ArticlePDF Available

Abstract and Figures

Over the decades, creativity and imagination research developed in parallel, but they surprisingly rarely intersected. This paper introduces a new theoretical model of creative imagination, which bridges creativity and imagination research, as well as presents a new psychometric instrument, called the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA), developed to measure creative imagery abilities understood in accordance with this model. Creative imagination is understood as constituted by three interrelated components: vividness (the ability to create images characterized by a high level of complexity and detail), originality (the ability to produce unique imagery), and transformativeness (the ability to control imagery). TCIA enables valid and reliable measurement of these three groups of abilities, yielding the general score of imagery abilities and at the same time making profile analysis possible. We present the results of nine studies on a total sample of more than 1,700 participants, showing the factor structure of TCIA using confirmatory factor analysis, as well as provide data confirming this instrument’s validity and reliability. The availability of TCIA for interested researchers may result in new insights and possibilities of integrating the fields of creativity and imagination science.
Content may be subject to copyright.
Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities
Dorota M. Jankowska1, Maciej Karwowski1*
1Department of Educational Sciences, Academy of Special Education, Poland
Submitted to Journal:
Frontiers in Psychology
Specialty Section:
Cognition
ISSN:
1664-1078
Article type:
Original Research Article
Received on:
06 Jul 2015
Accepted on:
02 Oct 2015
Provisional PDF published on:
02 Oct 2015
Frontiers website link:
www.frontiersin.org
Citation:
Jankowska DM and Karwowski M(2015) Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities. Front. Psychol. 6:1591.
doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01591
Copyright statement:
© 2015 Jankowska and Karwowski. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the
Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution and reproduction in other
forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) or licensor are credited and that the original
publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use,
distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
This Provisional PDF corresponds to the article as it appeared upon acceptance, after peer-review. Fully formatted PDF
and full text (HTML) versions will be made available soon.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 1
RUNNING HEAD: New Test of Creative Imagination
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities
12
13
Dorota M. Jankowska, Maciej Karwowski
14
Academy of Special Education, Poland
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
Authors’ Note and Acknowledgement
42
Dorota M. Jankowska, Maciej Karwowski, Department of Educational Sciences,
43
Academy of Special Education, Szczesliwicka St., 40, 02353 Warsaw, Poland.
44
Please address correspondence to Maciej Karwowski (mackar@aps.edu.pl).
45
The study was supported by a grant from the National Science Center, Poland [grant
46
number UMO 2011/03/N/HS6/05153].
47
48
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 2
Abstract
49
Over the decades, creativity and imagination research developed in parallel, but they
50
surprisingly rarely intersected. This paper introduces a new theoretical model of creative
51
visual imagination, which bridges creativity and imagination research, as well as presents a
52
new psychometric instrument, called the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA),
53
developed to measure creative imagery abilities understood in accordance with this model.
54
Creative imagination is understood as constituted by three interrelated components: vividness
55
(the ability to create images characterized by a high level of complexity and detail),
56
originality (the ability to produce unique imagery), and transformativeness (the ability to
57
control imagery). TCIA enables valid and reliable measurement of these three groups of
58
abilities, yielding the general score of imagery abilities and at the same time making profile
59
analysis possible. We present the results of nine studies on a total sample of more than 1,700
60
participants, showing the factor structure of TCIA using confirmatory factor analysis, as well
61
as provide data confirming this instrument’s validity and reliability. The availability of TCIA
62
for interested researchers may result in new insights and possibilities of integrating the fields
63
of creativity and imagination science.
64
65
Keywords: creative imagination, vividness, originality, transformativeness, TCIA
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 3
1. Introduction
74
Imagination pervades human experience. The activity of visual imagination encompasses
75
creating, interpreting, and transforming vivid mental representations (Thompson, Hsiao, &
76
Kosslyn, 2011). Its creative function, which stems from engagement in the creative process, is
77
most often discussed in connection with the imaginary games of childhood (Hoff, 2005;
78
Singer & Singer, 1992) as well as artistic and scientific work (Root-Bernstein, 2014;
79
Rothenberg, 1995). However, the belief that creative imagination is one of the major human
80
abilities contributing to the effective use of the creative potential (Runco, Nemiro, &
81
Walberg, 1998) is not a matter of recent years only. The first documented study on
82
imagination was conducted among scientists nearly one and a half centuries ago (Galton,
83
1880), and with the development of research on creativity test instruments measuring visual
84
creative imagination were created. However, the existing tests do not take into account the
85
complexity of creative imagination, which became an impulse for developing the Test of
86
Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA), whose theoretical assumptions as well as selected aspects
87
of validity and reliability we present in this paper. The instrument we propose enables profile
88
analysis of visual creative imagination, thereby treating imagination as a complex and
89
multidimensional disposition comprising specific characteristics (vividness, originality,
90
transformative ability) distinguished in the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability. In
91
this model, creative imagination is defined as ability to create and transform representations
92
that are based on the material of past observations but that significantly transcend them by
93
creating the so-called creative representations (see Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015) (Figure
94
1). Although creative imagination understood in this way is part of the broad construct of
95
creative cognition (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992), we perceive creative imagination in a more
96
narrow way, than we do creative cognition.
97
---------- Insert Figure 1 Here --------
98
99
1.1.Problems with Measures of Creative Imagination
100
Test-based research on creativity originated with Guilfords (1950) theory of divergent
101
thinking. With time, Guilfords proposals of tasks measuring the characteristics of divergent
102
thinking gave rise to numerous tests, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT;
103
Torrance, 1974) or Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM; Torrance, 1981).
104
For many years, this tradition of creativity research remained the dominant approach. And
105
even though imagination measurement in psychology and related sciences has a longer
106
tradition than research on divergent thinking (Galton, 1880), it was the post-Guilfordian
107
orientation that exerted considerable influence on the testing of creative imagination, not the
108
other way around. The influence was so strong that the contribution of creative imagination
109
was included in the first tests for the assessment of divergent thinking, an example being the
110
“Imaginative Stories Task” in the Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking (MCTC; Goldman,
111
1965; Torrance, 1962), the original version of TCAM. The combination of these abilities in
112
divergent thinking resulted in a blurring of the concept of imagination, previously well
113
defined in the literature. Interestingly, many questionnaires for exploring visual imagination
114
were developed in parallel (e.g., Marks, 1973; Sheehan, 1967), measuring mainly the
115
following: (1) imagery vividness the clarity, complexity, and elaboration of the imagery
116
generated; (2) imagery control the ability to manipulate the imagery generated; and (3)
117
imagery style a preference for imagery-based or verbal strategies of encoding and
118
processing information (MacInnis, 1987). The assessment criteria in the newly developed test
119
measures were nearly identical with those in typical divergent thinking tests, for example:
120
flexibility, elaboration, originality, asymmetry, and abstraction in the Franck Drawing
121
Completion Test (FDCT; Anastasi & Schaefer, 1971), flexibility, elaboration, and originality
122
in the Visual Imagination Test (VIT; McHenry & Shouksmith, 1970), or flexibility and
123
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 4
originality in the Creative Imagination Test (CIT; Schubert, 1973). On the other hand, the
124
influence of Guilfordian tests on the practice of testing and creative imagination assessment
125
may not be so obvious as it is described to be. Long before Guilford's (1950) famous address,
126
which gave impulse to the development of creativity psychology, Simpson (1922) presented
127
the Test for Creative Imagination (Visual), in which the counterpart of transformativeness
128
was the creative changes indicator, which was the prototype for the flexibility of thinking.
129
This measure was computed based on the product of the number of all the drawings produced
130
in the test and the number of changes between the drawings (i.e., the number of transition
131
moments between different categories). It can therefore be supposed that first definitions of
132
imagery transformation ability were positioned within the area of meanings and their
133
interpretations, just like the flexibility of thinking.
134
With time, many empirical studies appeared that demonstrated a weak relationship
135
between imagination and divergent thinking (Campos & Gonzalez, 1993; Campos & Pérez,
136
1989; Parrott & Strongman, 1985), which is confirmed by the meta-analysis summing up
137
these studies (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). It therefore became justified to treat these
138
constructs as distinct and relatively independent components of creativity, each having its
139
own measurement specificity. Nevertheless, the influence of the post-Guilfordian tradition
140
was still so strong that even after the publication of the Test of Creative Thinking by Jellen
141
and Urban (TCT-DP; Jellen & Urban, 1986), which, in some sense, overcame the dominance
142
of the Guilfordian approach in thinking about creativity, the scoring criteria in new creative
143
imagination tests were still a reproduction of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.
144
For instance, in Prueba de Imaginación Creativa (PIC; Barraca, Poveda, Artola, Mosteino,
145
Sanchez, & Ancillo, 2004) five scales were distinguished, of which four are repetitions of the
146
components of divergent thinking: fluency of ideas, flexibility of thinking, originality of the
147
responses, elaboration of the responses, and use of creative details (color, shadows,
148
expansiveness, rotations, new perspectives). And while references to fluency, which can be
149
linked with the generativity (fertility) of imagination, are to some extent justifiable, defining
150
the originality of the generated imagery in terms of the rarity of their occurrence is an
151
erroneous oversimplification that results from copying the scoring criteria for divergent
152
thinking. The creative aspect of imagery manifests itself in generating new ideas and
153
hypotheses, which are rare by nature, but above all they are innovative (Magid, Sheskin, &
154
Schulz, 2015; Ward, 1994). This way of thinking about the originality of imagery is visible in
155
the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI; Karwowski, 2008a, 2008b), where the participant's
156
task is to imagine and draw schematic drawings representing something that does not exist
157
but, in the participant's opinion, should exist.
158
Reproducing the scoring criteria for divergent in creative imagination tests resulted in
159
the similarity of test tasks. For example, the FDCT matrix is almost an exact copy of the
160
matrix in the figural part of TTCT Picture Completion. The situation is similar in the case of
161
PIC and the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI, Ren, Li, Zhang, & Wang, 2012). They all
162
consist of incomplete figures to be completed and captioned, the difference being that FDCT
163
has 12 figures, PIC has 4, and in TTCT and TCI there are 10 of them. This is undoubtedly a
164
reference to the Sketches Test, in which the participant is given a simple basic figure, such as
165
a circle, that he or she is supposed to complement in such a way as to produce a recognizable
166
sign (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966). A similarity is also observable in verbal tasks. In the
167
version of PIC that is intended for children, the tasks in the verbal part require describing: (1)
168
the possible consequences of all squirrels turning into dinosaurs, (2) new applications of
169
plastic pipes, and (3) various endings of a situation presented in a picture. In the verbal part of
170
the TCI, participants generate alternative endings for a briefly outlined story. It is not difficult
171
to notice that these are typical tasks from the Remote Consequences Tests of the Unusual
172
Uses Tests (Guilford, 1967). However, they are not always a copy of Guilford's tasks. In the
173
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 5
TCI test sheet there are 16 elements in groups of four: dots, semicircles, straight lines, and
174
curved lines out of which it is easy to make schematic drawings. Just like in the Make a
175
Figure Test, simple linear elements are provided; however, the essence of the task is not to
176
contrive to arrange as many complex figures as possible out of those elements (Guilford,
177
1967) but to use them for schematically presenting a generated mental image. This shows that
178
the problem of creative imagination tests does not lie in their being inspired by tasks invented
179
by Guilford but in the frequently rather mechanical imitation of their specificity and scoring.
