Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities
Dorota M. Jankowska1, Maciej Karwowski1*
1Department of Educational Sciences, Academy of Special Education, Poland
Submitted to Journal:
Frontiers in Psychology
Original Research Article
06 Jul 2015
02 Oct 2015
Provisional PDF published on:
02 Oct 2015
Frontiers website link:
Jankowska DM and Karwowski M(2015) Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities. Front. Psychol. 6:1591.
© 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
New Test of Creative Imagination 1
RUNNING HEAD: New Test of Creative Imagination
Measuring Creative Imagery Abilities
Dorota M. Jankowska, Maciej Karwowski
Academy of Special Education, Poland
Authors’ Note and Acknowledgement
Dorota M. Jankowska, Maciej Karwowski, Department of Educational Sciences,
Academy of Special Education, Szczesliwicka St., 40, 02353 Warsaw, Poland.
Please address correspondence to Maciej Karwowski (email@example.com).
The study was supported by a grant from the National Science Center, Poland [grant
number UMO 2011/03/N/HS6/05153].
New Test of Creative Imagination 2
Over the decades, creativity and imagination research developed in parallel, but they
surprisingly rarely intersected. This paper introduces a new theoretical model of creative
visual 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.
Keywords: creative imagination, vividness, originality, transformativeness, TCIA
New Test of Creative Imagination 3
Imagination pervades human experience. The activity of visual imagination encompasses
creating, interpreting, and transforming vivid mental representations (Thompson, Hsiao, &
Kosslyn, 2011). Its creative function, which stems from engagement in the creative process, is
most often discussed in connection with the imaginary games of childhood (Hoff, 2005;
Singer & Singer, 1992) as well as artistic and scientific work (Root-Bernstein, 2014;
Rothenberg, 1995). However, the belief that creative imagination is one of the major human
abilities contributing to the effective use of the creative potential (Runco, Nemiro, &
Walberg, 1998) is not a matter of recent years only. The first documented study on
imagination was conducted among scientists nearly one and a half centuries ago (Galton,
1880), and with the development of research on creativity test instruments measuring visual
creative imagination were created. However, the existing tests do not take into account the
complexity of creative imagination, which became an impulse for developing the Test of
Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA), whose theoretical assumptions as well as selected aspects
of validity and reliability we present in this paper. The instrument we propose enables profile
analysis of visual creative imagination, thereby treating imagination as a complex and
multidimensional disposition comprising specific characteristics (vividness, originality,
transformative ability) distinguished in the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability. In
this model, creative imagination is defined as ability to create and transform representations
that are based on the material of past observations but that significantly transcend them – by
creating the so-called creative representations (see Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015) (Figure
1). Although creative imagination understood in this way is part of the broad construct of
creative cognition (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992), we perceive creative imagination in a more
narrow way, than we do creative cognition.
---------- Insert Figure 1 Here --------
1.1.Problems with Measures of Creative Imagination
Test-based research on creativity originated with Guilford’s (1950) theory of divergent
thinking. With time, Guilford’s proposals of tasks measuring the characteristics of divergent
thinking gave rise to numerous tests, such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT;
Torrance, 1974) or Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement (TCAM; Torrance, 1981).
For many years, this tradition of creativity research remained the dominant approach. And
even though imagination measurement in psychology and related sciences has a longer
tradition than research on divergent thinking (Galton, 1880), it was the post-Guilfordian
orientation that exerted considerable influence on the testing of creative imagination, not the
other way around. The influence was so strong that the contribution of creative imagination
was included in the first tests for the assessment of divergent thinking, an example being the
“Imaginative Stories Task” in the Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking (MCTC; Goldman,
1965; Torrance, 1962), the original version of TCAM. The combination of these abilities in
divergent thinking resulted in a blurring of the concept of imagination, previously well
defined in the literature. Interestingly, many questionnaires for exploring visual imagination
were developed in parallel (e.g., Marks, 1973; Sheehan, 1967), measuring mainly the
following: (1) imagery vividness – the clarity, complexity, and elaboration of the imagery
generated; (2) imagery control – the ability to manipulate the imagery generated; and (3)
imagery style – a preference for imagery-based or verbal strategies of encoding and
processing information (MacInnis, 1987). The assessment criteria in the newly developed test
measures were nearly identical with those in typical divergent thinking tests, for example:
flexibility, elaboration, originality, asymmetry, and abstraction in the Franck Drawing
Completion Test (FDCT; Anastasi & Schaefer, 1971), flexibility, elaboration, and originality
in the Visual Imagination Test (VIT; McHenry & Shouksmith, 1970), or flexibility and
New Test of Creative Imagination 4
originality in the Creative Imagination Test (CIT; Schubert, 1973). On the other hand, the
influence of Guilfordian tests on the practice of testing and creative imagination assessment
may not be so obvious as it is described to be. Long before Guilford's (1950) famous address,
which gave impulse to the development of creativity psychology, Simpson (1922) presented
the Test for Creative Imagination (Visual), in which the counterpart of transformativeness
was the creative changes indicator, which was the prototype for the flexibility of thinking.
This measure was computed based on the product of the number of all the drawings produced
in the test and the number of changes between the drawings (i.e., the number of transition
moments between different categories). It can therefore be supposed that first definitions of
imagery transformation ability were positioned within the area of meanings and their
interpretations, just like the flexibility of thinking.
With time, many empirical studies appeared that demonstrated a weak relationship
between imagination and divergent thinking (Campos & Gonzalez, 1993; Campos & Pérez,
1989; Parrott & Strongman, 1985), which is confirmed by the meta-analysis summing up
these studies (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). It therefore became justified to treat these
constructs as distinct and relatively independent components of creativity, each having its
own measurement specificity. Nevertheless, the influence of the post-Guilfordian tradition
was still so strong that even after the publication of the Test of Creative Thinking by Jellen
and Urban (TCT-DP; Jellen & Urban, 1986), which, in some sense, overcame the dominance
of the Guilfordian approach in thinking about creativity, the scoring criteria in new creative
imagination tests were still a reproduction of fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration.
For instance, in Prueba de Imaginación Creativa (PIC; Barraca, Poveda, Artola, Mosteino,
Sanchez, & Ancillo, 2004) five scales were distinguished, of which four are repetitions of the
components of divergent thinking: fluency of ideas, flexibility of thinking, originality of the
responses, elaboration of the responses, and use of creative details (color, shadows,
expansiveness, rotations, new perspectives). And while references to fluency, which can be
linked with the generativity (fertility) of imagination, are to some extent justifiable, defining
the originality of the generated imagery in terms of the rarity of their occurrence is an
erroneous oversimplification that results from copying the scoring criteria for divergent
thinking. The creative aspect of imagery manifests itself in generating new ideas and
hypotheses, which are rare by nature, but above all they are innovative (Magid, Sheskin, &
Schulz, 2015; Ward, 1994). This way of thinking about the originality of imagery is visible in
the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI; Karwowski, 2008a, 2008b), where the participant's
task is to imagine and draw schematic drawings representing something that does not exist
but, in the participant's opinion, should exist.
