Taking,” embodies the two constituents associated with Boundary Breaking (Bfd & Bfi) as well as Speed (Sp). Factor III, labeled “Basic Fragment-Dependent Usage,” embodies Continuation (Cn) and Completion (Cm). The constituents forming this factor require responses that do not go beyond test stimuli included in the main frame. In the German sample a third cons tituent, Fragment-Dependent Boundary Breaking (Bfd), was associated with this factor. In our data, however, Bfd emerged in Factor II, but with a second high-
est loading of .344 on this Factor. Factor IV, Unconventionality and Humor, was comprised of two constituents, Humor (Hu) and Unconventionality (Uctotal). The structure of this factor was identical in the German and Hong Kong samples.
Concurrent Validity
To evaluate concurrent validity of the TCT-DP in ter ms of students’ self-evaluations and teachers’ judgments, the correlation coefficients between these variables and composite creativity scores on the TCT-DP were computed. It was expected that the TCT-DP scores would show a positive moderate correlation with students’ self-evaluations and a negligible correlation with teachers’ judgments.
Data presented in Table 7show that correlation coefficients between the TCT-DP scores and self-rated creativity ranged from r = .22 for the entire sample, to r = .31 in the top intelligence group. Even though these statistically significant (p ≤ .01) correlation coefficients are low,
Results of a Principal Components Factor Analysis With Varimax Rotation of the TCT-DP Data
Factors and Factor loadings
Factor I: Composition & novelty
Line connections (Cl) .812 (.72)*
Theme connections (Cth) .811 (.64) New elements (Ne)
Factor II: Risk taking
Factor III: Basic fragment dependent usage
Continuations (Cn) .775 (.74)
Completion (Cm) .774 (.49)
Factor IV: Unconventionality/humor
Unconventionality (Uc) .773 (.67)
Humor (Hu) .686 (.68)
Note. *Numbers in brackets show factor loadings for the constituent of a given factor in the Urban and Jellen study (1996).
it seems that the students madea distinction between creativity, intelligence, and school achievements, as their self-assessed creativity does not show statistically significant correlation either with the Raven’s scores (r = .05) or school grades (r = -.01).
A class teacher, as well as teachers of Chinese, English, mathematics, science, geography, history, and other subjects including arts, music, and physical education, were asked to rate the creativity of each of their students. The cor relation coefficients showed either negative (class teacher r = -.15) or ver y low positive relationships with the student’s TCT-DP score. The correlation coef f icient between the average of the teachers’ ratings and the TCT-DP scoreslisted in Table 7 shows that there was essentially no correlation between the TCT-DP scores and teacher-rated creativity (median r = .09). It seems that the implicit concepts of creativity
held by the teachers have very little to do with the construct measured by the TCT-DP. Surprisingly, the teachers’ ratings of the students’ creativity showed equally marginal correlation with the students’ intelligence scores (r = -.01). The highest correlation coefficient was obtained between the teachers’ ratings of creativity and the students’ academic achievements (r = .16, p ≤ .01).
Discr iminant Validity
To assess the discriminant validity of the TCT-DP, relationships between the test scores and other theoretical concepts such as intelligence and academic achievements were examined. Based on earlier studies (Matczak et al., 2000; Urban & Jellen, 1996), it was expected that the correlation coefficients between the TCT-DP scores and
Correlation Coefficients and Descriptive Statistics for the Creativity Scores, Raven’s, School Marks, Self and Teachers’ Ratings
Raw Raven’s Self-RatingsTeacher’s RatingsCurrent School Marks
Creativity scores: Entire sample.280* (2275)1 .224* (2126).085 (1021).217* (2120)
Creativity scores: Top 3.5% Ravens .011 (88).307* (84)-.119 (57).213* (88)
Raw Ravens .045 (2126)-.01 (1044).382* (2176)
Self-ratings .038 (962)-.013 (1880)
Teacher’s ratings .157* (978)
Mean 48.32.792.8157.64
SD 8.21 1.15 1.0 15.85
Note. *p ≤ .01, two-tailed test; alpha level significant after the Bonferroni correction to control error rate was calculated with an online formula provided at http://home.clara.net/sisa/bonfer.htm