180
Another problem, connected both with the specificity of tasks and with their scoring,
181
is the construct validity of creative imagination tests. Some of those instruments have unclear
182
theoretical roots. FDCT originally served to carry out projective studies of masculinity and
183
femininity characteristics (Franck & Rosen, 1949; Harkley, 1982). Barron (1958) proposed a
184
new version of the test; drawing on the Guilfordian definition of originality, he developed the
185
Originality Scale of FDCT, which placed emphasis on the originality, complexity, and
186
asymmetry of the drawings made. The use of Guilford's theory once again confirms the strong
187
domination of this orientation in the psychology of creativity, since at least two
188
comprehensive theories of creative imagination were already in existence at that time
189
Théodule A. Ribot's (1906) and Lev S. Vygotsky's (1930/2004; 1931/1991).
190
Another problem of creative imagination tests is the time limitations on administering
191
them from 10 minutes in PIC, modeled on TTCT, to 30 minutes in the TCI. Thus, they are
192
mostly tests of speed (MCTC; FDCT; PIC; TCI). As a result, solving these tests requires,
193
above all, quick reaction to tasks. The result obtained in a test may therefore depend not on
194
the actual level of imagery abilities but on intellectual mobility. Individuals with a higher
195
speed of intellectual work will do more test tasks in a specified unit of time, which again
196
indirectly relates to the fluency of thinking, making these tests closer to classic Guilfordian
197
tests in terms of scoring.
198
The next charge serious but overlooked by many researchers is associated with
199
imagery transformation abilities; it concerns the aprocessual character of creative
200
imagination: that is, making inferences about the transformations performed exclusively on
201
the basis of their final outcome, being a reflection of the imagery generated. The simplest
202
schema of inference about transformations is an analysis of the transition from the original
203
image to its final form. In graphic tests based on the Sketches Test (FDCT, PIC, TCI),
204
inference about transformations is based on the analysis of changes in the stimuli evoking the
205
imagery; for example, in FDCT the participant gets one point on a three-point scale for
206
making a drawing that is elaborate in form and not rigidly based on the initial symbol. This is
207
a risky kind of inference about imagery transformation, since it concerns the elaboration and
208
complexity of an image which determine the imagery vividness index to a greater degree
209
than the transformation abilities responsible for the result of the process of reconfiguring or
210
recombining concepts (Ward, 2004). It is therefore legitimate to venture the statement that a
211
majority of creative imagination tests place emphasis on measuring he ability to generate
212
vivid and complex imagery as well as its originality.
213
The problems described, associated with the measurement of creative imagery
214
abilities, were an impulse for us to develop a new instrument. Drawing on the long tradition
215
of research on visual and creative imagination and at the same trying to avoid the
216
shortcomings of the existing tools described above, we developed the Test of Creative
217
Imagery Abilities (TCIA), whose assumptions and selected aspects of validity and reliability
218
we will present in the further sections of this paper.
219
220
1.2.Assessment of Visual Creative Imagination A New Measurement Instrument
221
The Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) measures the intensity of three characteristics
222
of creative imagination distinguished in the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability:
223
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 6
1) vividness the ability of generating clear and distinctive imagery characterized by high
224
complexity, specificity, and elaboration; 2) originality the ability of generating creative
225
imagery characterized by novelty; and 3) transformative ability the ability of modifying and
226
transforming the imagery generated (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015, see also Figure 1).
227
The test can be used in individual and group studies at different age levels from about the
228
age of 4 years to late adulthood.
229
The TCIA test booklet is in A3 format and consists of seven tasks. The first stage of
230
solving each task has an exploratory character. The participant (in a group study) is supposed
231
to give, in an oral or written form, as many images generated on the basis of a simple graphic
232
sign, called the initial figure. Next, he or she selects the most original of the images given
233
and, on its basis, makes a drawing accompanied by a brief description. The instruction
234
stresses the possibility of elaborating and changing the selected image and adding any
235
elements to it in such a way as to create something even more original: “You will find an
236
unfinished drawing on every page of the test. Please write what it reminds you of. The more
237
unusual ideas, the better. Next, underline the idea that you like most. Think of what you can
238
change in it, reshape, and develop it in order to create something even more unique. Draw it
239
the box and give your drawing a title. Good luck!”. In an individual interview, the researcher
240
writes down the participant's answers on a specially prepared answer sheet. Regardless of the
241
manner of testing, the time allowed for solving the test is not limited. Usually, solving the
242
TCIA does not require more than 20 minutes.
243
---------- Insert Figure 2 Here ----------
244
The test has two parallel versions (A and B) that differ only in the position of the signs in
245
version B, each initial imagery-evoking sign is rotated by 180 degrees.
246
---------- Insert Figure 3 Here ----------
247
Most tests measuring creative imagination do not have alternative versions (e.g., FDCT, TCI),
248
which was the main impulse to start work on developing parallel versions of TCIA. The
249
possibility of using the parallel versions of the test is of great importance in educational
250
assessment, particularly when checking the effectiveness of various stimulatory activities.
251
Their use in experiments involving the initial and final measurements of the dependent
252
variable eliminates the necessity of applying the same instrument and thereby increases the
253
internal consistency of the design.
254
The drawings and descriptions of imagery made in TCIA are assessed on three scales
255
based on the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability (the Vividness scale; the
256
Originality scale; the Transformativeness scale). Each scale is scored according to the criteria
257
discussed in detail and illustrated with examples in the test manual (Jankowska & Karwowski,
258
2015). According to these criteria, it is possible to score 0, 1, or 2 points on each scale for a
259
single drawing. The scores on scales are computed by adding up the points given to all the
260
drawings. The total score is the sum of points obtained on the scales: Vividness, Originality,
261
and Transformative Ability. Additionally, the analysis may also cover the index of
262
imagination generativity Imaginative Fluency.
263
---------- Insert Table 1 Here ----------
264
The Vividness scale measures the degree of visualization and elaboration of the
265
imagery generated. A high level of vividness is recognized, for instance, by the following: (A)
266
an abundance of detail in the completion of the initial figure; (B) a clear depiction of motion
267
and dynamics in the drawing; and (3) a complex presentation of metaphorical and symbolic
268
content. The Originality scale measures the novelty of the imagery generated. A high level of
269
originality is attested, for example, by: (D) the depiction of new objects, activities, processes,
270
and events in the drawing that differ considerably from the actually existing ones; (E)
271
surprising and novel presentation of cultural artifacts such as works of art; (F) amusing
272
presentation of contents, suggesting a good sense of humor. The Transformativeness scale
273
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 7
measures the ability of modifying the imagery generated. The scoring criteria refer to basic
274
operations of transforming visual imagery, such as: (G) multiplication multiplying an
275
element of the image; (H) hyperbolization excessive distortion of proportions, for example
276
by emphasizing an element of the image; (I) amplification adding detail to the image (see
277
Figure 2).
278
---------- Insert Figure 4 Here ----------
279
In order to establish the structure of imagery abilities characteristic for a particular
280
person, TCIA scores can be subjected to profile analysis. Each imagery ability is then
281
assessed against the backdrop of the person's other imagination-related skills or against the
282
norms determined for a certain population. The profile thus obtained is useful in predicting
283
the further development of imagination and in deciding on the direction of supportive and
284
stimulatory interventions.
285
In profile-based analysis, high scores on all the three scales attest creative imagery
286
abilities. In the case of vivid imaging ability, the imagery generated is expressive but imitative
287
it is almost an exact reflection of previously perceived and memorized images. In cases of
288
this kind, people should be inspired to creatively combine, non-typically link, and modify the
289
generated images so as to give them features of novelty. Individuals with pro-creative
290
imaging ability should be encouraged to create expressive imagery, add detail to it, and make
291
it dynamic. By contrast, in the case of passive imaging ability profile, stimulatory
292
interventions should focus on developing the ability of transforming imagery in unconstrained
293
and miscellaneous ways.
294
295
2. The Present Studies
296
The research program presented below was aimed at testing the psychometric properties of
297
the new test. In nine studies, on a total sample of 1,700 participants, we tested criterion
298
validity, juxtaposing TCIA results with other measures of imagination and creative abilities
299
(Studies 1-5) and the discriminant validity of TCIA (Study 6), checking whether and to what
300
extent TCIA dimensions are related to intelligence and school achievement measured using
301
standardized tests as well as GPA. In the next step, using aggregated data, we tested the
302
construct validity of the new test by performing confirmatory factor analysis. We also show
303
the measurement invariance of TCIA among women and men as well as the relations between
304
age and creative imagination.
305
The other objective of our analyses was to test the reliability of TCIA. In Study 7, we
306
demonstrate the consistency of trained judges' evaluations on TCIA based on the manual
307
(Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Study 8 is devoted to the analysis of test-retest reliability,
308
and in Study 9 we present test-retest relations, with version B of TCIA used apart from
309
version A. We conclude the reliability analyses by reaching for aggregated data from all the
310
studies presented in this paper and we present the internal consistency of TCIA scales
311
assessed using a more traditional method (Cronbach's α) as well as the more modern
312
composite reliability (H; Hancock & Mueller, 2001), which is the outcome of confirmatory
313
factor analysis. Table 2 provides an overview of all studies with descriptive statistics.
314
---------- Insert Table 2 Here ----------
315
316
2.1.Criterion Validity (Studies 1-5)
317
2.1.1. Method
318
2.1.2. Participants
319
2.1.2.1.Study 1. The participants in Study 1 were 100 students (all of them female) aged
320
19-40 years (M = 22.73, SD = 4.71). They were students of social sciences at
321
several universities in a big city in central Poland.
322
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 8
2.1.2.2.Study 2. The participants in Study 2 were 57 female students of education and
323
teaching, aged 20-24 years (M = 20.85, SD = 0.59). They studied at a university of
324
education in Warsaw, the capital of Poland.
325
2.1.2.3.Study 3. The participants in the third study were 261 children (110 girls) aged 5-7
326
years (M = 6.02, SD = 1.1). The children attended nursery and elementary schools
327
in Warsaw.
328
2.1.2.4.Study 4. The participants in Study 4 were 226 individuals (171 women) aged 11-
329
30 years (M = 13.10, SD = 6.04). They were students of elementary, middle, and
330
high schools as well as university students from all over Poland.
331
2.1.2.5.Study 5. The participants in Study 5 were 741 individuals (425 women) aged 15-
332
25 years (M = 18.30, SD = 3.04). They were students of middle and high schools
333
as well as university students from all over Poland.
334
2.1.3. Measures and Procedure
335
In all of the five studies, version A of TCIA was used. Apart from that, in each of those five
336
studies we used different questionnaires and tests measuring characteristics directly related to
337
creative imagination or creative abilities. In each study, the instruments were presented in a
338
random order. The instruments used in particular studies are listed below.