Reproducing the scoring criteria for divergent in creative imagination tests resulted in
the similarity of test tasks. For example, the FDCT matrix is almost an exact copy of the
matrix in the figural part of TTCT – Picture Completion. The situation is similar in the case of
PIC and the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI, Ren, Li, Zhang, & Wang, 2012). They all
consist of incomplete figures to be completed and captioned, the difference being that FDCT
has 12 figures, PIC has 4, and in TTCT and TCI there are 10 of them. This is undoubtedly a
reference to the Sketches Test, in which the participant is given a simple basic figure, such as
a circle, that he or she is supposed to complement in such a way as to produce a recognizable
sign (Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966). A similarity is also observable in verbal tasks. In the
version of PIC that is intended for children, the tasks in the verbal part require describing: (1)
the possible consequences of all squirrels turning into dinosaurs, (2) new applications of
plastic pipes, and (3) various endings of a situation presented in a picture. In the verbal part of
the TCI, participants generate alternative endings for a briefly outlined story. It is not difficult
to notice that these are typical tasks from the Remote Consequences Tests of the Unusual
Uses Tests (Guilford, 1967). However, they are not always a copy of Guilford's tasks. In the
New Test of Creative Imagination 5
TCI test sheet there are 16 elements – in groups of four: dots, semicircles, straight lines, and
curved lines – out of which it is easy to make schematic drawings. Just like in the Make a
Figure Test, simple linear elements are provided; however, the essence of the task is not to
contrive to arrange as many complex figures as possible out of those elements (Guilford,
1967) but to use them for schematically presenting a generated mental image. This shows that
the problem of creative imagination tests does not lie in their being inspired by tasks invented
by Guilford but in the frequently rather mechanical imitation of their specificity and scoring.
Another problem, connected both with the specificity of tasks and with their scoring,
is the construct validity of creative imagination tests. Some of those instruments have unclear
theoretical roots. FDCT originally served to carry out projective studies of masculinity and
femininity characteristics (Franck & Rosen, 1949; Harkley, 1982). Barron (1958) proposed a
new version of the test; drawing on the Guilfordian definition of originality, he developed the
Originality Scale of FDCT, which placed emphasis on the originality, complexity, and
asymmetry of the drawings made. The use of Guilford's theory once again confirms the strong
domination of this orientation in the psychology of creativity, since at least two
comprehensive theories of creative imagination were already in existence at that time –
Théodule A. Ribot's (1906) and Lev S. Vygotsky's (1930/2004; 1931/1991).
Another problem of creative imagination tests is the time limitations on administering
them – from 10 minutes in PIC, modeled on TTCT, to 30 minutes in the TCI. Thus, they are
mostly tests of speed (MCTC; FDCT; PIC; TCI). As a result, solving these tests requires,
above all, quick reaction to tasks. The result obtained in a test may therefore depend not on
the actual level of imagery abilities but on intellectual mobility. Individuals with a higher
speed of intellectual work will do more test tasks in a specified unit of time, which again
indirectly relates to the fluency of thinking, making these tests closer to classic Guilfordian
tests in terms of scoring.
The next charge – serious but overlooked by many researchers – is associated with
imagery transformation abilities; it concerns the aprocessual character of creative
imagination: that is, making inferences about the transformations performed exclusively on
the basis of their final outcome, being a reflection of the imagery generated. The simplest
schema of inference about transformations is an analysis of the transition from the original
image to its final form. In graphic tests based on the Sketches Test (FDCT, PIC, TCI),
inference about transformations is based on the analysis of changes in the stimuli evoking the
imagery; for example, in FDCT the participant gets one point on a three-point scale for
making a drawing that is elaborate in form and not rigidly based on the initial symbol. This is
a risky kind of inference about imagery transformation, since it concerns the elaboration and
complexity of an image – which determine the imagery vividness index – to a greater degree
than the transformation abilities responsible for the result of the process of reconfiguring or
recombining concepts (Ward, 2004). It is therefore legitimate to venture the statement that a
majority of creative imagination tests place emphasis on measuring he ability to generate
vivid and complex imagery as well as its originality.
The problems described, associated with the measurement of creative imagery
abilities, were an impulse for us to develop a new instrument. Drawing on the long tradition
of research on visual and creative imagination and at the same trying to avoid the
shortcomings of the existing tools described above, we developed the Test of Creative
Imagery Abilities (TCIA), whose assumptions and selected aspects of validity and reliability
we will present in the further sections of this paper.
1.2.Assessment of Visual Creative Imagination – A New Measurement Instrument
The Test of Creative Imagery Abilities (TCIA) measures the intensity of three characteristics
of creative imagination distinguished in the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability:
New Test of Creative Imagination 6
1) vividness – the ability of generating clear and distinctive imagery characterized by high
complexity, specificity, and elaboration; 2) originality – the ability of generating creative
imagery characterized by novelty; and 3) transformative ability – the ability of modifying and
transforming the imagery generated (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015, see also Figure 1).
The test can be used in individual and group studies at different age levels – from about the
age of 4 years to late adulthood.
The TCIA test booklet is in A3 format and consists of seven tasks. The first stage of
solving each task has an exploratory character. The participant (in a group study) is supposed
to give, in an oral or written form, as many images generated on the basis of a simple graphic
sign, called the initial figure. Next, he or she selects the most original of the images given
and, on its basis, makes a drawing accompanied by a brief description. The instruction
stresses the possibility of elaborating and changing the selected image and adding any
elements to it in such a way as to create something even more original: “You will find an
unfinished drawing on every page of the test. Please write what it reminds you of. The more
unusual ideas, the better. Next, underline the idea that you like most. Think of what you can
change in it, reshape, and develop it in order to create something even more unique. Draw it
the box and give your drawing a title. Good luck!”. In an individual interview, the researcher
writes down the participant's answers on a specially prepared answer sheet. Regardless of the
manner of testing, the time allowed for solving the test is not limited. Usually, solving the
TCIA does not require more than 20 minutes.
---------- Insert Figure 2 Here ----------
The test has two parallel versions (A and B) that differ only in the position of the signs – in
version B, each initial imagery-evoking sign is rotated by 180 degrees.
---------- Insert Figure 3 Here ----------
Most tests measuring creative imagination do not have alternative versions (e.g., FDCT, TCI),
which was the main impulse to start work on developing parallel versions of TCIA. The
possibility of using the parallel versions of the test is of great importance in educational
assessment, particularly when checking the effectiveness of various stimulatory activities.
Their use in experiments involving the initial and final measurements of the dependent
variable eliminates the necessity of applying the same instrument and thereby increases the
internal consistency of the design.
The drawings and descriptions of imagery made in TCIA are assessed on three scales
based on the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability (the Vividness scale; the
Originality scale; the Transformativeness scale). Each scale is scored according to the criteria
discussed in detail and illustrated with examples in the test manual (Jankowska & Karwowski,
2015). According to these criteria, it is possible to score 0, 1, or 2 points on each scale for a
single drawing. The scores on scales are computed by adding up the points given to all the
drawings. The total score is the sum of points obtained on the scales: Vividness, Originality,
and Transformative Ability. Additionally, the analysis may also cover the index of
imagination generativity – Imaginative Fluency.