1 Numbers in parentheses refer to number of participants (N).
scores obtained on a nonverbal test of intelligence would be low in the entire sample and close to zero in the top intelligence group. Where school academic achievement is concerned, it was expected that there would be a low, but statistically not significant correlation with the TCTDP scores, as the Hong Kong school system is based on memorization and requires analytical skills, rather than divergent thinking skills. Much higher positive correlation was expect ed between school g r ades and t he Raven’s.
The Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients were computed for the entire sample (N = 2,275) and for the group of students with the top 3.5% perfor mance on the Raven’s test. The results presented in Table 7 show that, considering the whole sample, the correlation between the total TCT-DP scores and the scores on the Raven’s Progressive Matrices was low, but statistically significant (r = .28, p ≤ .01). Correlations between the TCT-DP and Raven’s scores dropped to r = .01 for the top intelligence group, probably due to restriction of range on the intelligence variable.
To explore the discriminant validity of the TCT-DP fur ther, creativity scores were correlated with current academic achievements of the students in all school subjects. Data presented in Table 7 show thatthe correlation coeff icients for the TCT-DP scores and the current school grades in the entire sample, as well as in the top intelligence groups, were rather low, but statistically sig-
nif icant. These results did not confirm our expectations. In the Polish study (Matczak et al., 2000) the correlation coeff icients between the TCT-DP scores and school grades for children aged 14–15 averaged .11 and were statistically not significant. As expected, the correlation coeff icient between school grades and Raven’s scores was higher (r = .38) than that between the grades and the TCT-DP.
Descr iptive Statistics
One of the evaluation criteria of any test is the distribution of the test scores. For a test to be rated high on this criterion, it has to have a symmetrical distribution (i.e., the respondents do not all get very high or very low scores). Examination of the frequencies shows that the distr ibution of the TCT-DP scores in the sample is close to a normal distribution with a moderate positive skewness (skewness/standard error = .616/.050 = 12.32) and a lack of extreme scores. The measure of kurtosis by the kurtosis standard error was low (.042/.10 = .42).
In addition, analysis of the means and standard deviations of the TCT-DP obtained for the Hong Kong sample and those reported by Urban and Jellen (1996) for German students presented in Table 8 indicates that the Hong Kong results (M = 21.3, SD = 10.9) were generally lower than those of German students (M = 27.48, SD = 8.96). No significant gender difference was observed in
Means and Standard Deviations of the TCT-DP by Age and Populations
M 18.5028.520.8428.322.1125.822.0326.519.8928.3 SD 9.608.910.99.410.868.711.310.111.067.7
Min1.0881.081.08101.0851.08
Max52.775658.155553.854357.085357.56
N 186130736186825603298180
Note.1Data regarding minimum and maximum scores and size of the sample for this age group are not provided in the TCT-DP manual (Urban & Jellen, 1996).
the Hong Kong sample on the TCT-DP (21.30 vs. 21.27, t[2148] = .023, p ≥ .05). These results are consistent with those reported for the German sample (Urban & Jellen, 1996).
We conducted a comparison of the total creativity scores among participants of different ages. The results of analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Sheffe’s test showed no significant age differences among the four age groups 13, 14, 15, and 16, (F[3, 1969] = 2.57, p ≥ .05, η2 = .004). Statistically significant differences were observed between the groups of 12, 14, and 15 year of age (F [2, 1553] = 5.27, p ≤ .01, η2 = .10).These results accorded, to some extent, with those obtained from the German sample. Although Urban and Jellen (1996) reported improvement in the mean creativity scores with increasing age, this trend applied only to ages 4–10. From the age of 11 onward, no statistically significant age differences were found in the normal school population.
screening instrument in Poland for identifying gifted and creative students” (p. 90).
