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 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 1700 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.
ORIGINAL RESEARCH
published: 21 October 2015
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01591
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 1October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Edited by:
Massimiliano Palmiero,
University of L’Aquila, Italy
Reviewed by:
Martina Rieger,
University for Health Sciences,
Medical Informatics and Technology,
Austria
Darya Zabelina,
Northwestern University, USA
Luis M. Martinez,
Spanish National Research Council,
Spain
*Correspondence:
Maciej Karwowski
mackar@aps.edu.pl
Specialty section:
This article was submitted to
Cognition,
a section of the journal
Frontiers in Psychology
Received: 06 July 2015
Accepted: 02 October 2015
Published: 21 October 2015
Citation:
Jankowska DM and Karwowski M
(2015) Measuring creative imagery
abilities. Front. Psychol. 6:1591.
doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01591
Measuring creative imagery abilities
Dorota M. Jankowska and Maciej Karwowski *
Creative Education Lab, Department of Educational Sciences, The Maria Grzegorzewska University, Warsaw, Poland
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 1700 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
INTRODUCTION
Imagination pervades human experience. The activity of visual imagination encompasses creating,
interpreting, and transforming vivid mental representations (Thompson et al., 2011). Its creative
function, which stems from engagement in the creative process, is most often discussed in
connection with the imaginary games of childhood (Singer and Singer, 1992; Hoff, 2005) as
well as artistic and scientific work (Rothenberg, 1995; Root-Bernstein, 2014). However, the belief
that creative imagination is one of the major human abilities contributing to the effective use
of the creative potential (Runco et al., 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 and Karwowski, 2015;Figure 1). Although creative imagination understood in this
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
FIGURE 1 | The conjunctional model of creative imaging ability.
way is part of the broad construct of creative cognition (Finke
et al., 1992), we perceive creative imagination in a more narrow
way, than we do creative cognition.
Problems with Measures of Creative
Imagination
Test-based research on creativity originated with Guilford’s
(1950) theory of divergent thinking. With time, Guilford’s 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;
Torrance, 1962; Goldman, 1965; Millar, 2002), 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., Sheehan, 1967; Marks, 1973; Heckler et al.,
1993), 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; Schaefer, 1970; Anastasi and Schaefer, 1971),
flexibility, elaboration, and originality in the Visual Imagination
Test (VIT; McHenry and Shouksmith, 1970), or flexibility and
originality in the Creative Imagination Test (CIT; Schubert,
1973). On the other hand, the influence of Guilfordian tests on
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 2October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
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 the psychology of creativity, 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 (Parrott and Strongman, 1985; Campos and
Perez, 1989; Campos and González, 1993), which is confirmed
by the meta-analysis summing up these studies (LeBoutillier
and 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 and
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; Artola
et al., 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 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 (Ward, 1994; Magid et al., 2015). This way of thinking
about the originality of imagery is visible in the Test of Creative
Imagination (TCI; Karwowski, 2008a,b), 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 et al., 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 and 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 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
and Rosen, 1949; Harkey, 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—Ribot’s (1906) and Vygotsky’s (1930/2004, 1931/1991).
Another problem of creative imagination tests is the time
limitations on administering them—from 10 min in PIC,
modeled on TTCT, to 30 min 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 figural tests based on the Sketches
Test (FDCT, PIC, TCI), inference about transformations is
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 3October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
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, 1994).
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 TCIA, whose assumptions and selected aspects of validity
and reliability we will present in the further sections of this
paper.
Assessment of Visual Creative
Imagination—A New Measurement
Instrument
The TCIA measures the intensity of three characteristics
of creative imagination distinguished in the conjunctional
model of creative imaging ability: (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 and
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 in the box and give your drawing a
title. Good luck!” (see Figure 3). 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 min.
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 (see Figure 2).
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 interventions. 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 validity 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 and 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
FIGURE 2 | The TCIA test booklet.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 4October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
FIGURE 3 | Initial signs of TCIA.
TABLE 1 | Example TCIA assessment criteria.
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
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 (see
Table 1).
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 (C) 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 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 Figure 4).
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 stimulatory interventions.
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.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 5October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
FIGURE 4 | Example drawings from TCIA. See text for A-I description.
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.
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 1700 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 and 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 and Mueller,
2001), which is the outcome of confirmatory factor analysis.
Table 2 provides an overview of all studies with descriptive
statistics.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 6October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
TABLE 2 | Summary of studies presented in this article, together with sample sizes, instruments, and descriptive statistics.
Goal Study NMethod 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)
Discriminant
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)
Interjudge
Reliability
7 4 judges 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
reliability
8 86 Version A of TCIA used twice with 3 weeks
interval
Test:
6.51 (2.18)
Test:
1.50 (1.74)
Test:
5.35 (3.53)
Retest:
7.05 (1.99)
Retest:
1.98 (1.90)
Retest:
5.67 (3.35)
Correlation
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. A:
1.95 (1.48)
Ver. A:
4.38 (3.41)
Ver. B:
7.13 (1.62)
Ver. B:
1.75 (1.30)
Ver. B:
4.08 (3.20)
Criterion Validity (Studies 1–5)
Method
Participants
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.