---------- Insert Table 1 Here ----------
The Vividness scale measures the degree of visualization and elaboration of the
imagery generated. A high level of vividness is recognized, for instance, by the following: (A)
an abundance of detail in the completion of the initial figure; (B) a clear depiction of motion
and dynamics in the drawing; and (3) a complex presentation of metaphorical and symbolic
content. The Originality scale measures the novelty of the imagery generated. A high level of
originality is attested, for example, by: (D) the depiction of new objects, activities, processes,
and events in the drawing that differ considerably from the actually existing ones; (E)
surprising and novel presentation of cultural artifacts such as works of art; (F) amusing
presentation of contents, suggesting a good sense of humor. The Transformativeness scale
New Test of Creative Imagination 7
measures the ability of modifying the imagery generated. The scoring criteria refer to basic
operations of transforming visual imagery, such as: (G) multiplication – multiplying an
element of the image; (H) hyperbolization – excessive distortion of proportions, for example
by emphasizing an element of the image; (I) amplification – adding detail to the image (see
---------- Insert Figure 4 Here ----------
In order to establish the structure of imagery abilities characteristic for a particular
person, TCIA scores can be subjected to profile analysis. Each imagery ability is then
assessed against the backdrop of the person's other imagination-related skills or against the
norms determined for a certain population. The profile thus obtained is useful in predicting
the further development of imagination and in deciding on the direction of supportive and
In profile-based analysis, high scores on all the three scales attest creative imagery
abilities. In the case of vivid imaging ability, the imagery generated is expressive but imitative
– it is almost an exact reflection of previously perceived and memorized images. In cases of
this kind, people should be inspired to creatively combine, non-typically link, and modify the
generated images so as to give them features of novelty. Individuals with pro-creative
imaging ability should be encouraged to create expressive imagery, add detail to it, and make
it dynamic. By contrast, in the case of passive imaging ability profile, stimulatory
interventions should focus on developing the ability of transforming imagery in unconstrained
and miscellaneous ways.
2. The Present Studies
The research program presented below was aimed at testing the psychometric properties of
the new test. In nine studies, on a total sample of 1,700 participants, we tested criterion
validity, juxtaposing TCIA results with other measures of imagination and creative abilities
(Studies 1-5) and the discriminant validity of TCIA (Study 6), checking whether and to what
extent TCIA dimensions are related to intelligence and school achievement measured using
standardized tests as well as GPA. In the next step, using aggregated data, we tested the
construct validity of the new test by performing confirmatory factor analysis. We also show
the measurement invariance of TCIA among women and men as well as the relations between
age and creative imagination.
The other objective of our analyses was to test the reliability of TCIA. In Study 7, we
demonstrate the consistency of trained judges' evaluations on TCIA based on the manual
(Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Study 8 is devoted to the analysis of test-retest reliability,
and in Study 9 we present test-retest relations, with version B of TCIA used apart from
version A. We conclude the reliability analyses by reaching for aggregated data from all the
studies presented in this paper and we present the internal consistency of TCIA scales
assessed using a more traditional method (Cronbach's α) as well as the more modern
composite reliability (H; Hancock & Mueller, 2001), which is the outcome of confirmatory
factor analysis. Table 2 provides an overview of all studies with descriptive statistics.
---------- Insert Table 2 Here ----------
2.1.Criterion Validity (Studies 1-5)
220.127.116.11.Study 1. The participants in Study 1 were 100 students (all of them female) aged
19-40 years (M = 22.73, SD = 4.71). They were students of social sciences at
several universities in a big city in central Poland.
New Test of Creative Imagination 8
18.104.22.168.Study 2. The participants in Study 2 were 57 female students of education and
teaching, aged 20-24 years (M = 20.85, SD = 0.59). They studied at a university of
education in Warsaw, the capital of Poland.
22.214.171.124.Study 3. The participants in the third study were 261 children (110 girls) aged 5-7
years (M = 6.02, SD = 1.1). The children attended nursery and elementary schools
126.96.36.199.Study 4. The participants in Study 4 were 226 individuals (171 women) aged 11-
30 years (M = 13.10, SD = 6.04). They were students of elementary, middle, and
high schools as well as university students from all over Poland.
188.8.131.52.Study 5. The participants in Study 5 were 741 individuals (425 women) aged 15-
25 years (M = 18.30, SD = 3.04). They were students of middle and high schools
as well as university students from all over Poland.
2.1.3. Measures and Procedure
In all of the five studies, version A of TCIA was used. Apart from that, in each of those five
studies we used different questionnaires and tests measuring characteristics directly related to
creative imagination or creative abilities. In each study, the instruments were presented in a
random order. The instruments used in particular studies are listed below.
184.108.40.206.Study 1. Perceived efficacy in using visual imagination was measured by the
Vividness of Visual Imagery Questionnaire (VIVIQ) (Marks, 1973, 1995). The
questionnaire consists of 32 items that are supposed to measure the degree to
which the participant believes himself/herself to be capable of using imagination
efficiently. An example item is: “In answering items 1 to 4, think of some relative
or friend whom you frequently see (but who is not with you at present) and
consider the picture that comes before your mind’s eye. (1) The exact contour of
face, head shoulders and body.” The reliability of the VIVIQ was high (α = .904)
220.127.116.11.Study 2. Creative imagination was measured using the Franck Drawing
Completion Test (FDCT), successfully applied in earlier research on creativity
(Dziedziewicz, Gajda, & Karwowski, 2013; Dziedziewicz, Olędzka, &
Karwowski, 2012). FDCT is composed of 12 figures, placed in separate
“windows.” The participants’ task is to complete the initial figures in such a way
that the end result takes the form of interesting drawings. There is no limit on the
time taken to complete the task. The test is assessed on a three-point scale (0-1-2):
no points are given for a conventional form, one point is given for a fairly complex
form which partially stands out in its originality and unconventional approach, and
two points are given for drawings with a rich, free, and unconventional form
which are not strictly based on the initial symbol. The maximum score on the test
is 24 points. The reliability of the FDCT was high (α = .83).
In the second study we also used a task that is a classic one in experiments
concerning creative imagination and consists in drawing animals “from a different
planet” (Generating Imaginary Animals; Ward, 1994). The participants were asked
to list 20 animals that came to their mind (Listing Real Earth Animals). Next, they
were to imagine a planet, completely different than Earth, on which a variety of
plant and animal species existed. Based on the imagery generated, they made a
detailed drawing of an imaginary creature as seen from the front and from the side,
they gave it a name and named all the parts of its body. The images were assessed
using an index applied in earlier studies (Ward, 1994; Ward, Petterson, Sifonis,
Dodds, & Saunders, 2002; Ward & Sifonis, 1997) – the presence of untypical
sense organs (creature attributes).
New Test of Creative Imagination 9
18.104.22.168.Study 3. In the third study, we used the Test of Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production (TCT-DP) (Jellen & Urban,1986). This test measures creative thinking
defined in a broad way based on Urban’s Components Model of Creativity (1996).
The subjects are asked to complete an unfinished drawing. Detailed procedures of
the TCT-DP are given in Urban (2004). Briefly, participants in this task are asked
to complete an unfinished drawing that consists of a few shapes including a half-
circle and a dot. Each participant is given a score of creative abilities based on 14
criteria: (1) continuations, (2) completions, (3) new elements, (4) connections
made with a line, (5) connections made to produce a theme, (6) boundary breaking
(fragment-dependent), (7) boundary breaking (fragment-independent), (8)
perspective, (9) humor and affectivity, (10) manipulation of the material, (11)
surreal or abstract drawings, (12) atypical combinations of figures and symbols,
(13) non-stereotypical use of a certain element, and (14) speed. The final score
given for the TCT-DP is a sum of points from all of these criteria. Previous studies
(Gralewski & Karwowski, 2012; Karwowski & Gralewski, 2013) confirmed its
value as a valid and reliable measure. In this study, the reliability of the TCT-DP
was acceptable (α = .75).
22.214.171.124.Study 4. In Study 4, we used the verbal Alternate Uses Task inspired by
Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1962). The task was to come up
with unusual uses for a can within a specified time (3 minutes). This task was
scored in terms of fluency, flexibility, and originality of thinking.