Although the test authors (Jellen & Urban, 1989) have maintainedthat the TCT-DP is culture-sensitive and culture-fair, the psychometric data regarding the test come predominantly from European samples (Kovac, 1996; Necka, 1993; Urban & Jellen, 1996). In addition, infor mation concerning reliability and validity of the original version of the test is not as comprehensive as one would like. Thus, this study adds some comparative data from another cultural setting and identifies areas for further investigations.
Reliability of the TCT-DP
This study was undertaken to examine, on a Hong Kong Chinese sample, the psychometric properties of the TCT-DP, a relatively new paper-and-pencil test designed for an initial, simple, and economical assessment of a person’s creative potential. As the administration and scoring procedures of the TCT-DP are much less time-consuming than the TTCT, the former test could have some potential for wider use provided that there is enough empir ical data supporting its reliability and validity.Davis (1995)reported, “Polish researchers recommended that the TCT-DP test be normed and used as an off icial
The results of this study indicate that internal consistency coefficients, measured by Cronbach’s alpha, of the 13 subscale scores both in the test and retest situations were moderate, but acceptable (above .73). As the test manual has not provided data regarding the internal consistency of the TCT-DP, no comparison could be made here with the original version of the test. However, the coeff icients repor ted for the Polish language version of the TCT-DP for different age groups (Matczak et al., 2000) were comparable with the one obtained from the Hong Kong sample, as they ranged from .65 (for ages 7–15) to .75 (for ages 16–19).
These moderate values of the coefficient regarding internal consistency of the test items do not speak against the use of the Chinese language version of the test. This result seems to support the assumption of the test authors that different evaluation criteria are related to the various aspects of a person’s creative potential, which are associ-
ated with the same construct, that is, divergent thinking. Similarly, the interrater reliability correlation coefficients of all subscales, except for Humor (Hu) and Unconventionality b (Ucb), were high (between .85 and 99) and comparable with those reported for European samples (Matczak et al., 2000; Urban & Jellen, 1996). The much lower reliability of scoring for Humor and Unconventionality b may reflect either a relative subjectivity of judgment pertaining to humorous, witty, or funny expressions (Hu) or to what can be perceived as unconventional or symbolic expression (Ucb). Jellen and Urban (1989) pointed out that scorers native to a given culture should be used in order to capture the humorous nuances in participants’ responses. Our data seem to suggest that, even when scorers come from within the culture, they still may differ in their assessment of Humor and Unconventionality b subscales. Thus, it is quite likely that there are some measurement problems with the Humor scale on the TCT-DP. As the original test manual (Urban & Jellen, 1996) and the manual for the Polish version of the test (Matczak et al.) do not present interrater coefficients for each of the scales, no comparison can be made here. However, it is worth noting that humor, its expression, and its appreciation are particularly culture dependent. Studies of implicit concepts of creativity among Chinese found that “humor” or “a sense of humor,” which are consistently reported as part of Western explicit(Cropley, 1992; Guilford, 1981; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989) and implicit (Runco, 1984; Runco & Bahleda, 1987; Sternberg, 1985)concepts of creativity, was absent (Chan & Chan, 1999; Rudowicz & Hui, 1996, 1997; Rudowicz & Yue, 2000). In addition, Hong Kong, mainland Chinese, and Taiwanese university students did not consider having a sense of humor as a much desired characteristic(Rudowicz & Yue).Even more, in Lam’s (1996) study, having a sense ofhumor was ranked among the least valued traits of the ideal pupil by Hong Kong teachers who were adopting traditional teaching approaches in their classrooms. Perhaps for this reason, very few responses of the secondary school students participating in our study scored for humor (86% had no scored responses for humor). These differences in the perception of humor should be taken into account when interpreting and comparing the results of the TCT-DP, as well as the results of other creativity tests such as the TTCT, across different cultural samples because both of them include humor as one of the dimensions of the test. Some questions also arose as to the appropriateness of the Unconventionality a(Uca) and Unconventionality b (Ucb) criteria for our sample. The first criterion, Uca, aims
at capturing responses that are indicative of unconventional manipulation of the test paper, such as rotating, folding the testing sheet, or extending drawing to the reverse side of the sheet. The second criterion, Ucb, looks for responses that are abstract or surrealistic as expressed by the drawn f igures or by the utilization of fictional themes for the picture. In our sample, 100% and 89% of students had no scored responses on the Uca and Ucb criteria, respectively. Unfortunately, the only data available in the literature regarding frequency of responses along these criteria are for the German children aged 4–8 reported byUrban (1991). Among the oldest children in this sample—that is, the 8year-olds—around 76% had not scored for the Uca and 92% for the Ucb. These figures are only slightly different than those coming from our much older sample. Significantly more empirical data is needed regarding the response rate along these two criteria for samples of different ages and cultural backgrounds. In our sample, a small increase in the response rate along the Ucb criterion was observed across ages 12–15, with the drop at the age of 16. The percentages of participants who scored on this criterion were 8.6% for the 12-year-olds, and 14.3% and 9% for the 15- and 16-year-olds, respectively.