339
2.1.3.1.Study 1. Perceived efficacy in using visual imagination was measured by the
340
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VIVIQ) (Marks, 1973, 1995). The
341
questionnaire consists of 32 items that are supposed to measure the degree to
342
which the participant believes himself/herself to be capable of using imagination
343
efficiently. An example item is: “In answering items 1 to 4, think of some relative
344
or friend whom you frequently see (but who is not with you at present) and
345
consider the picture that comes before your mind’s eye. (1) The exact contour of
346
face, head shoulders and body.” The reliability of the VIVIQ was high (α = .904)
347
2.1.3.2.Study 2. Creative imagination was measured using the Franck Drawing
348
Completion Test (FDCT), successfully applied in earlier research on creativity
349
(Dziedziewicz, Gajda, & Karwowski, 2013; Dziedziewicz, Olędzka, &
350
Karwowski, 2012). FDCT is composed of 12 figures, placed in separate
351
“windows.” The participants’ task is to complete the initial figures in such a way
352
that the end result takes the form of interesting drawings. There is no limit on the
353
time taken to complete the task. The test is assessed on a three-point scale (0-1-2):
354
no points are given for a conventional form, one point is given for a fairly complex
355
form which partially stands out in its originality and unconventional approach, and
356
two points are given for drawings with a rich, free, and unconventional form
357
which are not strictly based on the initial symbol. The maximum score on the test
358
is 24 points. The reliability of the FDCT was high (α = .83).
359
360
In the second study we also used a task that is a classic one in experiments
361
concerning creative imagination and consists in drawing animals “from a different
362
planet” (Generating Imaginary Animals; Ward, 1994). The participants were asked
363
to list 20 animals that came to their mind (Listing Real Earth Animals). Next, they
364
were to imagine a planet, completely different than Earth, on which a variety of
365
plant and animal species existed. Based on the imagery generated, they made a
366
detailed drawing of an imaginary creature as seen from the front and from the side,
367
they gave it a name and named all the parts of its body. The images were assessed
368
using an index applied in earlier studies (Ward, 1994; Ward, Petterson, Sifonis,
369
Dodds, & Saunders, 2002; Ward & Sifonis, 1997) the presence of untypical
370
sense organs (creature attributes).
371
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 9
2.1.3.3.Study 3. In the third study, we used the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing
372
Production (TCT-DP) (Jellen & Urban,1986). This test measures creative thinking
373
defined in a broad way based on Urban’s Components Model of Creativity (1996).
374
The subjects are asked to complete an unfinished drawing. Detailed procedures of
375
the TCT-DP are given in Urban (2004). Briefly, participants in this task are asked
376
to complete an unfinished drawing that consists of a few shapes including a half-
377
circle and a dot. Each participant is given a score of creative abilities based on 14
378
criteria: (1) continuations, (2) completions, (3) new elements, (4) connections
379
made with a line, (5) connections made to produce a theme, (6) boundary breaking
380
(fragment-dependent), (7) boundary breaking (fragment-independent), (8)
381
perspective, (9) humor and affectivity, (10) manipulation of the material, (11)
382
surreal or abstract drawings, (12) atypical combinations of figures and symbols,
383
(13) non-stereotypical use of a certain element, and (14) speed. The final score
384
given for the TCT-DP is a sum of points from all of these criteria. Previous studies
385
(Gralewski & Karwowski, 2012; Karwowski & Gralewski, 2013) confirmed its
386
value as a valid and reliable measure. In this study, the reliability of the TCT-DP
387
was acceptable (α = .75).
388
2.1.3.4.Study 4. In Study 4, we used the verbal Alternate Uses Task inspired by
389
Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1962). The task was to come up
390
with unusual uses for a can within a specified time (3 minutes). This task was
391
scored in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality of thinking.
392
2.1.3.5.Study 5. The circle test from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT;
393
Torrance, 1974) was used to measure divergent thinking (DT). The test consists of
394
20 empty circles arranged in 5 rows of 4 on the test sheet. The task is to create
395
interesting drawings in them, trying to use all the circles within 10 minutes. The
396
total number of circles used minus the number used for recurring themes gives an
397
index of fluency (range: 0 to 20 points). This index is generally considered to be
398
absolutely reliable because it relies on mechanical counting. Flexibility is indexed
399
by the number of categories of themes considered; originality is indexed by the
400
inverse of the frequency of occurrence of each concept in the whole sample
401
(unique ideas score highest), and total originality score is the sum of the originality
402
scores for each circle response generated by the participant (see Plucker, Qian, &
403
Wang, 2011, and Silvia et al., 2008, for the advantages and limitations of different
404
originality scoring methods).
405
406
The research program presented in this article was approved by the authors’ university’s
407
Institutional Review Board. Written permission from the parents of the children participating
408
was obtained prior to data collection. The participants were informed about the study and
409
could withdraw at any time. All tests were scored by 3 research assistants (graduate students
410
of psychology and education), trained in creativity tests scoring.
411
412
2.1.2. Results and Discussion
413
The correlations between the three scales of TCIA and the dimensions of creative imagination
414
and creative thinking are presented in Table 3. Additionally, in Table 4 we present the
415
polychoric correlations between vividness, originality, and transformativeness of the TCIA
416
and each of the 14 TCT-DP criteria.
417
In the case of measures treated as referring directly to creative imagination (VIVIQ,
418
FDCT, and Generating Imaginary Animals), seven out of nine correlation coefficients turned
419
out to be statistically significant, with a generally substantial effect (median r = .32). Imagery
420
abilities measured using VIVIQ turned out to correlate fairly consistently and with similar
421
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 10
strength with all the three criteria the most strongly with vividness (r = .42) and slightly less
422
strongly with originality (r = .36) and transformativeness (r = .31). We obtained quite a
423
similar picture of the relationship in the case of FDCT the scores in this test were mainly
424
linked with vividness (r = .48), less strongly with originality (r = .30), and the most weakly
425
(as well as not significantly) with transformativeness (r = .18). By contrast, the number of
426
untypical sense organs in the Generating Imaginary Animals task was independent of
427
vividness (r = .02) but strongly related to the TCIA (r = .45) and transformativeness (r = .32).
428
In the case correlations between TCIA scales and measures of creative thinking, the
429
situation was less clear. Only 11 out of 21 correlation coefficients were statistically
430
significant, with a median of r = .12. The TCIA was related fairly consistently though less
431
strongly than with measures of imagination to TCT-DP scores. Both vividness (r = .26) and
432
originality (r = .32) as well as transformativeness (r = .20) were related to the overall score on
433
this test. A more detailed analysis taking into account particular TCT-DP criteria (Table 4)
434
unveiled more interesting patterns of relations. TCIA vividness was the most strongly related
435
to TCT-DP unconventional manipulation (r = .44), perspective (r = .38), and fragment-
436
independent boundary breaking (r = .30). Correlations between originality and TCT-DP
437
criteria were weaker: they were the strongest in the case of using abstract elements (r = .30),
438
introducing new elements into the drawing (r = .28), continuations of the existing elements (r
439
= .27), and connections that contribute to a theme (r = .27). In the case of transformativeness,
440
we found the strongest relations with new elements (r = .22) and boundary-breaking
441
(fragment-independent) (r = .20).
442
Correlations between TCIA scales and the scores on tasks from Torrance’s tests were
443
both weaker and less systematic. What is interesting, the measures of creative imagination
444
were almost completely unrelated to the classic scoring criteria of creative thinking tests
445
(fluency, flexibility, originality) in the case of the graphic test (only fluency was weakly
446
related to vividness, r = .13). As regards the verbal test, the scores were the most consistently
447
related to originality, which was related in an identical way (r = .26) to verbal fluency,
448
flexibility, and originality. The relations between vividness and transformativeness and the
449
measures of creative abilities were weaker, though significant (.13 <= r >= .18).
450
---------- Insert Table 3 Here ----------
451
---------- Insert Table 4 Here ----------
452
453
The results of the first five studies confirm the validity of TCIA. Stronger relationships
454
between the results obtained in the new test and established measures of creative imagination
455
(VIVIQ, FDCT, Generating Imaginary Animals), compared to classic measures of creative
456
abilities (also graphic ones)
1
, support the statement that, measuring characteristics important
457
for creativity, TCIA focuses to a greater extent on imagination rather than on the
458
characteristics of thinking. Admittedly, the values of correlations between vividness,
459
originality, and transformativeness and the measurements using other instruments developed
460
for measuring imagination are not spectacularly high (the highest being r = .48 between
461
FDCT and the vividness of imagination), but they are strong and consistent enough to be
462
1
Table 3 presents 95% confidence intervals around Pearson’s rs, allowing for direct comparisons of different
correlations. However, to provide a more synthetic comparison of correlation coefficients obtained between
TCIA scales and other tests, we followed a two-step procedure. First, using a multilevel meta-analysis (Cheung,
2014; Karwowski & Lebuda, in press), we calculated the correlations between TCIA scales and criterion
measures (VIVIQ, Generating Imaginary Animals, FDCT). Then, we provided a similar meta-analysis for
correlations between the TCIA scales and other creativity measures. The meta-analytically obtained correlation
between TCIA and creative imagination measures was estimated at r = .34 (95% CI: .27,.41), while the
correlation between TCIA and other creativity measures was at r = .135 (95% CI: .038,.23). Second, as
confidence intervals across rs do not overlap, we conclude that these coefficients differ significantly from each
other.
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 11
treated as confirming the criterion validity of the new measure. What is important, the
463
obtained profile of various relations between the scales of TCIA and other measures also
464
constitutes an argument supporting the validity of the new instrument. It is easy to notice that
465
the attempts made so far to study creative imagination have focused only on its selected
466
elements. For example, FDCT (Dziedziewicz et al., 2013) actually measures the vividness
467
and, to a certain (smaller) extent, originality of creative imagination, but it does not measure
468
transformativeness. The task of Generating Imaginary Animals (Ward, 1994; Ward, Petterson,
469
Sifonis, Dodds, & Saunders, 2002; Ward & Sifonis, 1997) reveals much about originality and
470
next to nothing about vividness. The new test makes it possible to systematically analyze all
471
the three components important for the functioning of creative imagination without
472
duplicating the measurement performed using any of the previous instruments and remaining
473
relatively independent of creative thinking.
474
Assuming that the results presented in Studies 1-5 convincingly support the criterion
475
validity of the new measure, the next important step was to determine its discriminant
476
validity. For that purpose, we used measures of general intellectual ability (intelligence) and
477
school achievement in different areas. Previous studies and meta-analyses (Karwowski &
478
Gralewski, 2013; Kim, 2005) show that the relations between creativity and intelligence are
479
not particularly strong (however, see Silvia, 2015, for an alternative position), and neither are
480
the relations between creative abilities and school achievement (Gralewski & Karwowski,
481
2012; Gajda, in press; Gajda & Karwowski, in press). This is why we devoted Study 6 to
482
checking the discriminant validity of the new test, correlating the results obtained in it with
483
intelligence and school achievement.