126.96.36.199.Study 5. The circle test from the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT;
Torrance, 1974) was used to measure divergent thinking (DT). The test consists of
20 empty circles arranged in 5 rows of 4 on the test sheet. The task is to create
interesting drawings in them, trying to use all the circles within 10 minutes. The
total number of circles used minus the number used for recurring themes gives an
index of fluency (range: 0 to 20 points). This index is generally considered to be
absolutely reliable because it relies on mechanical counting. Flexibility is indexed
by the number of categories of themes considered; originality is indexed by the
inverse of the frequency of occurrence of each concept in the whole sample
(unique ideas score highest), and total originality score is the sum of the originality
scores for each circle response generated by the participant (see Plucker, Qian, &
Wang, 2011, and Silvia et al., 2008, for the advantages and limitations of different
originality scoring methods).
The research program presented in this article was approved by the authors’ university’s
Institutional Review Board. Written permission from the parents of the children participating
was obtained prior to data collection. The participants were informed about the study and
could withdraw at any time. All tests were scored by 3 research assistants (graduate students
of psychology and education), trained in creativity tests scoring.
2.1.2. Results and Discussion
The correlations between the three scales of TCIA and the dimensions of creative imagination
and creative thinking are presented in Table 3. Additionally, in Table 4 we present the
polychoric correlations between vividness, originality, and transformativeness of the TCIA
and each of the 14 TCT-DP criteria.
In the case of measures treated as referring directly to creative imagination (VIVIQ,
FDCT, and Generating Imaginary Animals), seven out of nine correlation coefficients turned
out to be statistically significant, with a generally substantial effect (median r = .32). Imagery
abilities measured using VIVIQ turned out to correlate fairly consistently and with similar
New Test of Creative Imagination 10
strength with all the three criteria – the most strongly with vividness (r = .42) and slightly less
strongly with originality (r = .36) and transformativeness (r = .31). We obtained quite a
similar picture of the relationship in the case of FDCT – the scores in this test were mainly
linked with vividness (r = .48), less strongly with originality (r = .30), and the most weakly
(as well as not significantly) with transformativeness (r = .18). By contrast, the number of
untypical sense organs in the Generating Imaginary Animals task was independent of
vividness (r = .02) but strongly related to the TCIA (r = .45) and transformativeness (r = .32).
In the case correlations between TCIA scales and measures of creative thinking, the
situation was less clear. Only 11 out of 21 correlation coefficients were statistically
significant, with a median of r = .12. The TCIA was related fairly consistently – though less
strongly than with measures of imagination – to TCT-DP scores. Both vividness (r = .26) and
originality (r = .32) as well as transformativeness (r = .20) were related to the overall score on
this test. A more detailed analysis taking into account particular TCT-DP criteria (Table 4)
unveiled more interesting patterns of relations. TCIA vividness was the most strongly related
to TCT-DP unconventional manipulation (r = .44), perspective (r = .38), and fragment-
independent boundary breaking (r = .30). Correlations between originality and TCT-DP
criteria were weaker: they were the strongest in the case of using abstract elements (r = .30),
introducing new elements into the drawing (r = .28), continuations of the existing elements (r
= .27), and connections that contribute to a theme (r = .27). In the case of transformativeness,
we found the strongest relations with new elements (r = .22) and boundary-breaking
(fragment-independent) (r = .20).
Correlations between TCIA scales and the scores on tasks from Torrance’s tests were
both weaker and less systematic. What is interesting, the measures of creative imagination
were almost completely unrelated to the classic scoring criteria of creative thinking tests
(fluency, flexibility, originality) in the case of the graphic test (only fluency was weakly
related to vividness, r = .13). As regards the verbal test, the scores were the most consistently
related to originality, which was related in an identical way (r = .26) to verbal fluency,
flexibility, and originality. The relations between vividness and transformativeness and the
measures of creative abilities were weaker, though significant (.13 <= r >= .18).
---------- Insert Table 3 Here ----------
---------- Insert Table 4 Here ----------
The results of the first five studies confirm the validity of TCIA. Stronger relationships
between the results obtained in the new test and established measures of creative imagination
(VIVIQ, FDCT, Generating Imaginary Animals), compared to classic measures of creative
abilities (also graphic ones)
, support the statement that, measuring characteristics important
for creativity, TCIA focuses to a greater extent on imagination rather than on the
characteristics of thinking. Admittedly, the values of correlations between vividness,
originality, and transformativeness and the measurements using other instruments developed
for measuring imagination are not spectacularly high (the highest being r = .48 between
FDCT and the vividness of imagination), but they are strong and consistent enough to be
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
New Test of Creative Imagination 11
treated as confirming the criterion validity of the new measure. What is important, the
obtained profile of various relations between the scales of TCIA and other measures also
constitutes an argument supporting the validity of the new instrument. It is easy to notice that
the attempts made so far to study creative imagination have focused only on its selected
elements. For example, FDCT (Dziedziewicz et al., 2013) actually measures the vividness
and, to a certain (smaller) extent, originality of creative imagination, but it does not measure
transformativeness. The task of Generating Imaginary Animals (Ward, 1994; Ward, Petterson,
Sifonis, Dodds, & Saunders, 2002; Ward & Sifonis, 1997) reveals much about originality and
next to nothing about vividness. The new test makes it possible to systematically analyze all
the three components important for the functioning of creative imagination without
duplicating the measurement performed using any of the previous instruments and remaining
relatively independent of creative thinking.
Assuming that the results presented in Studies 1-5 convincingly support the criterion
validity of the new measure, the next important step was to determine its discriminant
validity. For that purpose, we used measures of general intellectual ability (intelligence) and
school achievement in different areas. Previous studies and meta-analyses (Karwowski &
Gralewski, 2013; Kim, 2005) show that the relations between creativity and intelligence are
not particularly strong (however, see Silvia, 2015, for an alternative position), and neither are
the relations between creative abilities and school achievement (Gralewski & Karwowski,
2012; Gajda, in press; Gajda & Karwowski, in press). This is why we devoted Study 6 to
checking the discriminant validity of the new test, correlating the results obtained in it with
intelligence and school achievement.
2.2.Discriminant Validity (Study 6)
The participants in Study 6 were elementary school students. The sample was composed of
110 boys and 120 girls (total N = 230), whose mean age was 13.88 years (SD = 0.36). The
participants were fifth-grade students from elementary schools across the whole Poland. The
multilevel and multistrata sample selection made it representative for all Polish fifth-graders,
with the exception of special school students and students from very small schools (below 10
students per grade). The sample was drawn from the registers of Polish Educational
Information System (PEIS) (http://www.cie.men.gov.pl/index.php/sio.html). Four strata were
distinguished according to school location (village, town below 20,000 inhabitants, city
20,000-100,000, city above 100,000) and school size. In each randomly chosen school, two
classes were randomly invited to participate in the study.
188.8.131.52.Measures and Procedure
Apart from the TCIA, all participants solved an intelligence test and school achievement test.
Intelligence. In order to measure intelligence, we used Raven's Progressive Matrices (RPM)
(Raven, Raven, & Court, 2003). The reliability of RPM in this study was high (α = .85).
184.108.40.206.1. Grade Point Average. The grade point average for all school subjects from the
semester preceding the research was used as a measure of school grades. The GPA was
provided by students.