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.
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 in Warsaw.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 7October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
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.
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.
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.
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=0.90).
Study 2. Creative imagination was measured using the Franck
Drawing Completion Test (FDCT), successfully applied in earlier
research on creativity (Dziedziewicz et al., 2013, 2014). 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=0.83).
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 and Sifonis, 1997; Ward et al., 2002)—the
presence of untypical sense organs (creature attributes).
Study 3. In the third study, we used the Test of Creative
Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP) (Jellen and 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 and
Karwowski, 2012; Karwowski and Gralewski, 2013) confirmed its
value as a valid and reliable measure. In this study, the reliability
of the TCT-DP was acceptable (α=0.75).
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 min). This task was scored in terms of fluency,
flexibility, and originality of thinking.
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 min. 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 Silvia et al., 2008;
Plucker et al., 2011 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.
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
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 8October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
transformativeness of the TCIA and each of the 14 TCT-DP
criteria.
In the case of measures pullback 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=0.32). Imagery abilities measured using VIVIQ
turned out to correlate fairly consistently and with similar
strength with all the three criteria—the most strongly with
vividness (r=0.42) and slightly less strongly with originality
(r=0.36) and transformativeness (r=0.31). 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=
0.48), less strongly with originality (r=0.30), and the most
weakly (as well as not significantly) with transformativeness (r=
0.18). By contrast, the number of untypical sense organs in the
Generating Imaginary Animals task was independent of vividness
(r=0.02) but strongly related to the TCIA (r=0.45) and
transformativeness (r=0.32).
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=0.12. The TCIA was related fairly consistently—
though less strongly than with measures of imagination—to
TCT-DP scores. Both vividness (r=0.26) and originality (r=
0.32) as well as transformativeness (r=0.20) 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=0.44), perspective (r=0.38), and fragment-independent
boundary breaking (r=0.30). Correlations between originality
and TCT-DP criteria were weaker: they were the strongest in
the case of using abstract elements (r=0.30), introducing new
elements into the drawing (r=0.28), continuations of the
existing elements (r=0.27), and connections that contribute
to a theme (r=0.27). In the case of transformativeness, we
found the strongest relations with new elements (r=0.22) and
boundary-breaking (fragment-independent) (r=0.20).
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 figural test (only fluency was weakly related to
vividness, r=0.13). As regards the verbal test, the scores
were the most consistently related to originality, which was
related in an identical way (r=0.26) to verbal fluency,
flexibility, and originality. The relations between vividness and
transformativeness and the measures of creative abilities were
weaker, though significant (0.13 =r=0.18).
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 figural ones)1, support
1Table 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 and Lebuda, 2015), we calculated the correlations
between TCIA scales and criterion measures (VIVIQ, Generating Imaginary
TABLE 3 | Criterion validity analysis—Correlations of TCIA with VVIQ, FDCT, and creativity tests.
Vividness Originality Transformativeness
Study 1 (N=100)
VIVIQ 0.42*** [0.24, 0.57] 0.36*** [0.18, 0.52] 0.31** [0.12, 0.48]
Study 2 (N=57)
Generating Imaginary Animals 0.02 [0.24, 0.28] 0.45*** [0.21, 0.64] 0.32*[0.06, 0.54]
FDCT 0.48*** [0.25, 0.66] 0.30*[0.04, 0.52] 0.18 [0.08, 0.42]
Study 3 (N=261)
TCT-DP 0.26*** [0.14, 0.37] 0.32*** [0.21, 0.42] 0.20** [0.08, 0.31]
Study 4 (N=226)
Verbal fluency 0.13*[0.00, 0.26] 0.26*** [0.13, 0.38] 0.13*[0.00, 0.26]
Verbal flexibility 0.19** [0.06, 0.31] 0.26*** [0.13, 0.38] 0.15*[0.02, 0.28]
Verbal originality 0.14*[0.01, 0.27] 0.26*** [0.13, 0.38] 0.13*[0.00, 0.26]
Study 5 (N=741)
Figural fluency 0.14*** [0.07, 0.21] 0.05 [0.02, 0.12] 0.07 ˆ [0.00, 0.14]
Figural flexibility 0.14*** [0.07, 0.21] 0.04 [0.11, 0.03] 0.02 [0.05, 0.09]
Figural originality 0.16*** [0.09, 0.23] 0.01 [0.06, 0.08] 0.04 [0.03, 0.11]
95% confidence intervals are provided in brackets.
ˆ p <0.10; *p<0.05; **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 9October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
TABLE 4 | Polychoric correlations between TCIA criteria and TCT-DP
criteria.