484
485
2.2.Discriminant Validity (Study 6)
486
2.2.1. Method
487
2.2.1.1.Participants
488
The participants in Study 6 were elementary school students. The sample was composed of
489
110 boys and 120 girls (total N = 230), whose mean age was 13.88 years (SD = 0.36). The
490
participants were fifth-grade students from elementary schools across the whole Poland. The
491
multilevel and multistrata sample selection made it representative for all Polish fifth-graders,
492
with the exception of special school students and students from very small schools (below 10
493
students per grade). The sample was drawn from the registers of Polish Educational
494
Information System (PEIS) (http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/index.php/sio.html). Four strata were
495
distinguished according to school location (village, town below 20,000 inhabitants, city
496
20,000-100,000, city above 100,000) and school size. In each randomly chosen school, two
497
classes were randomly invited to participate in the study.
498
2.2.1.2.Measures and Procedure
499
Apart from the TCIA, all participants solved an intelligence test and school achievement test.
500
Intelligence. In order to measure intelligence, we used Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM)
501
(Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003). The reliability of RPM in this study was high (α = .85).
502
2.2.1.2.1. Grade Point Average. The grade point average for all school subjects from the
503
semester preceding the research was used as a measure of school grades. The GPA was
504
provided by students.
505
2.2.1.2.2. School Achievement. As a measure of school achievement, we used the results of a
506
school achievement test developed by the Educational Research Institute. This test measures
507
three spheres of school achievement math, reading, and overall language awareness. The
508
test was developed and scaled according to item response theory (Rasch models is a one-
509
parameter and graded partial credit model; Rasch, 1980) and has very good psychometrics
510
properties all items are well- fitted to the Rasch model (infit and outfit measures between
511
0.8 and 1.2). Moreover, the test information function at the average level of θ (a latent trait of
512
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 12
the measured achievement) was high, and the standard error of measurement was low
513
translating into reliability between .86 and .88, depending on the scale (Jasińska &
514
Modzelewski, 2012).
515
516
2.2.2. Results and Discussion
517
Correlations between measures of intelligence and school achievement and the three scales of
518
TCIA are presented in Table 5. As opposed to the relations with creative abilities, reported
519
earlier, this time the profile of results is less clear. Vividness turned out to be a consistent
520
correlate of intelligence (r = .29), GPA (r = .33), and achievement test scores in math (r =
521
.28), reading (r = .24), and language awareness (r = .23). However, in the case of originality
522
and transformativeness, the relations were less unambiguous and clearly weaker. Originality
523
was significantly and positively, though weakly, related to school achievement in reading and
524
language awareness, whereas transformativeness was related to GPA (r = .21) and
525
competence in math (r = .20).
526
527
---------- Insert Table 5 Here ----------
528
The consistently positive relations found between intelligence, school achievement, and
529
vividness suggest that their cause is not only vividness itself but the related ability to work
530
persistently and thoroughly, closer to elaboration (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015). What
531
may also be interesting is the role of transformativeness in learning math (probably especially
532
geometry), which is confirmed by the relations found between skill in performing
533
transformations in the imagination and achievement in math.
534
Study 6 brings 15 correlations, of which only nine are statistically significant, and the
535
mean correlation coefficient (as well as median) obtained between intelligence and measures
536
of imagination is only r = .17. This result provides arguments in favor of the new test's
537
discriminant validity.
538
Studies 1-5 make it justified to consider TCIA an instrument characterized by criterion
539
validity, and Study 6 testifies to a good discriminant validity of the new test. The
540
measurement of creative imagination using TCIA is quite consistently and strongly related to
541
other measures of creative imagination, slightly less consistently and more weakly to creative
542
ability tests, and the most weakly (as well as less systematically) to intelligence and school
543
achievement. However, Studies 1-6 were based on the assumption that the three-factor
544
structure of the test, assumed by the presented theoretical model, is reproduced in the data. In
545
order to verify this assumption, in the next step we tested the construct validity of the new
546
test, subjecting its results to confirmatory factor analysis as well as testing measurement
547
invariance among men and women.
548
549
2.3.Construct Validity (Studies 1-9 aggregated)
550
2.3.1. Method
551
2.3.1.1.Participants
552
The analysis covered data collected from 1,740 people at different ages the participants in
553
Studies 1-9. In total, the sample consisted of 1,200 women (69%) and 540 men (31%); 42
554
people did not give their gender. The participants' age ranged from 10 to 55 years (M = 16.33,
555
SD = 4.72); most of them were students or university students taking part in various research
556
projects using TCIA.
557
2.3.1.2.Measure and Procedure
558
Sometimes the participants completed TCIA together with other tests, and sometimes it was
559
the only test completed.
560
561
2.3.2. Results and Discussion
562
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 13
In the first step, the data collected were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis in a design
563
involving many traits and many methods. More specifically, we tested the fit of the three-
564
factor model assumed on the basis of theory, while at the same time controlling the effect of
565
the test's individual items (Figure 4).
566
567
--------- Insert Figure 4 Here ----------
568
569
The assumed theoretical model was confirmed (Table 6). Comparing the measures of fit with
570
the commonly used criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2010), the values obtained should be
571
considered acceptable.
572
The correlations between latent factors were moderately strong (.39-.56), and the
573
factor loadings of the model estimated on the basis of polychoric correlations testify to a good
574
validity of individual items (Hu & Bentler, 1999), considerably exceeding the literature-
575
recommended minimum of .50. Thus, the construct validity of the model is confirmed by the
576
obtained data.
577
---------- Insert Table 6 Here ----------
578
579
2.3.3. Effects of Gender and Age on the TCIA Results
580
The next step in analyses was to test TCIA measurement invariance according to gender. The
581
fit of consecutive models with increasingly high constraint is presented in Table 7. The
582
sample being large, we performed invariance assessment not on the basis of differences in the
583
range of values of chi squared (sensitive to sample size), but by comparing the values of CFI
584
and RMSEA between models. Following the recommendations found in the literature on the
585
subject (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), we consider a model to be invariant if CFI
586
change between consecutive models does not exceed .01 and if the change in RMSEA does
587
not exceed .02.
588
---------- Insert Table 7 Here ----------
589
590
Even the most constrained model that tested scalar invariance had a very good fit, and
591
differences in CFI between the models did not exceed .01, though comparing more and less
592
constrained models does bring a decline in fit, slightly exceeding the critical values. However,
593
given that the change in RMSEA between the least and the most constrained model is only
594
.005, there are significant grounds to consider the models well-fitted and the test itself
595
invariant according to gender.
596
The next step was to check the existence of gender differences in terms of the
597
characteristics of creative imagination. For this purpose, three latent variables: vividness,
598
originality, and transformativeness were predicted by gender. The model was well fitted to
599
data (χ2/df = 1.42, CFI = .988, RMSEA = .018), and the effect of gender in all three cases
600
turned out to be statistically significant. More specifically, women exhibited a higher level of
601
vividness (β = .25, p < .001), originality (β = .19; p < .001), and transformativeness (β = .17, p
602
< .001).
603
An analogous model with age as a predictor was also well fitted (χ2/df = 2.36, CFI =
604
.959, RMSEA = .032); age was a statistically significant positive predictor of vividness (β =
605
.19, p < .001), originality (β = .14, p < .001), and transformativeness (β = .078, p < .01).
606
The analyses presented above confirm the construct validity of TCIA. As assumed, the
607
test has a three factor structure, and the three components of creative imagery are significantly
608
and moderately correlated. At the same time, however, correlations between them are not
609
strong enough to make them indistinguishable from one another. Individual items load on the
610
latent variables strongly enough to justify the conclusion about their criterion validity. These
611
data testify to the good validity of the measure.
612
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 14
We devoted the next three studies (7-9) to assessing the reliability of TCIA. Study 7
613
concerned testing the consistency between the judges scoring TCIA based on detailed
614
guidelines provided in the manual (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Studies 8 and 9
615
concerned test-retest reliability. The whole research concludes with a presentation concerning
616
reliability assessed as the test's internal consistency.
617
618
2.4.Interjudge Reliability (Study 7)
619
2.4.1. Method
620
2.4.1.1.Participants
621
The participants were four judges (all female, mean age M = 26 years) trained in TCIA
622
scoring.
623
2.4.1.2.Measures and Procedure
624
All the judges took part in a training devoted to details of TCIA scoring and acquainted
625
themselves with the test manual (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Next, each of them was
626
asked to score 100 test sheets.
627
2.4.2. Results and Discussion
628
For each of the three TCIA scoring criteria, we computed intercorrelations between the
629
judges' ratings as well as their consistency using Cronbach's α and the intraclass correlation
630
coefficient (ICC) (Table 8).
631
---------- Insert Table 8 Here ----------
632
In all situations, interjudge consistency was very high and comparable between the criteria. In
633
all cases, α was equal to or higher than .90 (originality α = .90, vividness α = .91, and
634
transformativeness α = .92), with slightly lower but still acceptable ICC values (vividness and
635
originality ICC = .89, transformativeness ICC = .91).
636
The fact that briefly trained judges equipped with example assessments of TCIA
637
products are capable of scoring the products of this test very similarly testifies to its good
638
reliability. High consistency is a precondition of precise measurement. It is worth noting that
639
the values we obtained are similar to those usually obtained in the case of other creativity
640
tests, for example TCT-DP (Kalis, Roke, & Krumina, 2014) or TTCT (Dziedziewicz et al.,
641
2013). This makes it legitimate to believe that even though TCIA scoring is a multifaceted
642
and seemingly complex and difficult process, following our recommendations and using the
643
examples provided does in fact make it possible to obtain highly reliable data. In the next two
644
studies, we tested the reliability of TCIA in time: in Study 8 we used the same version of the
645
test twice, whereas in Study 9 we used version B. In the final step, using aggregated data from
646
all the studies described in this paper, we present data on the internal consistency of TCIA.
647
2.5. Test-Retest Reliability (Studies 8-9)
648
2.5.1. Method
649
2.5.1.1.Participants
650
2.5.1.1.1. Study 8. The participants in Study 8 were 86 people (43 women) aged 13 to 15
651
years (M = 14.02, SD = 0.84). They were high-school students from a large
652
city in central Poland.
653
2.5.1.1.2. Study 9. The participants in Study 8 were 39 people (29 women) aged 13 to 14
654
years (M = 13.75, SD = 0.47). They were middle-school students from a big
655
city in central Poland.
656
2.5.1.2.Measures and Procedure
657
In Study 8, TCIA version A was used twice with a three-week interval. In Study 9, there were
658
five weeks between the measurement sessions using versions A and B of TCIA.
659
660
2.5.2. Results and Discussion
661
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 15
Test-retest correlations between measurement using the same version of the test with an
662
interval of three weeks were very high (r = .89 for vividness, r = .91 for originality, and r =
663
.98 for transformativeness, all p’s < .001), testifying to very high measurement reliability
664
(Table 9).
665
In the case of studies using versions A and B of the test, with an interval of five weeks
666
between measurements, correlations were still fairly high they ranged from r = .43 for
667
transformativeness, through r = .55 for originality, and r = .63 for vividness (all p’s < .001).