220.127.116.11.2. School Achievement. As a measure of school achievement, we used the results of a
school achievement test developed by the Educational Research Institute. This test measures
three spheres of school achievement – math, reading, and overall language awareness. The
test was developed and scaled according to item response theory (Rasch models is a one-
parameter and graded partial credit model; Rasch, 1980) and has very good psychometrics
properties – all items are well- fitted to the Rasch model (infit and outfit measures between
0.8 and 1.2). Moreover, the test information function at the average level of θ (a latent trait of
New Test of Creative Imagination 12
the measured achievement) was high, and the standard error of measurement was low –
translating into reliability between .86 and .88, depending on the scale (Jasińska &
2.2.2. Results and Discussion
Correlations between measures of intelligence and school achievement and the three scales of
TCIA are presented in Table 5. As opposed to the relations with creative abilities, reported
earlier, this time the profile of results is less clear. Vividness turned out to be a consistent
correlate of intelligence (r = .29), GPA (r = .33), and achievement test scores in math (r =
.28), reading (r = .24), and language awareness (r = .23). However, in the case of originality
and transformativeness, the relations were less unambiguous and clearly weaker. Originality
was significantly and positively, though weakly, related to school achievement in reading and
language awareness, whereas transformativeness was related to GPA (r = .21) and
competence in math (r = .20).
---------- Insert Table 5 Here ----------
The consistently positive relations found between intelligence, school achievement, and
vividness suggest that their cause is not only vividness itself but the related ability to work
persistently and thoroughly, closer to elaboration (Dziedziewicz & Karwowski, 2015). What
may also be interesting is the role of transformativeness in learning math (probably especially
geometry), which is confirmed by the relations found between skill in performing
transformations in the imagination and achievement in math.
Study 6 brings 15 correlations, of which only nine are statistically significant, and the
mean correlation coefficient (as well as median) obtained between intelligence and measures
of imagination is only r = .17. This result provides arguments in favor of the new test's
Studies 1-5 make it justified to consider TCIA an instrument characterized by criterion
validity, and Study 6 testifies to a good discriminant validity of the new test. The
measurement of creative imagination using TCIA is quite consistently and strongly related to
other measures of creative imagination, slightly less consistently and more weakly to creative
ability tests, and the most weakly (as well as less systematically) to intelligence and school
achievement. However, Studies 1-6 were based on the assumption that the three-factor
structure of the test, assumed by the presented theoretical model, is reproduced in the data. In
order to verify this assumption, in the next step we tested the construct validity of the new
test, subjecting its results to confirmatory factor analysis as well as testing measurement
invariance among men and women.
2.3.Construct Validity (Studies 1-9 aggregated)
The analysis covered data collected from 1,740 people at different ages – the participants in
Studies 1-9. In total, the sample consisted of 1,200 women (69%) and 540 men (31%); 42
people did not give their gender. The participants' age ranged from 10 to 55 years (M = 16.33,
SD = 4.72); most of them were students or university students taking part in various research
projects using TCIA.
18.104.22.168.Measure and Procedure
Sometimes the participants completed TCIA together with other tests, and sometimes it was
the only test completed.
2.3.2. Results and Discussion
New Test of Creative Imagination 13
In the first step, the data collected were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis in a design
involving many traits and many methods. More specifically, we tested the fit of the three-
factor model assumed on the basis of theory, while at the same time controlling the effect of
the test's individual items (Figure 4).
--------- Insert Figure 4 Here ----------
The assumed theoretical model was confirmed (Table 6). Comparing the measures of fit with
the commonly used criteria (Hu & Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2010), the values obtained should be
The correlations between latent factors were moderately strong (.39-.56), and the
factor loadings of the model estimated on the basis of polychoric correlations testify to a good
validity of individual items (Hu & Bentler, 1999), considerably exceeding the literature-
recommended minimum of .50. Thus, the construct validity of the model is confirmed by the
---------- Insert Table 6 Here ----------
2.3.3. Effects of Gender and Age on the TCIA Results
The next step in analyses was to test TCIA measurement invariance according to gender. The
fit of consecutive models with increasingly high constraint is presented in Table 7. The
sample being large, we performed invariance assessment not on the basis of differences in the
range of values of chi squared (sensitive to sample size), but by comparing the values of CFI
and RMSEA between models. Following the recommendations found in the literature on the
subject (Chen, 2007; Cheung & Rensvold, 2002), we consider a model to be invariant if CFI
change between consecutive models does not exceed .01 and if the change in RMSEA does
not exceed .02.
---------- Insert Table 7 Here ----------
Even the most constrained model that tested scalar invariance had a very good fit, and
differences in CFI between the models did not exceed .01, though comparing more and less
constrained models does bring a decline in fit, slightly exceeding the critical values. However,
given that the change in RMSEA between the least and the most constrained model is only
.005, there are significant grounds to consider the models well-fitted and the test itself
invariant according to gender.
The next step was to check the existence of gender differences in terms of the
characteristics of creative imagination. For this purpose, three latent variables: vividness,
originality, and transformativeness were predicted by gender. The model was well fitted to
data (χ2/df = 1.42, CFI = .988, RMSEA = .018), and the effect of gender in all three cases
turned out to be statistically significant. More specifically, women exhibited a higher level of
vividness (β = .25, p < .001), originality (β = .19; p < .001), and transformativeness (β = .17, p
An analogous model with age as a predictor was also well fitted (χ2/df = 2.36, CFI =
.959, RMSEA = .032); age was a statistically significant positive predictor of vividness (β =
.19, p < .001), originality (β = .14, p < .001), and transformativeness (β = .078, p < .01).
The analyses presented above confirm the construct validity of TCIA. As assumed, the
test has a three factor structure, and the three components of creative imagery are significantly
and moderately correlated. At the same time, however, correlations between them are not
strong enough to make them indistinguishable from one another. Individual items load on the
latent variables strongly enough to justify the conclusion about their criterion validity. These
data testify to the good validity of the measure.
New Test of Creative Imagination 14
We devoted the next three studies (7-9) to assessing the reliability of TCIA. Study 7
concerned testing the consistency between the judges scoring TCIA based on detailed
guidelines provided in the manual (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Studies 8 and 9
concerned test-retest reliability. The whole research concludes with a presentation concerning
reliability assessed as the test's internal consistency.
2.4.Interjudge Reliability (Study 7)
The participants were four judges (all female, mean age M = 26 years) trained in TCIA
22.214.171.124.Measures and Procedure
All the judges took part in a training devoted to details of TCIA scoring and acquainted
themselves with the test manual (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). Next, each of them was
asked to score 100 test sheets.
2.4.2. Results and Discussion
For each of the three TCIA scoring criteria, we computed intercorrelations between the
judges' ratings as well as their consistency using Cronbach's α and the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC) (Table 8).
---------- Insert Table 8 Here ----------
In all situations, interjudge consistency was very high and comparable between the criteria. In
all cases, α was equal to or higher than .90 (originality α = .90, vividness α = .91, and
transformativeness α = .92), with slightly lower but still acceptable ICC values (vividness and
originality ICC = .89, transformativeness ICC = .91).
The fact that briefly trained judges equipped with example assessments of TCIA
products are capable of scoring the products of this test very similarly testifies to its good
reliability. High consistency is a precondition of precise measurement. It is worth noting that
the values we obtained are similar to those usually obtained in the case of other creativity
tests, for example TCT-DP (Kalis, Roke, & Krumina, 2014) or TTCT (Dziedziewicz et al.,
2013). This makes it legitimate to believe that even though TCIA scoring is a multifaceted
and seemingly complex and difficult process, following our recommendations and using the
examples provided does in fact make it possible to obtain highly reliable data. In the next two
studies, we tested the reliability of TCIA in time: in Study 8 we used the same version of the
test twice, whereas in Study 9 we used version B. In the final step, using aggregated data from
all the studies described in this paper, we present data on the internal consistency of TCIA.