TCT-DP Scoring Criteria Vividness Originality Transformativeness
Continuations (Cn) 0.12* 0.18* 0.08
Completions (Cm) 0.20** 0.27*** 0.15*
New elements (Ne) 0.19* 0.28*** 0.22**
Connections made with a
line (Cl)
0.16* 0.12* 0.12*
Connections that contribute
to a theme (Cth)
0.25*** 0.27*** 0.19*
Boundary breaking:
fragment-dependent (Bfd)
0.09 0.14* 0.14*
Boundary breaking:
fragment-independent (Bfi)
0.30*** 0.11* 0.20**
Perspective (Pe) 0.38*** 0.08 0.14*
Humor and affectivity (Hu) 0.26*** 0.22*** 0.10
Unconventionality:
manipulation (Uca)
0.44*** 0.12* 0.09
Unconventionality:
surrealistic, abstract (Ucb)
0.14* 0.30*** 0.07
Unconventionality:
symbol-figure combination
(Ucc)
0.21** 0.04 0.13*
Unconventionality: symbols,
signs (Ucd)
0.18* 0.26*** 0.16*
Speed (Sp) 0.24*** 0.19* 0.13*
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001.
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=0.48 between FDCT
and the vividness of imagination), but they are strong and
consistent enough to be 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 and Sifonis, 1997; Ward et al., 2002) 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
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=0.34 (95% CI: 0.27,0.41), while the correlation between TCIA
and other creativity measures was at r=0.135 (95% CI: 0.038,0.23). Second, as
confidence intervals across rs do not overlap, we conclude that these coefficients
differ significantly from each other.
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 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 (Kim, 2005; Karwowski and Gralewski, 2013) 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 and Karwowski, 2012; Gajda,
in press; Gajda and Karwowski, Submitted). 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.
Discriminant Validity (Study 6)
Method
Participants
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.
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 et al., 2003). The reliability
of RPM in this study was high (α=0.85).
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.
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
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 10 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
of the measured achievement) was high, and the standard error of
measurement was low—translating into reliability between 0.86
and 0.88, depending on the scale (Jasi´
nska and Modzelewski,
2012).
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=0.29), GPA (r=0.33), and achievement test scores
in math (r=0.28), reading (r=0.24), and language
awareness (r=0.23). 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=0.21) and competence in math (r=0.20).
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
and 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 r=0.17. This result provides arguments in favor
of the new test’s discriminant validity.
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
TABLE 5 | Discriminant validity analysis—correlations with intelligence
and school achievement.
Study 6 (N=230) Vividness Originality Transformativeness
IQ 0.29*** 0.10 0.08
GPA 0.33*** 0.09 0.21**
SAT Math 0.28*** 0.05 0.20***
SAT Reading 0.24*** 0.17* 0.09
SAT Language Awareness 0.23*** 0.17* 0.11
*p<0.05, **p<0.01; ***p<0.001.
to confirmatory factor analysis as well as testing measurement
invariance among men and women.
Construct Validity (Studies 1–9 Aggregated)
Method
Participants
The analysis covered data collected from 1740 people at different
ages—the participants in Studies 1–9. In total, the sample
consisted of 1200 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.
Measure and procedure
Sometimes the participants completed TCIA together with other
tests, and sometimes it was the only test completed.
Results and Discussion
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 5).
The assumed theoretical model was confirmed (Table 6).
Comparing the measures of fit with the commonly used criteria
(Hu and Bentler, 1999; Kline, 2010), the values obtained should
be considered acceptable.
The correlations between latent factors were moderately
strong (0.39–0.56), and the factor loadings of the model estimated
on the basis of polychoric correlations testify to a good
validity of individual items (Hu and Bentler, 1999), considerably
exceeding the literature-recommended minimum of 0.50. Thus,
the construct validity of the model is confirmed by the obtained
data.
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 (Cheung and Rensvold,
2002; Chen, 2007), we consider a model to be invariant if CFI
change between consecutive models does not exceed 0.01 and if
the change in RMSEA does not exceed 0.02.
Even the most constrained model that tested scalar invariance
had a very good fit, and differences in CFI between the models
did not exceed 0.01, 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 0.005, there are
significant grounds to consider the models well-fitted and the test
itself invariant according to gender.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 11 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
FIGURE 5 | Multi-trait, multi-method confirmatory factor analysis model testing for construct validity of the TCIA.
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 =0.988, RMSEA =
0.018), 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=0.25, p<0.001), originality
(β=0.19; p<0.001), and transformativeness (β=0.17,
p<0.001).
An analogous model with age as a predictor was also well
fitted (χ2/df =2.36, CFI =0.959, RMSEA =0.032); age
was a statistically significant positive predictor of vividness (β
=0.19, p<0.001), originality (β=0.14, p<0.001), and
transformativeness (β=0.078, p<0.01).
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.
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
and 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.
Interjudge Reliability (Study 7)
Method
Participants
The participants were four judges (all female, mean age M=26
years) trained in TCIA scoring.
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 and Karwowski, 2015). Next, each of them was asked
to score 100 test sheets.
Results and Discussion
For each of the three TCIA scoring criteria, we computed
intercorrelations between the judges’ ratings as well as their
consistency using Cronbachs αand the intraclass correlation
coefficient (ICC) (Table 8).
In all situations, interjudge consistency was very high and
comparable between the criteria. In all cases, αwas equal to
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 12 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
TABLE 6 | CFA Model Fit Parameters.