668
The high values of test-retest correlations, especially those from Study 8, combined
669
with the high interjudge consistency presented earlier, testify to the good reliability of TCIA
670
measurement. The final step of our analyses was to test the internal consistency of each scale
671
of TCIA. For this purpose, we used aggregated data from all the studies presented in this
672
paper.
673
674
2.6. Internal Consistency (Studies 1-9 aggregated)
675
2.6.1. Method
676
2.6.1.1.Participants
677
The analysis covered data collected from 1,740 people at different ages the participants in
678
Studies 1-9. In total, the sample consisted of 1,200 women (69%) and 540 men (31%); 42
679
people did not give their gender. The participants' age ranged from 10 to 55 years (M = 16.33,
680
SD = 4.72); most of them were students or university students taking part in various research
681
projects using TCIA.
682
2.6.1.2.Measures and Procedure
683
All the participants solved TCIA, sometimes together with other tests and self-report
684
measures and sometimes as the only test.
685
686
2.6.2. Results and Discussion
687
We assessed internal consistency using the values of Cronbach's α and the H coefficient
688
composite reliability specific to confirmatory factor analysis (Hancock & Mueller, 2001). The
689
scale on which the criteria were measured being short (0-1-2 in the case of each criterion and
690
each individual item), we computed internal consistency on the basis of the matrix of
691
polychoric correlations estimated in Mplus 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2015).
692
---------- Insert Table 9 Here ----------
693
The two methods yield very similar estimations of internal consistency. In the case of
694
vividness and originality, the internal consistency indices have very similar values (.83 for
695
vividness and .84 for originality), whereas in the case of transformativeness internal
696
consistency is α = .86 and H = .87.
697
These values demonstrate the good reliability of the test, especially as both
698
coefficients applied depend on the number of items in a scale, and each scale of TCIA
699
consists of a relatively small number of items (7). Internal consistency exceeding .80 may be
700
regarded as highly acceptable and testifying to the good quality of TCIA measurement.
701
702
3. General Discussion
703
Creative functioning requires different abilities that very likely also include visual creative
704
imagination. According to the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability (Dziedziewicz
705
& Karwowski, 2015), the key abilities are those of visualizing, transforming, and enriching
706
imagery, as well as combining them into new wholes. It must be stressed that this is not only
707
the domain of children with vivid imagination or artists, but the quality of every person's
708
mind, which facilitates visualizing problems and looking at them in new ways, leading to
709
original solutions being generated more easily. This is what makes it so important to have
710
valid and reliable tests of creative imagination. The existing instruments for measuring visual
711
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 16
creative imagination have many shortcomings; for example, they have unclear theoretical
712
roots, copy the scoring standards of divergent thinking tests, or measure only selected
713
elements of imagery abilities, mainly vividness and originality. The detailed analysis of
714
problems connected with measuring creative imagination, described in this paper, constituted
715
the basis for the assumptions adopted in the construction of TCIA.
716
The aim of the presented research was to document the quality of measurement using
717
TCIA. Four issues must be stressed in this conclusion. First, the results of correlational
718
studies using other measures of creative imagination and creative thinking confirm the
719
criterion validity of the test (Studies 1-5). Second, the study of creative imagination using
720
TCIA combined with the measurement of intelligence and school achievement provided
721
sufficient evidence for the discriminant validity of the new instrument (Study 6). Third,
722
aggregated data from all studies subjected to confirmatory factor analysis provided arguments
723
in favor of the test's construct validity its three-factor structure was confirmed. Finally, both
724
versions of the test as a whole are reliable, and this also applies to each of their scales (Studies
725
7-9).
726
We have demonstrated the measurement invariance of TCIA in case of gender. It
727
allowed us to test for gender differences in the latent means of TCIA scales. Although the
728
differences were small in terms of the effect size, females outperformed males in vividness,
729
originality and transformativeness. Similarly, there was small, but positive effect of age, with
730
older participants achieving higher results in the TCIA. Gender differences obtained in our
731
studies fit well with previous studies and show that not only women usually obtain higher
732
scores than men in self-assessed imaginative abilities (mainly vividness) (Harshman &
733
Paivio, 1987; Narchal & Broota, 1988), but they also do in terms of imaginative abilities
734
(Karwowski, 2009, Lau & Cheung, 2010). These differences may be due to girls engaging
735
more in role-playing or personal fantasy plays than boys during preschool years (Werebe &
736
Baudonniere, 1991). Furthermore, girls around 4 to 5 years of age have been observed to
737
engage in role-playing and in personal play fantasy twice as often as the boys of a similar age
738
group (Jones & Glenn, 1991). One of the most widely replicated findings in the research on
739
imaginary companions is that girls are more likely to have them than boys (Carlson & Taylor,
740
2005, Singer & Singer, 1990).
741
Summing up, it should be said that TCIA is characterized by high validity and
742
reliability in measuring visual creative imagination. Moreover, several findings presented in
743
this paper may be interesting not only as confirmations of the quality of the test. The
744
generally weak association between creative imagination and divergent thinking or
745
intelligence we have obtained replicates previous findings that generally show low
746
correlations between imagination and creativity (Schmeidler, 1965). Although generally those
747
correlations are statistically significant and positive, they rarely exceed the value of r = .30,
748
hence providing good arguments that these constructs are relatively independent aspects of
749
creative abilities (see e.g., Dziedziewicz et al., 2013; Rhodes, 1981; Russ & Grossman-
750
McKee, 1990). Usually, correlations between divergent thinking and vividness of imagery are
751
higher than those with transformativeness (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). Similarly, usually
752
creative imagination is more strongly related to originality than to fluency of thinking
753
(Dziedziewicz et al., 2013; Dziedziewicz et al., 2014).
754
3.1.Limitations and Future Directions
755
The research presented here had a correlational character. Experimental research would make
756
it possible to check, in a controlled way, whether the complexity of different imagery
757
transformations was reflected in the Transformativeness scale. Further research should
758
capture the dynamics of the process of image transformation, as has been done in the analysis
759
of reaching solutions in creativity tests (Beaty, Silvia, Nusbaum, Jauk, & Benedek, 2014).
760
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 17
Perhaps it is even worth attempting to combine the testing of creative imagination with
761
neuropsychological methods such as EEG or MRI (Fink & Benedek, 2012).
762
What seems very promising is the profile-based approach in the measurement of
763
creative imagination, which shows the complex and multifaceted nature of this disposition. In
764
the future, using the experience gathered when classifying the profiles of other multiscale
765
tests and questionnaires, it is worth developing an objective and reliable system of defining
766
profiles of creative imagery abilities by means of statistical procedures. Its usefulness for
767
scientific purposes, but above all in individual assessment and in choosing the type of
768
stimulatory interventions, will be invaluable.
769
The results presented in this paper focused especially on the version of TCIA that is
770
intended for group research. Another paper devoted to a version developed for individual
771
studies that includes the study of children aged 4 and older is in preparation.
772
At present, plans also exist to perform a cultural adaptation of TCIA in order for the
773
instrument to be successfully used in other countries (outside Poland), in research on
774
imagination its nature, development, and determinants, in comparative cross-cultural
775
studies.
776
777
3.2.Conclusion
778
The results of our studies to date on the validity and reliability of the TCIA make it legitimate
779
to say that TCIA is a measure with good or even very good psychometric properties and a
780
clear theoretical basis.
781
What makes it valuable is, above all, the emphasis it gives to the complexity and
782
multidimensionality of visual creative imagination, in which it stands out favorably against
783
other tests measuring this disposition. This test enables a systematic analysis of all the three
784
components important to the functioning of creative imagination while remaining relatively
785
independent of creative thinking. Due to the possible application of the instrument in
786
assessment and intervention practice in measuring the effectiveness of stimulatory
787
interventions the fact that that TCIA exists in two versions is also of significance.
788
789
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 18
References
790
Anastasi, A., & Schaefer, C. E. (1971). The Franck Drawing Completion Test as a measure of
791
creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 119, 312. DOI:
792
10.1080/00221325.1971.10532620
793
Artola, T., Ancillo, I., Mosteiro, P., & Barraca, J. (2004). PIC-N. Prueba de imaginación
794
creative para niños. Madrid: TEA Ed.
795
Barron, F. (1958). The psychology of imagination. Scientific American, 199, 150166.
796
Beaty, R.E., Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). The role of
797
associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1186-
798
1195. DOI:10.3758/s13421-014-0428-8
799
Campos, A., & Gonzalez, M. A. (1993). Self-perceived creativity and vividness of mental
800
imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 12911296. DOI:
801
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1993.77.3.923
802
Campos, A., & Perez, M. A. (1989). High and low imagers and their scores on creativity.
803
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 403406. DOI:
804
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.403
805
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
806
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. DOI:
807
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705510701301834.
808
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A
809
structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 2, 211-29. Doi:
810
10.1037/a0032968.
811
Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
812
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. DOI:
813
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15328007sem0902_5
814
Carlson, S. M., & Taylor, M. (2005). Imaginary companions and impersonated characters:
815
Sex differences in children’s fantasy play. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 51, 299-324. DOI:
816
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/mpq.2005.0003
817
Dziedziewicz, D., Gajda. A., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Developing childrens intercultural
818
competence and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 3242. DOI:
819
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.006
820
Dziedziewicz, D., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s creative visual
821
imagination: A theoretical model, measure and stimulation program. Education, 1-3,
822
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43, 382 393.
823
DOI: 10.1080/03004279.2015.1020646
824
Dziedziewicz, D. Olędzka, D., Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4- to 6-year-old childrens
825
figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 8595.
826
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.004
827
Fink, A. & Benedek, M. (2012). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience &
828
Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111123. DOI:
829
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.12.002
830
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and
831
applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
832
Franck, K., & Rosen, E. (1949). A projective test of masculinity-femininity. Journal of
833
Consulting Psychology, 13, 247256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057315
834
Gajda, A. (in press). The relationship and moderators of school achievement and creativity at
835
different educational stages. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
836
Gajda, A. & Karwowski, M. (in press). Creativity and school achievement: A meta-analysis.
837
Manuscript submitted for publication.
838
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 19
Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301318. DOI:
839
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/mind/os-v.19.301
840
Goldman, R. J. (1965). The Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking. Educational Research, 7:1,
841
314. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188640070101
842
Gralewski, J. & Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland.
843
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 198208. DOI:
844
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.002
845
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444454. DOI:
846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0063487
847
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
848
Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1966). Sixteen divergent- production abilities at the ninth-
849
grade level. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1:1, 4366. DOI:
850
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr0101_3
851
Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent
852
variable systems. In: R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation
853
modeling: Present and future A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL:
854
Scientific Software International, Inc.
855
Harkey, N. J. (1982). The Franck Drawing Completion Test: A tool for research in sex-role
856
identification. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46:1, 3243. DOI:
857
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_7
858
Harshman, R. A. & Paivio, A. (1987). “Paradoxical” sex differences in self- reported imagery.
859
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287302.
860
Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L. & Huston, M. J. (1993). On the construct validity of the SOP
861
scale. Journal of Mental Imagery, 17, 119132.
862
Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood.
863
Creativity Research Journal, 11, 167180. DOI:
864
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2005.9651477
865
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
866
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
867
155. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
868
Jankowska, M. D. & Karwowski, M. (2015). Test Twórczych Zdolności Wyobrażeniowych.