2.5. Test-Retest Reliability (Studies 8-9)
126.96.36.199.1. Study 8. The participants in Study 8 were 86 people (43 women) aged 13 to 15
years (M = 14.02, SD = 0.84). They were high-school students from a large
city in central Poland.
188.8.131.52.2. Study 9. The participants in Study 8 were 39 people (29 women) aged 13 to 14
years (M = 13.75, SD = 0.47). They were middle-school students from a big
city in central Poland.
184.108.40.206.Measures and Procedure
In Study 8, TCIA version A was used twice with a three-week interval. In Study 9, there were
five weeks between the measurement sessions using versions A and B of TCIA.
2.5.2. Results and Discussion
New Test of Creative Imagination 15
Test-retest correlations between measurement using the same version of the test with an
interval of three weeks were very high (r = .89 for vividness, r = .91 for originality, and r =
.98 for transformativeness, all p’s < .001), testifying to very high measurement reliability
In the case of studies using versions A and B of the test, with an interval of five weeks
between measurements, correlations were still fairly high – they ranged from r = .43 for
transformativeness, through r = .55 for originality, and r = .63 for vividness (all p’s < .001).
The high values of test-retest correlations, especially those from Study 8, combined
with the high interjudge consistency presented earlier, testify to the good reliability of TCIA
measurement. The final step of our analyses was to test the internal consistency of each scale
of TCIA. For this purpose, we used aggregated data from all the studies presented in this
2.6. Internal Consistency (Studies 1-9 aggregated)
The analysis covered data collected from 1,740 people at different ages – the participants in
Studies 1-9. In total, the sample consisted of 1,200 women (69%) and 540 men (31%); 42
people did not give their gender. The participants' age ranged from 10 to 55 years (M = 16.33,
SD = 4.72); most of them were students or university students taking part in various research
projects using TCIA.
220.127.116.11.Measures and Procedure
All the participants solved TCIA, sometimes together with other tests and self-report
measures and sometimes as the only test.
2.6.2. Results and Discussion
We assessed internal consistency using the values of Cronbach's α and the H coefficient –
composite reliability specific to confirmatory factor analysis (Hancock & Mueller, 2001). The
scale on which the criteria were measured being short (0-1-2 in the case of each criterion and
each individual item), we computed internal consistency on the basis of the matrix of
polychoric correlations estimated in Mplus 7.1 (Muthén & Muthén, 2015).
---------- Insert Table 9 Here ----------
The two methods yield very similar estimations of internal consistency. In the case of
vividness and originality, the internal consistency indices have very similar values (.83 for
vividness and .84 for originality), whereas in the case of transformativeness internal
consistency is α = .86 and H = .87.
These values demonstrate the good reliability of the test, especially as both
coefficients applied depend on the number of items in a scale, and each scale of TCIA
consists of a relatively small number of items (7). Internal consistency exceeding .80 may be
regarded as highly acceptable and testifying to the good quality of TCIA measurement.
3. General Discussion
Creative functioning requires different abilities that very likely also include visual creative
imagination. According to the conjunctional model of creative imaging ability (Dziedziewicz
& Karwowski, 2015), the key abilities are those of visualizing, transforming, and enriching
imagery, as well as combining them into new wholes. It must be stressed that this is not only
the domain of children with vivid imagination or artists, but the quality of every person's
mind, which facilitates visualizing problems and looking at them in new ways, leading to
original solutions being generated more easily. This is what makes it so important to have
valid and reliable tests of creative imagination. The existing instruments for measuring visual
New Test of Creative Imagination 16
creative imagination have many shortcomings; for example, they have unclear theoretical
roots, copy the scoring standards of divergent thinking tests, or measure only selected
elements of imagery abilities, mainly vividness and originality. The detailed analysis of
problems connected with measuring creative imagination, described in this paper, constituted
the basis for the assumptions adopted in the construction of TCIA.
The aim of the presented research was to document the quality of measurement using
TCIA. Four issues must be stressed in this conclusion. First, the results of correlational
studies using other measures of creative imagination and creative thinking confirm the
criterion validity of the test (Studies 1-5). Second, the study of creative imagination using
TCIA combined with the measurement of intelligence and school achievement provided
sufficient evidence for the discriminant validity of the new instrument (Study 6). Third,
aggregated data from all studies subjected to confirmatory factor analysis provided arguments
in favor of the test's construct validity – its three-factor structure was confirmed. Finally, both
versions of the test as a whole are reliable, and this also applies to each of their scales (Studies
We have demonstrated the measurement invariance of TCIA in case of gender. It
allowed us to test for gender differences in the latent means of TCIA scales. Although the
differences were small in terms of the effect size, females outperformed males in vividness,
originality and transformativeness. Similarly, there was small, but positive effect of age, with
older participants achieving higher results in the TCIA. Gender differences obtained in our
studies fit well with previous studies and show that not only women usually obtain higher
scores than men in self-assessed imaginative abilities (mainly vividness) (Harshman &
Paivio, 1987; Narchal & Broota, 1988), but they also do in terms of imaginative abilities
(Karwowski, 2009, Lau & Cheung, 2010). These differences may be due to girls’ engaging
more in role-playing or personal fantasy plays than boys during preschool years (Werebe &
Baudonniere, 1991). Furthermore, girls around 4 to 5 years of age have been observed to
engage in role-playing and in personal play fantasy twice as often as the boys of a similar age
group (Jones & Glenn, 1991). One of the most widely replicated findings in the research on
imaginary companions is that girls are more likely to have them than boys (Carlson & Taylor,
2005, Singer & Singer, 1990).
Summing up, it should be said that TCIA is characterized by high validity and
reliability in measuring visual creative imagination. Moreover, several findings presented in
this paper may be interesting not only as confirmations of the quality of the test. The
generally weak association between creative imagination and divergent thinking or
intelligence we have obtained replicates previous findings that generally show low
correlations between imagination and creativity (Schmeidler, 1965). Although generally those
correlations are statistically significant and positive, they rarely exceed the value of r = .30,
hence providing good arguments that these constructs are relatively independent aspects of
creative abilities (see e.g., Dziedziewicz et al., 2013; Rhodes, 1981; Russ & Grossman-
McKee, 1990). Usually, correlations between divergent thinking and vividness of imagery are
higher than those with transformativeness (LeBoutillier & Marks, 2003). Similarly, usually
creative imagination is more strongly related to originality than to fluency of thinking
(Dziedziewicz et al., 2013; Dziedziewicz et al., 2014).
3.1.Limitations and Future Directions
The research presented here had a correlational character. Experimental research would make
it possible to check, in a controlled way, whether the complexity of different imagery
transformations was reflected in the Transformativeness scale. Further research should
capture the dynamics of the process of image transformation, as has been done in the analysis
of reaching solutions in creativity tests (Beaty, Silvia, Nusbaum, Jauk, & Benedek, 2014).
New Test of Creative Imagination 17
Perhaps it is even worth attempting to combine the testing of creative imagination with
neuropsychological methods such as EEG or MRI (Fink & Benedek, 2012).
What seems very promising is the profile-based approach in the measurement of
creative imagination, which shows the complex and multifaceted nature of this disposition. In
the future, using the experience gathered when classifying the profiles of other multiscale
tests and questionnaires, it is worth developing an objective and reliable system of defining
profiles of creative imagery abilities by means of statistical procedures. Its usefulness for
scientific purposes, but above all in individual assessment and in choosing the type of
stimulatory interventions, will be invaluable.