Measures Parameters
χ2(df) / χ2/df 241.55 (165)/1.46
CFI/TLI 0.988/0.983
RMSEA (90% CI) 0.019 (0.013, 0.029)
CORRELATIONS BETWEEN LATENT VARIABLES
Vividness-Originality 0.53***
Vividness-Transformativeness 0.39***
Originality-Transformativeness 0.56***
FACTOR LOADINGS
Range of loadings on Vividness (mean) 0.60–0.67 (0.64)
Range of loadings on Originality (mean) 0.58–0.71 (0.65)
Range of loadings on Transformativeness (mean) 0.59–0.72 (0.68)
Items loadings (Vividness, Originality, Transformativeness)
Item 1 0.62, 0.69, 0.70
Item 2 0.66, 0.71, 0.71
Item 3 0.65, 0.58, 0.68
Item 4 0.67, 0.66, 0.59
Item 5 0.65, 0.62, 0.67
Item 6 0.64, 0.59, 0.70
Item 7 0.60, 0.68, 0.71
***p<0.001.
TABLE 7 | Analysis of test equivalence according to gender invariance
analysis (CFA).
Model χ2/df CFI RMSEA (90% CI)
Configural invariance 1.57 0.978 0.016 (0.014, 0.019)
Metric invariance 1.54 0.978 0.016 (0.013, 0.018)
Scalar invariance 1.71 0.968 0.018 (0.016, 0.021)
or higher than 0.90 (originality α=0.90, vividness α=0.91,
and transformativeness α=0.92), with slightly lower but still
acceptable ICC values (vividness and originality ICC =0.89,
transformativeness ICC =0.91).
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 (K¯
alis et al., 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.
TABLE 8 | The reliability of judges scoring 100 randomly selected images
generated in TCIA.
Study 7 (N=100 drawings) Judge 1 Judge 2 Judge 3 Judge 4
Vividness (α=0.91, ICC =0.89)
Judge 1 1
Judge 2 0.78 1
Judge 3 0.82 0.76 1
Judge 4 0.64 0.60 0.67 1
Originality (α=0.90, ICC =0.89)
Judge 1 1
Judge 2 0.74 1
Judge 3 0.61 0.67 1
Judge 4 0.75 0.76 0.69 1
Transformativeness (α=0.92, ICC =0.91)
Judge 1 1
Judge 2 0.84 1
Judge 3 0.88 0.84 1
Judge 4 0.70 0.53 0.68 1
All correlations are statistically significant (p <0.001).
TABLE 9 | Test–retest reliability and internal consistency of TCIA.
Vividness Originality Transformativeness
Study 8 (test–retest, 3
weeks) N=86
0.89*** 0.91*** 0.98***
Study 9 (A-B, 5 weeks),
N=39
0.63*** 0.55*** 0.43***
Studies 1–9 (internal consistency)
Cronbach’s α0.83 0.84 0.86
H (CFA) 0.83 0.84 0.87
***p<0.001.
Test–retest Reliability (Studies 8–9)
Method
Participants
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.
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.
Measures and procedure
In Study 8, TCIA version A was used twice with a 3-week interval.
In Study 9, there were 5 weeks between the measurement sessions
using versions A and B of TCIA.
Results and Discussion
Test-retest correlations between measurement using the same
version of the test with an interval of 3 weeks were very high
(r=0.89 for vividness, r=0.91 for originality, and r=0.98
for transformativeness, all ps <0.001), testifying to very high
measurement reliability (Table 9).
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 13 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
In the case of studies using versions A and B of the test, with an
interval of 5 weeks between measurements, correlations were still
fairly high—they ranged from r=0.43 for transformativeness,
through r=0.55 for originality, and r=0.63 for vividness (all
ps <0.001).
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 paper.
Internal Consistency (Studies 1–9
Aggregated)
Method
Participants
The analysis covered data collected from 1740 people at different
ages—the participants in Studies 1–9. In total, the sample
consisted of 1200 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.
Measures and procedure
All the participants solved TCIA, sometimes together with other
tests and self-report measures and sometimes as the only test.
Results and Discussion
We assessed internal consistency using the values of Cronbachs
αand the Hcoefficient—composite reliability specific to
confirmatory factor analysis (Hancock and 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 and Muthén, 2015).
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 (0.83
for vividness and 0.84 for originality), whereas in the case
of transformativeness internal consistency is α=0.86 and
H=0.87.
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 0.80
may be regarded as highly acceptable and testifying to the good
quality of TCIA measurement.
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
and 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
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 7–9).
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 and Paivio,
1987; Narchal and Broota, 1988), but they also do in terms
of imaginative abilities (Karwowski, 2009; Lau and Cheung,
2010). These differences may be due to girls’ engaging more
in role-playing or personal fantasy plays than boys during
preschool years (Werebe and 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 and 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
(Singer and Singer, 1992; Carlson and Taylor, 2005).
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=0.30, hence providing
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 14 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
good arguments that these constructs are relatively independent
aspects of creative abilities (see e.g., Rhodes, 1981; Russ and
Grossman-McKee, 1990; Dziedziewicz et al., 2013). Usually,
correlations between divergent thinking and vividness of imagery
are higher than those with transformativeness (LeBoutillier
and Marks, 2003). Similarly, usually creative imagination is
more strongly related to originality than to fluency of thinking
(Dziedziewicz et al., 2013, 2014).