869
Podręcznik. [Test of Creative Imagery Abilities: A Manual]. Warszawa: Akademia
870
Pedagogiki Specjalnej (unpublished manuscript).
871
Jasińska, A. & Modzelewski, M. (2012). Można inaczej. Wykorzystanie IRT do konstrukcji
872
testów osiągnięć szkolnych [It could be done differently. Application of the IRT to
873
construction of the school achievement tests] (pp. 157-168). In: W: B. Niemierko, K.
874
Szmigel (Eds.), Regionalne i lokalne diagnozy edukacyjne, Wrocław: PTDE.
875
Jellen, H., & Urban, K. K. (1986). The TCT-DP (Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing
876
Production): An instrument that can be applied to most age and ability groups. Creative
877
Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 138155.
878
Jones, A. & Glenn, S. M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play in a primary school
879
group. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 127-135.
880
Kalis, E., Roke, L., & Krumina, I. (2014). Investigation of psychometric properties of the Test
881
for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production: Evidence from study in Latvia. Journal of
882
Creative Behavior, publication ahead of print, DOI: 10.1002/jocb.68.
883
Karwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI).
884
Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative potential. New Educational
885
Review, 1, 44-54.
886
Karwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI).
887
Part 2. On validity of the TCI. New Educational Review, 2, 216-232.
888
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 20
Karwowski, M. (2009). Zgłębianie kreatywności. [Deepening creativity]. Warszawa:
889
Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
890
Karwowski, M. & Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or Artifact? Thinking
891
Skills and Creativity, 8, 25-33. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.003
892
Karwowski, M. & Lebuda, I. (in press). The big five, the huge two and creative self-beliefs: A
893
meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
894
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? Journal of Secondary Gifted
895
Education, 16, 5766.
896
Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
897
York: Guilford Press.
898
Lau, S. & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Creativity assessment: Comparability of the electronic and
899
paper-and-pencil versions of the WallachKogan Creativity Tests. Thinking Skills and
900
Creativity, 5, 101107.
901
LeBoutillier, N. & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic
902
review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 2944. DOI:
903
http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000712603762842084
904
Magid, R. W., Sheskin, M., & Schulz, L. E. (2015). Imagination and the generation of new
905
ideas. Cognitive Development, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.12.008
906
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of
907
Psychology, 64, 1724.
908
Marks, D. F. (1995). New directions for mental imagery research. Journal of Mental Imagery,
909
19, 153167. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
910
MacInnis, D. J. (1987). Constructs and measures of individual differences in imagery
911
processing: A review (pp. 88-92). In: M. Wallendorf, P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in
912
Consumer Research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
913
McHenry, R. E. & Shouksmith, G. A. (1970). Creativity, visual imagination and
914
suggestibility: Their relationship in a group of 10-year-old children. British Journal of
915
Educational Psychology, 40, 154160. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
916
8279.1970.tb02115.x
917
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex.
918
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus Users Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles,
919
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
920
Narchal, R. & Broota, K. D. (1988). Sex differences in vividness of visual imagery under eyes
921
open and closed conditions. Journal of Mental Imagery, 12, 81-88.
922
Parrott, C. A., & Strongman, K. T. (1985). Utilization of visual imagery in creative
923
performance. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 5366.
924
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment Tests (2nd ed).
925
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
926
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Ravens Progressive Matrices and
927
Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
928
Ren, F., Li, X., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. (2012). Progression of Chinese students’ creative
929
imagination from elementary through high school. International Journal of Science
930
Education, 34, 20432059. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.709334
931
Rhodes, J. W. (1981). Relationships between vividness of mental imagery and creative
932
thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 90-98. DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-
933
6057.1981.tb00281.x
934
Ribot, Th. (1906). Essay on the Creative Imagination. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
935
Root-Bernstein, M. (2014). Inventing imaginary worlds: From childhood play to adult
936
Creativity Across the Arts and Sciences. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
937
Education.
938
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 21
Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of the structure of
939
the benzene molecule. American Journal of Psychology, 108, 419438. DOI:
940
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1422898
941
Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. (1998). Personal explicit theories of creativity.
942
Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 117. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-
943
6057.1998.tb00803.x
944
Russ, S. W. & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in children’s fantasy play,
945
primary process thinking on the Rorschach and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality
946
Assessment, 54, 75671. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674036
947
Schaefer, C. (1970). Developmental of an originality scale for the Franck Drawing
948
Completion Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31, 402. DOI:
949
http://dx.doi.org/10.2466/pms.1970.31.2.402
950
Schmeidler, G. (1965). Visual imagery correlated to a measure creativity. Journal of
951
Consulting Psychology, 29:1, 78-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021660
952
Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. Journal of
953
Genetic Psychology, 122, 4547. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1973.10533169
954
Sheehan, P. W. (1967). A shortened form of Betts Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery.
955
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 386389. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-
956
4679(196707)23:3%3C386::aid-jclp2270230328%3E3.0.co;2-s
957
Silvia, P. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educational
958
Psychology Review, DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
959
Simpson, R. M. (1922). Creative Imagination. American Journal of Psychology, 33:2, 234
960
243. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1414133
961
Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L. (1992). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and the
962
developing imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
963
Thompson, W. L. Hsiao, Y. & Kosslyn, S. M. (2011). Dissociation between visual attention
964
and visual mental imagery. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 256263. DOI:
965
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/20445911.2011.477810
966
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall.
967
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms technical manual.
968
Lexington, MA: Ginn.
969
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement. Benesville, IL:
970
Scholastic Testing Service.
971
Urban, K. K. (2004). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking Drawing
972
Production (TCT-DP): The concept, application, evaluation, and international
973
studies. Psychology Science, 46:3, 387-397.
974
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and
975
East European Psychology, 1, 797. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405280184
976
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1991). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. Soviet Psychology,
977
29, 7388. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405290173
978
Ward T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar
979
generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 140. DOI:
980
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/cogp.1994.1010
981
Ward, T. B. & Sifonis, C. M. (1997). Task demands and generative thinking: What changes
982
and what remains the same? Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 245259. DOI:
983
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00797.x
984
Ward, T. B., Wilkenfeld, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., & Saunders, K. N. (2002). The
985
role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition, 30, 199
986
216. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03195281
987
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 22
Werebe, M. G. & Baudonniere, P. (1991). Social pretend play among friends and familiar
988
preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 14:4, 411428. DOI:
989
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016502549101400404
990
http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/index.php/sio.html
991
992
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 23
Figures Captions
993
994
Figure 1. The conjunctional model of creative imaging ability.
995
Figure 2. The TCIA test booklet.
996
Figure 3. Initial signs of TCIA
997
Figure 4. Example drawings from TCIA.
998
Figure 5. Multi-trait, multi-method confirmatory factor analysis model testing for construct
999
validity of the TCIA.
1000
1001
1002
1003
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 24
1004
1005
1006
1007
1008
1009
1010
1011
1012
1013
1014
1015
1016
1017
1018
1019
1020
1021
1022
1023
1024
1025
1026
1027
1028
1029
1030
1031
1032
1033
1034
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 25
1035
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 26
1036
1037
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 27
1038
1039
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 28
1040
1041
1042
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 29
Table 1
1043
Example TCIA assessment criteria
1044
Scoring
Vividness
Originality
Transformativeness
0
The original figure has
not been
supplemented, but was
interpreted, i.e. it was
given the title
Presentation of common objects (things,
plants, animals, people, places). Their
shapes, functions, and properties are
real, and their activities, processes,
states, and events are typical
Multiplication of the
original figure
1
Simple, frequently
schematic completion
of the original figure
Individual, simple modifications of
shape, functions, and properties of
widely known objects (things, plants,
animals, people, places) as well as
typical activities, processes, states, and
events;
Recreation, simple
completion of the original
figure, and adding to it a
relatively independent
object(s)
2
Complex, rich in
detail completion of
the original figure
Complex, significantly altered with
respect to reality, modification of
shape, functions, and properties of
widely known objects (things, plants,
animals, people, places) as well as
typical activities, processes, states, and
events
Complex modification of
the original figure its
multi-aspect elaboration
1045
1046
1047
1048
1049
1050
1051
1052
1053
1054
1055
1056
1057
1058
1059
1060
1061
1062
1063
1064
1065
1066
1067
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 30
Table 2.
1068
Summary of studies presented in this article, together with sample sizes, instruments and
1069
descriptive statistics
1070
1071
Goal
Study
N
Method used
Dimension
assessed by
other
instruments
Vivid
M (SD)
Orig.
M (SD)
Transf.
M (SD)
Criterion
validity
1
100
Vividness of Visual
Imagery Questionnaire
(M = 119.87, SD = 19.46)
Vividness of
Visual Imagery
7.87
(2.13)
2.25
(2.02)
6.29
(3.92)
2
57
Franck Drawing
Completion Test
(M = 9.60, SD = 3.48)
Creative
imagination
7.20
(2.07)
1.95
(1.48)
4.38
(5.41)
Generating Imaginary
Animals
(M = 0.85, SD = 2.19)
Creative
cognition
3
261
Test of Creative Thinking-
Drawing Production
(M = 16.66, SD = 9.41)
Creative
Thinking
6.46
(2.33)
1.80
(1.95)
3.62
(3.00)
4
226
Verbal Alternate Uses Task,
scored for:
Fluency
(M = 10.41, SD = 7.70)
Flexibility
(M = 6.62, SD = 3.70)
Originality
(M = 103.29, SD = 76.32)
Divergent
Thinking
6.45
(2.51)
1.87
(2.03)
3.55
(3.19)
5
741
Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking figural test,
scored for:
Fluency
(M = 8.53, SD = 7.76)
Flexibility
(M = 3.19, SD = 3.43)
Originality
(M = 43.63, SD = 50.16)
Divergent
Thinking
6.89
(2.20)
1.75
(1.93)
5.17
(3.92)
Discrimi
nant
Validity
6
230
Raven's Progressive
Matrices
(M = 100, SD = 15)
Intelligence
6.22
(1.97)
1.48
(1.43)
3.22
(2.72)
Test of School Achievement
(M = 100, SD = 15)
School
Achievement
Grade Point Average
(M = 4.19 , SD = 0.81)
Interjudg
e
Reliabili
ty
7
4
jud
ges
Version A of TCIA
-
4 judges:
6.24
(1.76)
7.05
(2.06)
6.61
(2.17)
7.20
(2.30)
4 judges:
2.21
(1.41)
1.57
(1.54)
2.09
(1.71)
2.13
(1.69)
4
judges:
4.39
(3.21)
4.44
(3.89)
4.51
(3.24)
3.48
(2.52)
Test-
retest
reliabilit
y
8
86
Version A of TCIA used
twice with 3 weeks interval
-
Test:
6.51
(2.18)
Retest:
7.05
Test:
1.50
(1.74)
Retest:
1.98
Test:
5.35
(3.53)
Retest:
5.67
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 31
(1.99)
(1.90)
(3.35)
Correlati
on
between
parallel
versions
of TCIA
9
39
Version A and B of the
TCIA used with 5 weeks
interval
-
Ver. A:
7.20
(2.07)
Ver. B:
7.13
(1.62)
Ver. A:
1.95
(1.48)
Ver. B:
1.75
(1.30)
Ver. A:
4.38
(3.41)
Ver. B:
4.08
(3.20)
1072
1073
1074
1075
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 32
Table 3
1076
Criterion Validity Analysis Correlations of TCIA With VVIQ, FDCT, and Creativity Tests
1077
Vividness
Originality
Transformativeness
Study 1 (N = 100)
VIVIQ
.42*** [.24,.57]
.36*** [.18,.52]
.31** [.12,.48]
Study 2 (N = 57)
Generating Imaginary Animals
.02 [-.24,.28]
.45*** [.21,.64]
.32* [.06,.54]
FDCT
.48*** [.25,.66]
.30* [.04,.52]
.18 [-.08,.42]
Study 3 (N = 261)
TCT-DP
.26*** [.14,.37]
.32*** [.21,.42]
.20** [.08,.31]
Study 4 (N = 226)
Verbal fluency
.13* [.00,.26]
.26*** [.13,.38]
.13* [.00,.26]
Verbal flexibility
.19** [.06,.31]
.26*** [.13,.38]
.15* [.02,.28]
Verbal originality
.14* [.01,.27]
.26*** [.13,.38]
.13* [.00,.26]
Study 5 (N = 741)
Figural fluency
.14*** [.07,.21]
.05 [-.02,.12]
.07^ [.00,.14]
Figural flexibility
.14*** [.07,.21]
-.04 [-.11,.03]
.02 [-.05,.09]
Figural originality
.16*** [.09,.23]
.01 [-.06,.08]
.04 [.-.03,.11]
Note. 95% confidence intervals are provided in brackets.