The results presented in this paper focused especially on the version of TCIA that is
intended for group research. Another paper devoted to a version developed for individual
studies that includes the study of children aged 4 and older is in preparation.
At present, plans also exist to perform a cultural adaptation of TCIA in order for the
instrument to be successfully used in other countries (outside Poland), in research on
imagination – its nature, development, and determinants, in comparative cross-cultural
The results of our studies to date on the validity and reliability of the TCIA make it legitimate
to say that TCIA is a measure with good – or even very good – psychometric properties and a
clear theoretical basis.
What makes it valuable is, above all, the emphasis it gives to the complexity and
multidimensionality of visual creative imagination, in which it stands out favorably against
other tests measuring this disposition. This test enables a systematic analysis of all the three
components important to the functioning of creative imagination while remaining relatively
independent of creative thinking. Due to the possible application of the instrument in
assessment and intervention practice – in measuring the effectiveness of stimulatory
interventions – the fact that that TCIA exists in two versions is also of significance.
New Test of Creative Imagination 18
Anastasi, A., & Schaefer, C. E. (1971). The Franck Drawing Completion Test as a measure of
creativity. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 119, 3–12. DOI:
Artola, T., Ancillo, I., Mosteiro, P., & Barraca, J. (2004). PIC-N. Prueba de imaginación
creative para niños. Madrid: TEA Ed.
Barron, F. (1958). The psychology of imagination. Scientific American, 199, 150–166.
Beaty, R.E., Silvia, P.J., Nusbaum, E.C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). The role of
associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory & Cognition, 42, 1186-
Campos, A., & Gonzalez, M. A. (1993). Self-perceived creativity and vividness of mental
imagery. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 77, 1291–1296. DOI:
Campos, A., & Perez, M. A. (1989). High and low imagers and their scores on creativity.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 68, 403–406. DOI:
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement invariance.
Structural Equation Modeling, 14, 464-504. DOI:
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level meta-analyses: A
structural equation modeling approach. Psychological Methods, 2, 211-29. Doi:
Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing
measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255. DOI:
Carlson, S. M., & Taylor, M. (2005). Imaginary companions and impersonated characters:
Sex differences in children’s fantasy play. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 51, 299-324. DOI:
Dziedziewicz, D., Gajda. A., & Karwowski, M. (2014). Developing children’s intercultural
competence and creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 32–42. DOI:
Dziedziewicz, D., & Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s creative visual
imagination: A theoretical model, measure and stimulation program. Education, 1-3,
International Journal of Primary, Elementary and Early Years Education, 43, 382 – 393.
Dziedziewicz, D. Olędzka, D., Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4- to 6-year-old children’s
figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 85–95.
Fink, A. & Benedek, M. (2012). EEG alpha power and creative ideation. Neuroscience &
Biobehavioral Reviews, 44, 111–123. DOI:
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and
applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Franck, K., & Rosen, E. (1949). A projective test of masculinity-femininity. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 13, 247–256. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0057315
Gajda, A. (in press). The relationship and moderators of school achievement and creativity at
different educational stages. Thinking Skills and Creativity.
Gajda, A. & Karwowski, M. (in press). Creativity and school achievement: A meta-analysis.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
New Test of Creative Imagination 19
Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind, 5, 301–318. DOI:
Goldman, R. J. (1965). The Minnesota Test of Creative Thinking. Educational Research, 7:1,
3–14. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0013188640070101
Gralewski, J. & Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: A case from Poland.
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 198–208. DOI:
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444–454. DOI:
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1966). Sixteen divergent- production abilities at the ninth-
grade level. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1:1, 43–66. DOI:
Hancock, G. R. & Mueller, R. O. (2001). Rethinking construct reliability within latent
variable systems. In: R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, D. Sörbom (Eds.), Structural equation
modeling: Present and future – A festschrift in honor of Karl Jöreskog. Lincolnwood, IL:
Scientific Software International, Inc.
Harkey, N. J. (1982). The Franck Drawing Completion Test: A tool for research in sex-role
identification. Journal of Personality Assessment, 46:1, 32–43. DOI:
Harshman, R. A. & Paivio, A. (1987). “Paradoxical” sex differences in self- reported imagery.
Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 287–302.
Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L. & Huston, M. J. (1993). On the construct validity of the SOP
scale. Journal of Mental Imagery, 17, 119–132.
Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle childhood.
Creativity Research Journal, 11, 167–180. DOI:
Hu, L. T. & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure
analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6,
1–55. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
Jankowska, M. D. & Karwowski, M. (2015). Test Twórczych Zdolności Wyobrażeniowych.
Podręcznik. [Test of Creative Imagery Abilities: A Manual]. Warszawa: Akademia
Pedagogiki Specjalnej (unpublished manuscript).
Jasińska, A. & Modzelewski, M. (2012). Można inaczej. Wykorzystanie IRT do konstrukcji
testów osiągnięć szkolnych [It could be done differently. Application of the IRT to
construction of the school achievement tests] (pp. 157-168). In: W: B. Niemierko, K.
Szmigel (Eds.), Regionalne i lokalne diagnozy edukacyjne, Wrocław: PTDE.
Jellen, H., & Urban, K. K. (1986). The TCT-DP (Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production): An instrument that can be applied to most age and ability groups. Creative
Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 138–155.
Jones, A. & Glenn, S. M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play in a primary school
group. Early Child Development and Care, 77, 127-135.
Kalis, E., Roke, L., & Krumina, I. (2014). Investigation of psychometric properties of the Test
for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production: Evidence from study in Latvia. Journal of
Creative Behavior, publication ahead of print, DOI: 10.1002/jocb.68.
Karwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI).
Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure creative potential. New Educational
Review, 1, 44-54.
Karwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative Imagination (TCI).
Part 2. On validity of the TCI. New Educational Review, 2, 216-232.
New Test of Creative Imagination 20
Karwowski, M. (2009). Zgłębianie kreatywności. [Deepening creativity]. Warszawa:
Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
Karwowski, M. & Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or Artifact? Thinking
Skills and Creativity, 8, 25-33. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.003
Karwowski, M. & Lebuda, I. (in press). The big five, the huge two and creative self-beliefs: A
meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? Journal of Secondary Gifted
Education, 16, 57–66.
Kline, R.B. (2010). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.
Lau, S. & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Creativity assessment: Comparability of the electronic and
paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests. Thinking Skills and
Creativity, 5, 101–107.
LeBoutillier, N. & Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity: A meta-analytic
review study. British Journal of Psychology, 94, 29–44. DOI:
Magid, R. W., Sheskin, M., & Schulz, L. E. (2015). Imagination and the generation of new
ideas. Cognitive Development, DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.12.008
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British Journal of
Psychology, 64, 17–24.
Marks, D. F. (1995). New directions for mental imagery research. Journal of Mental Imagery,
19, 153–167. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
MacInnis, D. J. (1987). Constructs and measures of individual differences in imagery
processing: A review (pp. 88-92). In: M. Wallendorf, P. Anderson (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research. Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research.
McHenry, R. E. & Shouksmith, G. A. (1970). Creativity, visual imagination and
suggestibility: Their relationship in a group of 10-year-old children. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 40, 154–160. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus User‘s Guide. Seventh Edition. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén & Muthén.
Narchal, R. & Broota, K. D. (1988). Sex differences in vividness of visual imagery under eyes
open and closed conditions. Journal of Mental Imagery, 12, 81-88.
Parrott, C. A., & Strongman, K. T. (1985). Utilization of visual imagery in creative
performance. Journal of Mental Imagery, 9, 53–66.