Test-retest reliabilities were lower in our sample (r = .35, r = .41, p ″ .01) than those reported by Urban and Jellen (1996), in which the interval between testing situations was 8–12 weeks. However, this coefficient would have still been statistically significant (p ≤ .01) even if the samplesize had been as small as n = 45. The correlation coefficient reported, without data on the sample size, for the Polish sample retested after 6 weekswas r = .46, whereas the rank correlation coefficients for German samples in various smaller repetition studies during the nor ming yielded rank correlation coefficients of r = .38 to r = .78; with very few exceptions they were statistically signif icant (.05 > p > .001; Urban & Jellen, p. 49). There is no indication in the manual or other published works which versions of the test were used in these different studies to examine the test-retest reliabilities, nor any information about the length of the interval between the two testing situations.
Very low stability of scores on Boundary Breaking scales (Bfd & Bfi) and Unconventionality c (Ucc), as well as lack of stability on Humor (Hu) and Unconventionality b (Ucb), is of some concern. In addition, lack of data in the available literature regarding the test-retest reliabilities for different subscales of the test for various cultural samples does not allow compar ison of the Hong Kong data with other samples.
There could be a number of reasons for such rela-
tively poor test–retest reliabilities. First, our data seem to suggest that performance on the TCT-DP, similar to other creativity tests (Lissitz & Willhoft, 1985), is sensitive to a respondent’s interest in drawing a picture. This remark is consistent with Torrance’s (1984) observation that test-retest reliabilities in measures of creativity may be influenced considerably by the motivational levels of the testees. It is also consistent with studies pointing to the role of intrinsic motivation in creative performance (Collins & Amabile, 1999; Nickerson, 1999). Second, as reportedin Dacey and Lennon (1998),creativity has been found to be a relatively unstable trait as compared with other traits (e.g., shyness). Moreover, creativity seems to show the greatest instability during adolescence Third, the interval between the test-retest situation in this study was longer, 3 months, than in the Polish study, where the interval was 6 weeks. This factor combined with the age of participants could have contributed to the relatively low cor relation between the test-retest situations. Fourth, the test-retest subsample was somewhat exceptional, as around 9% of the low-band schools and 26% of the high-band schools participated in the retest situation, but no medium-band schools participated. Those disparate participation rates, caused by administrative difficulties, could also affect our findings regarding the test scores st ability. Fifth, one can also argue that, unlike most IQ measures, a creativity measure may not be the same when presented to a person for the second time. Because the person has seen the task before, it is no longer a novel task and, as such, there is less interest and motivation to proceed. Further investigations are needed to learn more about the test–retest reliability of the TCT-DP for different ages and populations. Special effort should be made to secure a more representative sample for the retest situation.