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 et al., 2014). Perhaps
it is even worth attempting to combine the testing of creative
imagination with neuropsychological methods such as EEG or
MRI (Fink and 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 studies.
CONCLUSION
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.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The study was supported by a grant from the National Science
Center, Poland [grant number UMO 2011/03/N/HS6/05153].
REFERENCES
Anastasi, A., and Schaefer, C. E. (1971). The Franck Drawing Completion
Test as a measure of creativity. J. Genet. Psychol. 119, 3–12. doi:
10.1080/00221325.1971.10532620
Artola, T., Ancillo, I., Mosteiro, P., and Barraca, J. (2004). PIC-N. Prueba de
Imaginación Creative Para Niños. Madrid: TEA Ediciones.
Barron, F. (1958). The psychology of imagination. Sci. Am. 199, 150–166. doi:
10.1038/scientificamerican0958-150
Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Jauk, E., and Benedek, M. (2014). The
role of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Mem. Cognit.
42, 1186–1195. doi: 10.3758/s13421-014-0428-8
Campos, A., and González, M. A. (1993). Self-perceived creativity and
vividness of mental imagery. Percept. Mot. Skills 77, 1291–1296. doi:
10.2466/pms.1993.77.3f.1291
Campos, A., and Perez, M. A. (1989). High and low imagers and their scores on
creativity. Percept. Mot. Skills 68, 403–406. doi: 10.2466/pms.1989.68.2.403
Carlson, S. M., and Taylor, M. (2005). Imaginary companions and impersonated
characters: sex differences in children’s fantasy play. Merrill Palmer Q. 51,
299–324. doi: 10.1353/mpq.2005.0003
Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indexes to lack of measurement
invariance. Struct. Equat. Model. 14, 464–504. doi: 10.1080/10705510701301834
Cheung, G. W., and Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes
for testing measurement invariance. Struct. Equat. Model. 9, 233–255. doi:
10.1207/S15328007SEM0902_5
Cheung, M. W.-L. (2014). Modeling dependent effect sizes with three-level
meta-analyses: a structural equation modeling approach. Psychol. Methods 2,
211–229. doi: 10.1037/a0032968
Dziedziewicz, D., Gajda, A., and Karwowski, M. (2014). Developing children’s
intercultural competence and creativity. Think. Skills Creativity 13, 32–42. doi:
10.1016/j.tsc.2014.02.006
Dziedziewicz, D., and Karwowski, M. (2015). Development of children’s creative
visual imagination: a theoretical model, measure and stimulation program.
Educ. 1–3, Int. J. Prim. Element. Early Years Educ. 43, 382–393. doi:
10.1080/03004279.2015.1020646
Dziedziewicz, D., Ol˛edzka, D., and Karwowski, M. (2013). Developing 4- to 6-
year-old children’s figural creativity using a doodle-book program. Think. Skills
Creativity 9, 85–95. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.09.004
Fink, A., and Benedek, M. (2012). EEG alpha power and creative ideation.
Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 44, 111–123. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.
12.002
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., and Smith, S. (1992). Creative Cognition: Theory,
Research, and Applications. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Franck, K., and Rosen, E. (1949). A projective test of masculinity-femininity.
J. Consult. Psychol. 13, 247–256. doi: 10.1037/h0057315
Gajda, A. (in press). The relationship and moderators of school achievement and
creativity at different educational stages. Think. Skills Creativity.
Galton, F. (1880). Statistics of mental imagery. Mind 5, 301–318. doi:
10.1093/mind/os-V.19.301
Goldman, R. J. (1965). The Minnesota test of creative thinking. Educ. Res. 7, 3–14.
doi: 10.1080/0013188640070101
Gralewski, J., and Karwowski, M. (2012). Creativity and school grades: a case from
Poland. Think. Skills Creativity 7, 198–208. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.03.002
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. Am. Psychol. 5, 444–454. doi: 10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-
Hill.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 15 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
Guilford, J. P., and Hoepfner, R. (1966). Sixteen divergent- production
abilities at the ninth-grade level. Multivariate Behav. Res. 1, 43–66. doi:
10.1207/s15327906mbr0101_3
Hancock, G. R., and Mueller, R. O. (2001). “Rethinking construct reliability within
latent variable systems, in Structural Equation Modeling: Present and Future
A Festschrift in Honor of Karl Jöreskog, eds R. Cudeck, S. du Toit, and D. Sörbom
(Lincolnwood, IL: Scientific Software International, Inc), 195–216.
Harkey, N. J. (1982). The Franck Drawing Completion Test: a tool for
research in sex-role identification. J. Pers. Assess. 46, 32–43. doi:
10.1207/s15327752jpa4601_7
Harshman, R. A., and Paivio, A. (1987). “Paradoxical” sex differences in self-
reported imagery. Can. J. Psychol. 41, 287–302. doi: 10.1037/h0084160
Heckler, S. E., Childers, T. L., and Huston, M. J. (1993). On the construct validity
of the SOP scale. J. Mental Imagery 17, 119–132.