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic models for some intelligence and attainment Tests (2nd ed).
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., & Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s Progressive Matrices and
Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Ren, F., Li, X., Zhang, H., & Wang, L. (2012). Progression of Chinese students’ creative
imagination from elementary through high school. International Journal of Science
Education, 34, 2043–2059. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09500693.2012.709334
Rhodes, J. W. (1981). Relationships between vividness of mental imagery and creative
thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 90-98. DOI: 10.1002/j.2162-
Ribot, Th. (1906). Essay on the Creative Imagination. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
Root-Bernstein, M. (2014). Inventing imaginary worlds: From childhood play to adult
Creativity Across the Arts and Sciences. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield
New Test of Creative Imagination 21
Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of the structure of
the benzene molecule. American Journal of Psychology, 108, 419–438. DOI:
Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. (1998). Personal explicit theories of creativity.
Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 1–17. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-
Russ, S. W. & Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression in children’s fantasy play,
primary process thinking on the Rorschach and divergent thinking. Journal of Personality
Assessment, 54, 756–71. DOI: 10.1080/00223891.1990.9674036
Schaefer, C. (1970). Developmental of an originality scale for the Franck Drawing
Completion Test. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 31, 402. DOI:
Schmeidler, G. (1965). Visual imagery correlated to a measure creativity. Journal of
Consulting Psychology, 29:1, 78-80. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0021660
Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for creativity. Journal of
Genetic Psychology, 122, 45–47. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00221325.1973.10533169
Sheehan, P. W. (1967). A shortened form of Betts’ Questionnaire upon Mental Imagery.
Journal of Clinical Psychology, 23, 386–389. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/1097-
Silvia, P. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educational
Psychology Review, DOI: 10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
Simpson, R. M. (1922). Creative Imagination. American Journal of Psychology, 33:2, 234–
243. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1414133
Singer, D. G. & Singer, J. L. (1992). The house of make-believe: Children’s play and the
developing imagination. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, W. L. Hsiao, Y. & Kosslyn, S. M. (2011). Dissociation between visual attention
and visual mental imagery. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 23, 256–263. DOI:
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, New York: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms technical manual.
Lexington, MA: Ginn.
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement. Benesville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Urban, K. K. (2004). Assessing creativity: The Test for Creative Thinking – Drawing
Production (TCT-DP): The concept, application, evaluation, and international
studies. Psychology Science, 46:3, 387-397.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. Journal of Russian and
East European Psychology, 1, 7–97. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405280184
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1991). Imagination and creativity in the adolescent. Soviet Psychology,
29, 73–88. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2753/rpo1061-0405290173
Ward T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: The role of category structure in exemplar
generation. Cognitive Psychology, 27, 1–40. DOI:
Ward, T. B. & Sifonis, C. M. (1997). Task demands and generative thinking: What changes
and what remains the same? Journal of Creative Behavior, 31, 245–259. DOI:
Ward, T. B., Wilkenfeld, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., & Saunders, K. N. (2002). The
role of graded category structure in imaginative thought. Memory & Cognition, 30, 199–
216. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/bf03195281
New Test of Creative Imagination 22
Werebe, M. G. & Baudonniere, P. (1991). Social pretend play among friends and familiar
preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development. 14:4, 411–428. DOI:
New Test of Creative Imagination 23
Figure 1. The conjunctional model of creative imaging ability.
Figure 2. The TCIA test booklet.
Figure 3. Initial signs of TCIA
Figure 4. Example drawings from TCIA.
Figure 5. Multi-trait, multi-method confirmatory factor analysis model testing for construct
validity of the TCIA.
New Test of Creative Imagination 24
New Test of Creative Imagination 25
New Test of Creative Imagination 26
New Test of Creative Imagination 27
New Test of Creative Imagination 28
New Test of Creative Imagination 29
Example TCIA assessment criteria
The original figure has
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
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
completion of the original
figure, and adding to it a
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
Complex modification of
the original figure – its
New Test of Creative Imagination 30
Summary of studies presented in this article, together with sample sizes, instruments and
Vividness of Visual
(M = 119.87, SD = 19.46)
(M = 9.60, SD = 3.48)
(M = 0.85, SD = 2.19)
Test of Creative Thinking-
(M = 16.66, SD = 9.41)
Verbal Alternate Uses Task,
(M = 10.41, SD = 7.70)
(M = 6.62, SD = 3.70)
(M = 103.29, SD = 76.32)
Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking – figural test,
(M = 8.53, SD = 7.76)
(M = 3.19, SD = 3.43)
(M = 43.63, SD = 50.16)
(M = 100, SD = 15)
Test of School Achievement
(M = 100, SD = 15)
Grade Point Average
(M = 4.19 , SD = 0.81)
Version A of TCIA
Version A of TCIA used
twice with 3 weeks interval
New Test of Creative Imagination 31
Version A and B of the
TCIA used with 5 weeks
New Test of Creative Imagination 32
Criterion Validity Analysis – Correlations of TCIA With VVIQ, FDCT, and Creativity Tests
Study 1 (N = 100)
Study 2 (N = 57)
Generating Imaginary Animals
Study 3 (N = 261)
Study 4 (N = 226)
Study 5 (N = 741)
Note. 95% confidence intervals are provided in brackets.
^ p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
New Test of Creative Imagination 33
Polychoric Correlations Between TCIA Criteria and TCT-DP Criteria
TCT-DP Scoring Criteria
New elements (Ne)
Connections made with a line (Cl)
Connections that contribute to a theme (Cth)
Boundary breaking: fragment-dependent (Bfd)
Boundary breaking: fragment-independent (Bfi)
Humor and affectivity (Hu)
Unconventionality: manipulation (Uca)
Unconventionality: surrealistic, abstract (Ucb)
Unconventionality: symbol-figure combination
Unconventionality: symbols, signs (Ucd)
*p < .05, **p < .01; ***p < .001
New Test of Creative Imagination 34
Discriminant Validity Analysis – Correlations with Intelligence and School Achievement
Study 6 (N = 230)
SAT Language Awareness
*p < .05, **p < .01; ***p < .001
New Test of Creative Imagination 35
CFA Model Fit Parameters
χ2(df) / χ2/df
241.55 (165) / 1.46
CFI / TLI
.988 / .983
RMSEA (90% CI)
.019 (.013, .029)
Correlations between latent variables
Range of loadings on Vividness (mean)
Range of loadings on Originality (mean)
Range of loadings on Transformativeness (mean)
Items loadings (Vividness, Originality, Transformativeness)
.62, .69, .70
.66, .71, .71
.65, .58, .68
.67, .66, .59
.65, .62, .67
.64, .59, .70
.60, .68, .71
***p < .001
New Test of Creative Imagination 36
Analysis of Test Equivalence According to Gender – Invariance Analysis (CFA)
RMSEA (90% CI)
.016 (.014, .019)
.016 (.013, .018)
.018 (.016, .021)
New Test of Creative Imagination 37
The Reliability of Judges Scoring 100 Randomly Selected Images Generated in TCIA
Study 7 (N = 100 drawings)
Vividness (α = .91, ICC = .89)
Originality (α = .90, ICC = .89)
Transformativeness (α = .92, ICC = .91)
Note. All correlations are statistically significant (p < .001)
New Test of Creative Imagination 38
Test-Retest Reliability and Internal Consistency of TCIA.
Study 8 (test-retest, 3 weeks) N = 86
Study 9 (A-B, 5 weeks), N = 39
Studies 1-9 (internal consistency)
***p < .001