Validity of the TCT-DP
The f ive-factor structure of the TCT-DP demonstrated with the German sample for Form A of the test (Urban & Jellen, 1996) did not receive adequate support from confirmatory factor analysis on Hong Kong data via LISREL. Further examination of the Hong Kong data using exploratory factor analysis with a varimax rotation showed that a four-factor model could obtain good empir ical support. The four factors explained around 68% of the common variance of the constituents. The f actors seemed to be interpretable and theoretically meaningful. The basic structure of the four-factor solution differed only slightly from the structure observed in
the five-factor model derived from the German sample and the weakest factor, Factor III, Perspective and Speed, did not emerge in the four-factor solution.
The concurrent validity of the TCT-DP in terms of the students’ self-evaluations was statistically significant, b ut received moderate support from our data set. Teachers’ ratings lacked such support. One of the reasons for negligible correlation coefficients between the test results and the teachers’ ratings could be the presence of a “halo effect,” which does not allow discrimination between creativity and other related constructs. Reports from previous studies seem to support our data because they have suggested that teachers are rather poor raters of students’ creativity (Tang, 1995). Teachers’ evaluations are also influenced by the students’ cognitive skills, personality traits, and school behavior (Hocevar, 1981; Runco, 1984). Although it is vital for educational endeavor that teachers have an ability to recognize the creative potential of their students, the prevailing situation seems to be rather distant from this expectation.
Data from our Hong Kong sample provided encouraging empirical evidence for the discriminant validity of the TCT-DP and demonstrated the relative independence of the creativity scores and intelligence scores. The strength of correlation between scores on the TCT-DP and Raven’s Progressive Matrices for the Hong Kong sample (r = .28, p ≤ .01) corresponds closely to the one obt ained by Wolanska and Necka (r = .21) for the Polish sample aged 11–18, as reported by Urban and Jellen (1996, p. 50). In Matczak et al.’s (2000) study, this coefficient was .31 for secondary school students (ages 15–19) and .07 for primary school students (ages 7-14). The correlation coefficient for the top scorers on the Raven’s Matr ices for the Hong Kong sample was close to zero (r = .01) and on par with the one recorded for the German mathematicall y highly talented students (Urban & Jellen). The findings of the present study regarding the discriminant validity of the TCT-DP measured by the correlation between the creativity scores and the intelligence scores were consistent with the previous findings, suggesting that the scores on the measures of creativity and intelligence do not correlate highly in randomly selected samples (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; Hattie, 1980; Ochse, 1990). The correlation is negligible for the high intelligence group. This, however, can be explained primarily through a lack of variability within the restricted sample.
The results regarding the discriminant validity of the TCT-DP scores and students’ academic achievement received only moderate support. The correlation
between the total TCT-DP score and current academic achievement ranged from .217 for the entire sample to 213 for the top intelligence group.
Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive data compiled in the current study showed a symmetrical distribution, with a slight positive skewness of the TCT-DP scores. This observation indicates that the TCT-DP can differentiate between students of different levels of their creative potential. Compared to the German sample, the Hong Kong students’ mean scores on the TCT-DP were much lower, whereas variation among the students’ scores was higher. It is likely that the total mean score on the TCT-DP was affected by the overrepresentation of low-band schools in the Hong Kong sample. This contention is consistent with Rudowicz and Hui’s (2002) finding that the school band is a good predictor of creative development as measured by the TCT-DP.
In addition Jellen and Urban (1989), in their discussion of results generated from cross-cultural samples, have argued that significant differences, expressed in quantitative terms, exist among samples due to their tolerance of diversity, level of democracy or otherwise acceptance of autocratic values, and attitudes toward independence. Therefore, quantitative differences in the level of performance on the TCT-DP are to be expected among groups selected from dif ferent sociocultural populations.