Hoff, E. V. (2005). Imaginary companions, creativity, and self-image in middle
childhood. Creat. Res. J. 11, 167–180. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2005.9651477
Hu, L. T., and Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance
structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struct. Equat.
Model. 6, 1–55. doi: 10.1080/10705519909540118
Jankowska, M. D., and Karwowski, M. (2015). Test Twórczych Zdolnosci
Wyobrazeniowych. Podrecznik. [Test of Creative Imagery Abilities: A Manual].
Warszawa: Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej (unpublished manuscript).
Jasi´
nska, A., and Modzelewski, M. (2012). “Mo˙
zna inaczej. Wykorzystanie IRT
do konstrukcji testów osi ˛agni˛e´
c szkolnych [It could be done differently.
Application of the IRT to construction of the school achievement tests], in
Regionalne i Lokalne Diagnozy Edukacyjne, eds W. B. Niemierko, K. Szmigel
(Wrocław: PTDE), 157–168.
Jellen, H., and 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. Creat. Child Adult Q. 11, 138–155.
Jones, A., and Glenn, S. M. (1991). Gender differences in pretend play
in a primary school group. Early Child Dev. Care 77, 127–135. doi:
10.1080/0300443910770112
K¯
alis, E., Rok¸ e, L., and Kr¯
umina, I. (2014). Investigation of psychometric properties
of the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production: Evidence from study in
Latvia. J. Creat. Behav. doi: 10.1002/jocb.68. [Epub ahead of print].
Karwowski, M. (2008a). Measuring creativity using the Test of Creative
Imagination (TCI). Part 1. Presentation of a new instrument to measure
creative potential. New Educ. Rev. 1, 44–54.
Karwowski, M. (2008b). Measuring creativity using the test of creative imagination
(TCI). Part 2. On validity of the TCI. New Educ. Rev. 2, 216–232.
Karwowski, M. (2009). Zgł˛ebianie Kreatywno´
sci. [Deepening creativity]. Warszawa:
Akademia Pedagogiki Specjalnej.
Karwowski, M., and Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: fact or artifact?
Think. Skills Creativity 8, 25–33. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.003
Karwowski, M., and Lebuda, I. (2015). The big five, the huge two and creative
self-beliefs: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Aesthetics Creativity Arts. doi: 10.1037/
aca0000035. [Epub ahead of print].
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? J. Secondary Gift. Educ.
16, 57–66. doi: 10.4219/jsge-2005-473
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling, 3rd
Edn. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lau, S., and Cheung, P. C. (2010). Creativity assessment: comparability of the
electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach–Kogan Creativity
Tests. Think. Skills Creativity 5, 101–107. doi: 10.1016/j.tsc.2010.09.004
LeBoutillier, N., and Marks, D. F. (2003). Mental imagery and creativity:
a meta-analytic review study. Br. J. Psychol. 94, 29–44. doi:
10.1348/000712603762842084
MacInnis, D. J. (1987). “Constructs and measures of individual differences in
imagery processing: a review, in Advances in Consumer Research, eds M.
Wallendorf and P. Anderson (Provo, UT: Association for Consumer Research),
88–92.
Magid, R. W., Sheskin, M., and Schulz, L. E. (2015). Imagination and the generation
of new ideas. Cogn. Dev. 34, 99–110. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2014.12.008
Marks, D. F. (1973). Visual imagery differences in the recall of pictures. British J.
Psychol. 64, 17–24. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8295.1973.tb01322.x
Marks, D. F. (1995). New directions for mental imagery research. J. Mental Imagery
19, 153–167.
McHenry, R. E., and Shouksmith, G. A. (1970). Creativity, visual imagination
and suggestibility: their relationship in a group of 10-year-old children.
Br. J. Educ. Psychol. 40, 154–160. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8279.1970.
tb02115.x
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance Kids at Mid-life. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Muthén, L. K., and Muthén, B. O. (2015). Mplus User‘s Guide, 7thEdn. Los Angeles,
CA: Muthén and Muthén.
Narchal, R., and Broota, K. D. (1988). Sex differences in vividness of visual
imagery under eyes open and closed conditions. J. Mental Imagery 12,
81–88.
Parrott, C. A., and Strongman, K. T. (1985). Utilization of visual imagery in creative
performance. J. Mental Imagery 9, 53–66.
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., and Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the
beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent
thinking. J. Creat. Behav. 45, 1–22. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01081.x
Rasch, G. (1980). Probabilistic Models for Some Intelligence and Attainment Tests,
2nd Edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Raven, J., Raven, J. C., and Court, J. H. (2003). Manual for Raven’s Progressive
Matrices and Vocabulary Scales. San Antonio, TX: Harcourt Assessment.