1078
^ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
1079
1080
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 33
Table 4
1081
Polychoric Correlations Between TCIA Criteria and TCT-DP Criteria
1082
TCT-DP Scoring Criteria
Vividness
Originality
Transformativeness
Continuations (Cn)
.12*
.18*
.08
Completions (Cm)
.20**
.27***
.15*
New elements (Ne)
.19*
.28***
.22**
Connections made with a line (Cl)
.16*
.12*
.12*
Connections that contribute to a theme (Cth)
.25***
.27***
.19*
Boundary breaking: fragment-dependent (Bfd)
.09
.14*
.14*
Boundary breaking: fragment-independent (Bfi)
.30***
.11*
.20**
Perspective (Pe)
.38***
.08
.14*
Humor and affectivity (Hu)
.26***
.22***
.10
Unconventionality: manipulation (Uca)
.44***
.12*
.09
Unconventionality: surrealistic, abstract (Ucb)
.14*
.30***
.07
Unconventionality: symbol-figure combination
(Ucc)
.21**
-.04
.13*
Unconventionality: symbols, signs (Ucd)
.18*
.26***
.16*
Speed (Sp)
.24***
.19*
.13*
*p < .05, **p < .01; ***p < .001
1083
1084
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 34
Table 5
1085
Discriminant Validity Analysis Correlations with Intelligence and School Achievement
1086
Study 6 (N = 230)
Vividness
Originality
Transformativeness
IQ
.29***
.10
.08
GPA
.33***
.09
.21**
SAT Math
.28***
.05
.20***
SAT Reading
.24***
.17*
.09
SAT Language Awareness
.23***
17*
.11
*p < .05, **p < .01; ***p < .001
1087
1088
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 35
Table 6
1089
CFA Model Fit Parameters
1090
Measures
Parameters
χ2(df) / χ2/df
241.55 (165) / 1.46
CFI / TLI
.988 / .983
RMSEA (90% CI)
.019 (.013, .029)
Correlations between latent variables
Vividness-Originality
.53***
Vividness-Transformativeness
.39***
Originality-Transformativeness
.56***
Factor loadings
Range of loadings on Vividness (mean)
.60-.67 (.64)
Range of loadings on Originality (mean)
.58-.71 (.65)
Range of loadings on Transformativeness (mean)
.59-.72 (.68)
Items loadings (Vividness, Originality, Transformativeness)
Item 1
.62, .69, .70
Item 2
.66, .71, .71
Item 3
.65, .58, .68
Item 4
.67, .66, .59
Item 5
.65, .62, .67
Item 6
.64, .59, .70
Item 7
.60, .68, .71
***p < .001
1091
1092
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 36
Table 7
1093
Analysis of Test Equivalence According to Gender Invariance Analysis (CFA)
1094
Model
χ2/df
CFI
RMSEA (90% CI)
Configural invariance
1.57
.978
.016 (.014, .019)
Metric invariance
1.54
.978
.016 (.013, .018)
Scalar invariance
1.71
.968
.018 (.016, .021)
1095
1096
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 37
1097
Table 8
1098
The Reliability of Judges Scoring 100 Randomly Selected Images Generated in TCIA
1099
Study 7 (N = 100 drawings)
Judge 1
Judge 2
Judge 3
Judge 4
Vividness (α = .91, ICC = .89)
Judge 1
1
Judge 2
.78
1
Judge 3
.82
.76
1
Judge 4
.64
.60
.67
1
Originality (α = .90, ICC = .89)
Judge 1
1
Judge 2
.74
1
Judge 3
.61
.67
1
Judge 4
.75
.76
.69
1
Transformativeness (α = .92, ICC = .91)
Judge 1
1
Judge 2
.84
1
Judge 3
.88
.84
1
Judge 4
.70
.53
.68
1
Note. All correlations are statistically significant (p < .001)
1100
Provisional
New Test of Creative Imagination 38
Table 9
1101
Test-Retest Reliability and Internal Consistency of TCIA.
1102
Vividness
Originality
Transformativeness
Study 8 (test-retest, 3 weeks) N = 86
.89***
.91***
.98***
Study 9 (A-B, 5 weeks), N = 39
.63***
.55***
.43***
Studies 1-9 (internal consistency)
Cronbach’s α
.83
.84
.86
H (CFA)
.83
.84
.87
***p < .001
1103
Provisional
... The test consisted of two steps, which were 1) the try-out conducted with the sample group of 45 participants using the dependent t-test to compare the pre-test and post-test scores, and 2) the trial run conducted with the sample group of 33 participants (learning by following the format) and the control group of 33 participants (learning by not following the format). The latter group completed Jankowska and Karwowski's (2015) Creative Imagination assessment [44]. T-Test statistical analysis was used to analyze the creative imagination test scores before learning in each component of both groups to confirm whether both sample groups were equivalent regarding their creative imagination scores in each component. ...
... The study used the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) assessment form developed by Jankowska and Karwowski (2015) [44] (Figure 3). The assessment was conducted by adding to the seven prototype pictures. ...
Article
Our research developed out of concerns about whether design students currently have enough creative imagination because of COVID-19, changing design studies to online learning. This paper describes an empirical study testing the effect of Blended Experiential Learning with e-Portfolios Learning on the Creative Imagination of design students to compare the differences in the effectiveness of design students' Creative Imagination scores. It was hypothesized that first-year design students learning through blended experiential learning with e-Portfolios would have higher Creative Imagination scores when compared to those in the control group learning by not following the format. The multistage sampling method was used to select the study population, and the sample consisted of 111 participants. The test was run in two steps, including 1) the try-out, conducted with the sample group of 45 participants using the Dependent T-Test to compare the pre-test and post-test Creative Imagination scores, and 2) the trial run, conducted with the sample group of 33 participants (learning by following the format), and the control group of 33 participants (learning by not following the format) to compare the Creative Imagination scores. MANOVA was then used to test whether at least one component of the creative imagination test scores of the experimental group was higher than the control group. The Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) assessment was used to collect the data, which was then analysed using the T-test. Doi: 10.28991/ESJ-2022-SIED-03 Full Text: PDF
... Although much work has examined constraints on associative thought processes in verbal creative cognition tasks, less neuroscientific research has attempted to constrain creative associations through fixation in the visual domain (Lloyd-Cox et al., 2020). In the present research, we experimentally manipulated associative conceptual constraints to explore whether fixation on salient mental representations of visual stimuli impacted neural pattern similarity during divergent creative imagination (i.e., imagining novel labels for ambiguous line drawings; Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Exploring distinctions in how conceptual constraints are represented at the neural level may offer finegrained insights into the role fixation plays in creative cognition. ...
... For all trials, participants were instructed to "imagine the figure as its label" when rating the relatedness of labeled figures. All 54 incomplete figures and labels selected for this task were used in previous research (see Lloyd-Cox et al., 2020), including figural stimuli from the Torrance Test (Torrance, 1965) and the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Labelfigure pairs were prespecified as related (high-constraint; i.e., ≥20% of English-speaking MTurk pilot participants generated the same label for the figure), or unrelated (low-constraint; i.e., related labels from other figures were randomly paired with an alternative incomplete figure, with dissimilarity further confirmed by the research team). ...
Article
A large body of research has revealed that viewing example image stimuli tends to constrain creative idea generation. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms underlying such visual fixation in creative cognition are unclear. In the present experiment, we explored whether example images impacted creative imagination and patterns of neural activity within brain regions associated with visual object recognition. Participants first viewed example images (ambiguous line drawings) accompanied by high-constraint and low-constraint labels. High-constraint labels resembled the line drawings, whereas low constraint labels did not. Next, participants imagined new labels for the same line drawings, with the initial labels removed. Consistent with our predictions, semantic distance analysis comparing cue labels to newly generated labels showed lower average semantic distance (i.e., less creative ideas) on high-constraint trials compared to low-constraint trials. Using representational similarity analysis, we also demonstrated that neural pattern similarity was anticorrelated (less similar) from object recognition to high-constraint imagination trials within the right inferior temporal gyrus, right middle temporal gyrus, and right superior occipital gyrus. Broadly, these findings suggest that salient visual examples may guide the formation of strong mental representations that constrain creative imagination. This research also offers a first step toward identifying neurocognitive signatures associated with the effortful process of producing new, creative ideas following exposure to fixating examples – particularly at the early level of object recognition/representation in the ventral visual stream.
... The Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA). We used TCIA to measure creative visual imagination (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015) (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2020). Each drawing is scored 0, 1, or 2 points on each item. ...
... Yet, we emphasize that when time is money, the observable tendency among scholars is quite the opposite-researchers tend to shorten their test (consider, for example, a shortened version of TCIA; Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015, not to lengthen them. There is no easy solution to this alternative; having a DT test that is both short and reliable seems not very realistic given our estimates. ...
Article
Full-text available
Creativity—as any other object of scientific endeavor—requires a sound measurement that adheres to quality criteria. For decades, creativity science has been criticized as falling short in developing valid and reliable measures of creative potential, activity, and achievement. Recent years have witnessed growth of theoretical and empirical works that focused on improving creativity assessment. Here, we apply one of such recently developed approaches based on item response theory to examine ideas’ and person score reliability in a divergent thinking task. A large sample (N = 621) of children and adolescents solved the Circles task from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural and two other figural tests measuring creative thinking (Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing Production) and creative imagination (Test of Creative Imagery Abilities). By employing response propensity models, we observed that separate ideas’ reliability tended to fall below recommended thresholds (even liberal ones, e.g., .60) unless the sample size as well as the number of generated ideas (fluency) were large. Importantly, reliability at the idea-level affected reliability at the person-level much less than could be assumed based on recent findings. We propose a systematic perspective on divergent thinking assessment that considers responses as nested in tasks and tasks as nested in tests. Finally, we recommend that adding more tasks to divergent thinking tests might increase reliability at the test level.