To conclude, the psychometric properties of the TCT-DP for Hong Kong students proved to be comparable to those obtained for European samples. Some concer ns arose, however, as to the stability of the TCT-DP scores on some of the scales, as well as to the appropriateness of some of the test criteria for different cultural settings. Fur ther studies exploring stability using both Form A and Form B of the test are needed. In addition, studies checking congruity between scores on the two forms of the test are indicated. Further research and theoretical questions arose in relation to the predictive validity of the TCT-DP—that is, whether there is a consistent and significant relationship between the students’ scores on the TCT-DP and their real-life creative accomplishments. Thus, the TCT-DP, when employed for selection of creatively gifted students, should be used in conjunction with other ratings such as creative products, parents’ ratings, and creative personality checklists, and the interpret ation of its results should t ake into account the specifics of each student’s cultural background in order to avoid missing students with special creative talents.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer.
Chan, D. W., & Chan, L. (1999). Implicit theories of creativity: Teachers’ perception of student characteristics in Hong Kong. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 185–195.
Christensen, P. R., Guilford, J. P., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1960). Alternate uses. Beverly Hills, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Collins, M. A., & Amabile, T. A. (1999). Motivation and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 297–312). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cropley, A. J. (1992). More ways than one: Fostering creativity Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using? Roeper Review,23, 72–79.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds), Theories of creativity (pp. 190–212). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Dacey, J. S. & Lennon., K. H. (1998). Understanding creativity: The interplay of biological, psychological, and social factors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
David, A. G., & Scott, J. A. (1978). Training creative thinking. Huntington: Kr ieger.
Davis, G. A. (1995). Por trait of the creative person. The Educational Forum, 59, 423–429.
Flanagan, M. L., & Gallup, H. F. (1967). Creativity training. Psychological Reports, 21(3), 934.
Gagné, F. (1985). Giftedness and talent: Reexamining a reexamination of the def initions. Gifted Child Quarterly, 29, 103–112.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence. New York: Wiley.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of the intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267–293.
Guilford, J. P. (1976). Creativity tests for children. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
Guilford, J. P. (1981). Developmental characteristics. Factors that aid and binder creativity. In J. C. Gowan, J. Khatena, & E. P. Torrance (Eds), Creativity: Its educational implications (pp. 59-71). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Hattie, J. (1980). Should creativity test be administered under testlike conditions? An empirical study of three alternative condition. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 87–98.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critiques. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450–464.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critiques of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronming, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–76). New York: Plenum Press.
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1989). Assessing creative potential world-wide: The first cross-cultural application of the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production. Gifted Education International, 6, 78–86.
Khaleefa, O. H., Erdos, G., & , & Ashira, I. H. (1996). Creativity in an indigenous, Afro-Arab Islamic cultural: The case in Sudan. J ournal of Creative Behavior , 30 , 268–282.
Khaleefa, O. H., Erdos, G., & Ashria, I. H. (1997). Traditional education and creativity in an Afro-Arab culture: The case of Sudan. Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 201–211.
Khatena, J. (1973). Creative level and its effects on training college adults to think creatively with words. Psychological Reports, 32(1), 336.
Kovac, T. (1996). Urban’s creativity test: Some data gathered from Slovakia. Studia Psychologica, 38, 233–235
Lam, M. O. (1996). Conceptions of an ideal pupil and a creative pupil among primary school teachers using different teaching approaches in Hong Kong. Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Hong Kong.
Lim, W., & Plucker, J. A. (2001). Creativity through a lens of social responsibility: Implicit theories of creativity with Korean samples. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 115–130.
Lissitz, R. W. & Willhoft, J. L. (1985). A methodological study of the Torrance Test of Creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 22, 1–11.
Lynn, R., Chan, J. W. C., & Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Reaction times and intelligence in Chinese British children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 443–452.
Matczak, A., Jaworowska, A., & Stanczak, J. (2000). Rysunkowy test tworczego myslenia. K. K. Urbana i H. G. Jellena. [K. K. Urban and H. G. Jellenís Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production ]. Warszawa, Poland: Pracownia Testow Psychologicznych Polskiego Towarzystwa Psychologicznego.
Necka, E. (1993). Creativity as the secondary integration of object features. Studia Psychologiczne, 31(1), 31–48.