Ren, F., Li, X., Zhang, H., and Wang, L. (2012). Progression of Chinese students’
creative imagination from elementary through high school. Int. J. Sci. Educ. 34,
2043–2059. doi: 10.1080/09500693.2012.709334
Rhodes, J. W. (1981). Relationships between vividness of mental imagery
and creative thinking. J. Creat. Behav. 15, 90–98. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-
6057.1981.tb00281.x
Ribot, T.H. (1906). Essay on the Creative Imagination. Chicago, IL: Open Court.
doi: 10.1037/13773-000
Root-Bernstein, M. (2014). Inventing Imaginary Worlds: From Childhood Play
to adult Creativity across the Arts and Sciences. Lanham, MD: Rowman and
Littlefield Education.
Rothenberg, A. (1995). Creative cognitive processes in Kekulé’s discovery of
the structure of the benzene molecule. Am. J. Psychol. 108, 419–438. doi:
10.2307/1422898
Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J., and Walberg, H. (1998). Personal explicit theories of
creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 32, 1–17. doi: 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1998.tb00803.x
Russ, S. W., and Grossman-McKee, A. (1990). Affective expression
in children’s fantasy play, primary process thinking on the
Rorschach and divergent thinking. J. Pers. Assess. 54, 756–771. doi:
10.1207/s15327752jpa5403&amp;4_28
Schaefer, C. (1970). Developmental of an originality scale for the Franck Drawing
Completion Test. Percept. Mot. Skills 31, 402. doi: 10.2466/pms.1970.31.2.402
Schmeidler, G. (1965). Visualimagery correlated to a measure cre ativity. J. Consult.
Psychol. 29, 78–80. doi: 10.1037/h0021660
Schubert, D. S. (1973). Intelligence as necessary but not sufficient for
creativity. J. Genet. Psychol. 122, 45–47. doi: 10.1080/00221325.1973.
10533169
Sheehan, P. W. (1967). A shortened form of Betts’ Questionnaire upon Mental
Imagery. J. Clin. Psychol. 23, 386–389.
Silvia, P. J. (2015). Intelligence and creativity are pretty similar after all. Educ.
Psychol. Rev. 1–8. doi: 10.1007/s10648-015-9299-1
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T.,
Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks:
exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.
Psychol. of Aesthet. Creativity Arts, 2, 68–85. doi: 10.1037/1931-3896.
2.2.68
Simpson, R. M. (1922). Creative Imagination. Am. J. Psychol. 33, 234–243. doi:
10.2307/1414133
Singer, D. G., and Singer, J. L. (1992). The House of Make-believe: Children’s Play
and the Developing Imagination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Thompson, W. L., Hsiao, Y., and Kosslyn, S. M. (2011). Dissociation between
visual attention and visual mental imagery. J. Cogn. Psychol. 23,256–263. doi:
10.1080/20445911.2011.477810
Torrance, E. P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ; New York, NY:
Prentice-Hall. doi: 10.1037/13134-000
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.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 16 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
Jankowska and Karwowski New test of creative imagination
Urban, K. K. (2004). Assessing creativity: the Test for Creative Thinking Drawing
Production (TCT-DP): the concept, application, evaluation, and international
studies. Psychol. Sci. 46, 387–397.
Vygotsky, L. S. (1931/1991). Imagination and creativity in the
adolescent. Soviet Psychol. 29, 73–88. doi: 10.2753/rpo1061-04052
90173
Vygotsky, L. S. (1930/2004). Imagination and creativity in childhood. J. Russ. East
Eur. Psychol. 1, 7–97.
Ward, T. B. (1994). Structured imagination: the role of category structure
in exemplar generation. Cogn. Psychol. 27, 1–40. doi: 10.1006/cogp.
1994.1010
Ward, T. B., and Sifonis, C. M. (1997). Task demands and generative thinking:
what changes and what remains the same? J. Creative Behav. 31, 245–259. doi:
10.1002/j.2162-6057.1997.tb00797.x
Ward, T. B., Patterson, M. J., Sifonis, C. M., Dodds, R. A., and
Saunders, K. N. (2002). The role of graded category structure in
imaginative thought. Mem. Cognit. 30, 199–216. doi: 10.3758/BF03
195281
Werebe, M. G., and Baudonniere, P. (1991). Social pretend play among
friends and familiar preschoolers. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 14, 411–428. doi:
10.1177/016502549101400404
Conflict of Interest Statement: The authors declare that the research was
conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could
be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Copyright © 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 or 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.
Frontiers in Psychology | www.frontiersin.org 17 October 2015 | Volume 6 | Article 1591
... In addition, it has been used to [VVIQ;Marks, 1973]; The Plymouth Sensory Imagery Questionnaire [Andrade et al., 2014]). However, the multidimensional structure of mental imagery requires the use of more than one measurement tool or longer measures, which include several factors (Calabrese & Marucci, 2006;Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015;Vellera & Gavard-Perret, 2012). Given the drawbacks of longer measures, such as decreasing response rate and increasing response bias (e.g., careless responding [Niessen et al., 2016], exhibiting response styles [Weijters et al., 2010]), researchers conducting similar studies prefer using shorter measures or short versions of commonly utilized and adapted scales (e.g., short versions of Betts' QMI, Sheehan (1967), and VVIQ; Marks, 1995). ...