... In this regard, we define creative imagery abilities as an individual's ability to create, interpret, mentally transform, and represent visual images based on past observations, but also to transcend them. In the applied model of creative imagery abilities (see Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015;Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015), we introduce three basic components, as depicted in Figure 1: ...
... This path is often defined as echoes or reconstructions of actual perceptual experiences from their past, which may be more or less creative (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015). Thus, a distinction is made between mental imagery for reproductive images (i.e., evoking images for objects or events that are already known and based on the material of past observations) and transformed images, that evoke images for events that have previously not been perceived, including movements and transformations of previously seen objects (Finke et al., 1989;Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). In this sense, the result of creating an image from stored information can be in form of creative visual images Chapter 1: Creative aspects of visual mental imagery and its assessment | Dorota Maria Jankowska, Maciej Karwowski that are significantly different from the view of reality that we keep in our memory (Finke, 1990). ...
... All participants declared that they had normal or correctedto-normal vision and no history of vestibular, cardiac or neurological disorders. They all had average visuo-spatial perception and orientation capacities and adequate level of creative mental imagery as demonstrated by the Visual Object and Space Perception Test Battery (VOSP) [57] and the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) [58] respectively. Each participant signed the study consent form. ...
Article
Full-text available
Creativity, transforming imaginative thinking into reality, is a mental imagery simulation in essence. It can be incorporeal, concerns sophisticated and/or substantial thinking, and involves objects. In the present study, a mental imagery task consisting of creating a scene using familiar (FA) or abstract (AB) physical or virtual objects in real (RMI) and augmented reality (VMI) environments, and an execution task involving effectively creating a scene in augmented reality (VE), were utilised. The beta and gamma neural oscillations of healthy participants were recorded via a 32 channel wireless 10/20 international EGG system. In real and augmented environments and for both the mental imagery and execution tasks, the participants displayed a similar cortico-cortical neural signature essentially based on synchronous vs asynchronous beta and gamma oscillatory activities between anterior (frontal) and posterior (i.e. parietal, occipito-parietal and occipito-temporal) areas bilaterally. The findings revealed a transient synchronised neural architecture that appears to be consistent with the hypothesis according to which, creativity, because of its inherent complexity, cannot be confined to a single brain area but engages various interconnected networks.
... The building blocks of creativity are fluency (number of solutions), flexibility, and originality of solutions and ideas (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Creativity is measured based on indicators developed by Vandeleur and friends that creativity is divided into two; First, the direct indicator of Creativity consists of generating ideas, experimenting, and persistence. ...
Conference Paper
Full-text available
Entrepreneurship has reached the world of education. Today many campuses have developed incubation centers to attract and develop student entrepreneurship. The fact that students own a business even with working in a company is nothing new at present. During the COVID-19 pandemic, many students lost their jobs and turned to open companies to survive. Internal and external factors influence the entrepreneurial spirit of students. This study examined the internal factors that encourage students to start their businesses before and after the COVID-19 pandemic, such as self-efficiency, motivation, competition in building creativity. The research was done on the foundation of the main data of surveying of 350 students from seven tertiary institutions in Jakarta and West Java. The test of hypothesis was using the Model of Structural Equation Model (Lisrel-SEM). The findings showed that self-efficacy affected students' competence and motivation in entrepreneurship. Their competence influenced student motivation to entrepreneurship, and in the end, creativity is influenced by competence and motivation. In this study, self-efficacy directly negatively affected creativity but had the indirect one through competence and motivation. Keywords: Self-efficacy, competence, motivation, creativity
... It goes back to the classic differen-tiation between the so-called four Ps (person, process, product, and press) in creativity research (Rhodes, 1961, but see also Glȃveanu, 2013). When creativity is analyzed from the perspective of a person, researchers usually focus on cognitive abilities, which are considered crucial for creative thinking: divergent thinking (Runco & Acar, 2012), imagery (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015), insight (Kounios & Beeman, 2009), but also more general abilities like executive functions (Benedek, 2018) or intelligence (Gerwig et al., 2021;. Most often, creativity is operationalized as results obtained in divergent thinking tasks (considered the best indicator of creative potential; see e.g., Reiter-Palmon, Forthmann, & Barbot, 2019). ...
Article
This paper presents a meta-analysis of the relationships between creativity (creative potential, activities, and achievement) and the Dark Triad of personality: narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy. Multilevel meta-analytic models demonstrated a small but significant positive association between creativity and narcissism (r = .15 [.10, .29]) and Machiavellianism (r = .06 [.02, .09]), but not with psychopathy (r = .03 [-.02, .07]). Creativity measures (self-report-vs.-performance), aspects (self-perception, creative activity, creative abilities, creative achievements), and domains (general, art, science, and everyday creativity) moderated the links with the Dark Triad. We discuss the possible mechanism of associations between Dark Triad traits and creativity and highlight future research directions.
Article
Full-text available
Most creativity measures are either complex or language-dependent, hindering cross-cultural creativity assessment. We have therefore developed and tested a simple, language-independent insight task based on pictures in the style of the widely used verbal remote associate task (RAT). We demonstrate that the language-independent RAT allows assessment of different aspects of insight across large samples with different languages. It also correlates with other creativity and general problem solving tasks. The entire stimulus set, including its preliminary normative data, is made freely available. This information can be used to select items based on accuracy, mean solution time, likelihood to produce an insight, or conceptual and perceptual similarity between the pictures per item.
Article
The present study had the purpose of investigating empirically the structure and relationships among mathematical imagination, mathematical knowledge and mathematical mindset. The three factors are constituent parts of the Innovation Engine model by Seelig (inGenius: A Crash course on creativity, HarperOne-2012) and can influence creative thinking. The participants were two hundred seventeen sixth grade students from three urban and eight rural primary schools. The data were collected by administering a mathematical imagination test, a test measuring mathematical knowledge and a questionnaire capturing their mathematical mindset. Partial least squares structural equation modeling was applied through Smart PLS in order to examine empirically the proposed path model describing the relationships among the three factors contributing to mathematical creative thinking, namely, imagination, knowledge and mindset. The data analysis yielded that the proposed model of the paper fulfilled all evaluation criteria of partial least squares structural equation modeling. In short, students’ mathematical knowledge could be explained directly and moderately by their mathematical mindset. In addition, mathematical imagination could be explained directly and to a large extent by mathematical knowledge and indirectly by mathematical mindset. Finally, the main implications for mathematics teaching are discussed and potential research directions are suggested.
Article
Divergent thinking (DT) tests are the most frequently used types of creativity assessment and have been administered in traditional paper and pencil format for more than a half century. With the prevalence of computer-based testing and increasing demands for large-scale, faster, and more flexible testing procedures, it is necessary to explore and test the usability of computer-based divergent thinking tests. Yet few studies have focused on the use of technologies in the assessment of creativity, including divergent thinking tests. The purpose of the present study was to design and test the feasibility of an online divergent thinking (DT) test. The following three aims were addressed: (1) evaluate reliability evidence of DT test scores, (2) explore relationships between technology use and online DT performance, and (3) compare the online test with its paper version regarding DT scores. One hundred and sixty-four participants were recruited from the University of Connecticut and randomly assigned into three groups: online-basic (OB), online-advanced (OA), and paper-and-pencil (PP). Based on the results of reliability analysis, six DT scores were selected for analysis of variance and multiple regression modeling. The findings indicated that, despite of the possible link between technology use and online DT performance, no differences were found between different modes (online vs. paper) or different interfaces (simple tools vs. advanced tools) in terms of either DT scores or reliability evidence. Additionally, males were found to produce overall significantly higher originality scores than females did in the line meaning test and the real-world problem test. The implications of these findings are further discussed in the paper.
Article
Full-text available
The reports of many creative individuals suggest the use of mental imagery in scientii c and artistic production. A variety of protocols have tested the association between mental imagery and creativity, but the individual differences approach has been most frequently employed. This approach is assessed here through a range of meta-analytic tests. Database searches revealed 18 papers employing the individual differences approach that were subjected to a conservative set of selection criteria. Nine studies (1,494 participants) were included in the nal analyses. A marginal, but statistically signii cant, Fisher's Z-transformed correlation coef cient was revealed. Further analyses showed little difference between form and type of self-reported imagery and divergent thinking. Explanations for the failure to account for more than 3% of the variance in the data sets are discussed in the context of anecdotal reports, task validity, and design problems.
Article
The subject of creativity has been neglected by psychologists. The immediate problem has two aspects. (1) How can we discover creative promise in our children and our youth, (2) How can we promote the development of creative personalities. Creative talent cannot be accounted for adequately in terms of I.Q. A new way of thinking about creativity and creative productivity is seen in the factorial conceptions of personality. By application of factor analysis a fruitful exploratory approach can be made. Carefully constructed hypotheses concerning primary abilities will lead to the use of novel types of tests. New factors will be discovered that will provide us with means to select individuals with creative personalities. The properties of primary abilities should be studied to improve educational methods and further their utilization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Article
There are many controversies with the psychometric approach to study human creativity. Many scholars doubt it is possible to discover something as delicate as creativity using standardized tests (e.g. Baer, 1993/1994, Hocevar, 1981). However, research shows that creativity tests are valid, reliable and predictive (Plucker, 1999, Plucker, Runco, 1998, Plucker, Renzulli, 1999). The article presents a new instrument to measure creative potential - especially creative imagination. This instrument called TCI - Test of Creative Imagination - looks effective, culture-fair, reliable and valid, which makes it useful for an individual diagnosis of creativity as well as for scientific studies.
Article
This article reports a meta-analysis of the relationships between creative self-beliefs (CSBs)-a broad set of characteristics including creative self-efficacy, creative personal identity, and self-rated creativity-and the Big Five (openness, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism) as well as the Huge Two (plasticity and stability) personality traits. A review of the literature identified 25 independent studies and more than 80 correlations per personality factor; these were analyzed using a 3-level meta-analysis model. Openness was consistently the strongest predictor of CSBs (r = .467; 95% CI: .402, .531), followed by Extraversion (r = .264; 95% CI: .225, .304), Conscientiousness (r = .133; 95% CI: .061, .204), Neuroticism (r = -.124; 95% CI: -.184, -.064), and Agreeableness (r = .070; 95% CI: .006, .134). These effects were moderated by CSB type; more specifically, the relationships were stronger for domain-general than for domain-specific measures of CSBs. A meta-analytical structural equation model demonstrated that Plasticity was strongly positively correlated with CSBs (β = .71), whereas Stability was a negative predictor (β = -.23). We discuss whether the relationship between personality and CSBs is causal or correlational and consider the discriminant validity of CSBs as currently defined. (PsycINFO Database Record