Nicker son, R. S. (1999). Enhancing creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 392–430). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology,36, 225–241.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: The determinants of creative genius. Cambr idge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Raina, M. K., Kumar, G., & Raina, V. K. (1980). A cross-cultural study of parental perception of the ideal child. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 5, 234–241.
Raven, J. C. (1986). Manual of Raven’s Progressive Matrices. London: H. K. Lewis.
Renzulli, J. S. (1982). Myth: The gifted constitutes 3–5% of the population: “Dear Mr. and Mrs. Copernicus: We regret to infor m you . . .” Gifted Child Quarterly,26, 11–14.
Renzulli, J. S. (1988). A decade of dialogue on the three-ring conception of giftedness. Roeper Review, 11, 18–25.
Renzulli, J. S., & Callahan, C. M. (1975). Developing creativity training activities. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19, 38–45.
Renzulli, J. S., & Delcourt, M. A. (1986). The legacy and logic of research on the identification of gifted persons. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30, 20–23.
Renzulli, J. S., Owen, S. V., & Callahan, C. M. (1974). Fluency, flexibility, and originality as a function of group size. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 107–113.
Rudowicz, E. (2003). Creativity and culture: Two way interaction. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 273–290.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1996). Creativity and a creative person: Hong Kong perspective. Australasian Journal of Gifted Education, 5(2), 5–11.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1997). The creative personality: Hong Kong perspective. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 12, 139–157.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (1998). Hong Kong Chinese people’s view of creativity. Gifted Education International, 13 , 159–174.
Rudowicz, E., & Hui, A. (2002). School banding and creativity of Hong Kong junior secondary school students. Educational Research Journal, 17, 43–62.
Rudowicz, E., & Yue, X. D. (2000). Concepts of creativity: Similarities and differences among Hong Kong, Mainland, and Taiwanese Chinese. Journal of Creative Behavior, 34, 175–192.
Runco, M. A. (1984). Teachers’ judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 711–717.
Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1987). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 93–98.
Spinks, J. A., Ku-Yu, S. Y., Shek, D. T. L., & Bacon-Shone, J. H. (1995). The Hong Kong Torrance test of creative thinking [Tech. Rep.]. Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong.
Stein, M. I. (1953). Creativity and culture. Journal of Psychology, 36, 311–322.
Steinmetz, C. S. (1968). Creativity training: A testing program that became a sales training program. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 179–186.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607–627.
Stypulkowska, J. (2000). Humor and other aspects of drawing performance in a creativity test. Psychologia Wychowawcza, 43, 221–226.
Tang, C. Y. (1995). Use of the Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production in assessing creativity among primary school children in Hong Kong. Unpublished paper, Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong.
Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity (pp. 99–121). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Manual for scoring and interpreting results. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Services.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1984). Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Streamlined (revised) manual. Figural A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P., & Goff, K. (1989). A quiet revolution. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 136–145.
Treffinger, D. J., Speedie, S. M., & Brunner, W. D. (1974). Improving children’s creative problem solving ability: The Purdue Creativity Project. Journal of Creative Behavior, 8, 20–30.
Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 177–191.
Urban, K.K. (1997). Modeling creativity: The convergence of divergence or the art of balancing. In J. Chan, R. Li, & J. Spinks (Eds), The 11th World Conference on Gifted and Talented Children: Maximizing potential: Lengthening and strengthening our stride (pp. 39–50). Hong Kong: The University of Hong Kong, Social Sciences Research Centre.
Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1996). Test for creative thinking–Drawing production. Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.
Wallace, B., & Acklaw, J. (1982). Giftedness: Definition and identification. Gifted Education International, 1(1), 3–5.
This research was funded by the City University of Hong Kong Strategic Research Grant No 700024.
I am grateful to Dr. C. K. Cheung for helpful critical comments on an earlier version of this paper.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Elisabeth Rudowicz, Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong, 81 Tat Chee Ave., Kowloon Tong, SAR China. E-mail can be sent to ssliza@cityu.edu.hk