... Thus, the length of scales and the level of cognitive load may be obstacles to obtaining the intended data quality. Studies using mental imagery scales aim to determine the associations with other variables (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015;Pérez-Fabello & Campos, 2007;Pérez-Fabello et al., 2016). Therefore, respondents may be required to respond to several questionnaires to provide scholars with a wide array of information regarding their visual and mental abilities. ...
... (a) Carrying a heavy load on your back". TCIA (Test of Creative Imagery Abilities) is a test developed by Jankowska and Karwowski (2015) to measure creative imagery abilities. It was utilized by the authors of the current study after adapting it to Turkish (see Narin, 2019). ...
Article
Full-text available
Mental imagery is a vital cognitive skill that significantly influences how reality is perceived while creating art. Its multifaceted nature reveals various dimensions of creative expression, amplifying the inherent complexities of measuring it. This study aimed to shorten the Mental Imagery Scale in Artistic Creativity (MISAC) via the Ant Colony Optimization algorithm (ACO), a metaheuristic methodology for developing psychometrically robust brief scales. Answering 63 items in the original version of MISAC demands a higher cognitive load and, consequently, more time. Therefore, our goal was to shorten it while preserving its psychometric properties. In this study, responses to the MISAC were obtained from 500 undergraduate students enrolled in an art education program. The items on the short form of the MISAC were selected based on pre-specified validity criteria and content representability. The 28-item short form of MISAC demonstrated comparable performance to the original version regarding construct validity, criteria-related validity, and reliability coefficients. Moreover, strict invariance was attained across both gender groups in the validation process of the short form. These results highlight the utility of the shortened version of the MISAC as a valid measure with minimal loss of information of scores compared to the full version.
... The Test of Creative Images Abilities (TCIA) was created by Jankowska and Karwowski (2015) and it is a measure of an individual's creative imagery abilities. It is a test applicable to individuals ranging from 4 years old up to adulthood. ...
... In order to ensure the trustworthiness of the creative image assessed, the inter-rater reliability was verified through the involvement of two researchers who were independent of the research process. These researchers underwent extensive training in the scoring criteria and procedures that were presented in the TCIA manual (Jankowska & Karwowski, 2015). After this training, they independently evaluated a random sample of 20% of all drawings. ...
Article
Full-text available
This particular study sets out to investigate thoroughly the intricate and fascinating relationship that exists between the abilities of creative imagery and the academic performance of the eighth graders; especially for the male and female learners and how they perform in relation to their imaginative abilities and academic achievement. The research was done among a total of 105 eighth-grade middle school learners which included 52 boys and 53 girls drawn from a public middle school situated in the moderate socio-cultural as well as the socio-economic context of Çanakkale, Turkey. The results of this particular study have revealed that overall, girls do much better than boys on Vividness and Transformation with significantly higher means in these two dimensions while for Originality, the findings indicate that there are no significant gender factors. As regards academic achievement, significant gender-based differences were also observed, as girls eclipsed boys in Turkish, Mathematics, and Science with overall better performance percentages. The study further showed that there is a positive relationship between the creativity capacities of male participants which implies that the high-performance levels of such students can be directly linked to their creative imagination abilities whereas this correlation was not observed in female participants.
... The first subsection measures associative thinking and consists of 8 questions related to the task of giving answers to three stimulus words based on the adaptation of the Remote Associates Test by Mednick (1962). The second subsection consists of 2 questions for the drawing task, aimed at measuring visual thinking based on three indicators: vividness, originality, and transformative qualities, adapted from the Test of Creative Imagery Abilities by Jankowska and Karwowski (2015). The third subsection consists of 8 structured open-ended questions based on four indicators: fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration, adapted from Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1979). ...
Article
Full-text available
Mastering creative thinking skills (CTS) is crucial for enhancing students' science conceptual understanding. However, conventional teaching prioritizes linear thinking over the three sub-CTS essential to science learning: associative, visual, and divergent thinking. Weaknesses in these three sub-CTS cause students to have misconceptions, difficulty in creating mental images, and an inability to generate ideas on abstract scientific concepts. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effectiveness of the Digital Storytelling Science Creative (DSSC) module in enhancing these three sub-CTS, based on the topic of acids and bases. The ASSURE instructional design model guided the DSSC module design and development process. This quasi-experimental design study involved 63 eighth-grade students. Analysis of two-way MANCOVA using the data collected through the administered Creative Thinking Skills Test revealed that the DSSC module group performed significantly better than the control group in divergent thinking. However, the DSSC module did not significantly affect students' associative and visual thinking or gender.
Article
Autistic traits are found throughout the general population, but their link to creative attributes has received little attention in childhood populations. In adults, autistic traits are linked to both creative benefits and disadvantages, moderated by the autistic trait and the creative domain under investigation. The current study investigates the link between autistic traits and creative attributes (creative personality traits, creative talent, creative artistic choices) in children aged 10–14 years. Autistic traits were measured using the Adolescent‐AQ, both globally (AQ‐Total) and for individual subscales (AQ‐Attention to detail, AQ‐Imagination, and “AQ‐Core”, i.e., combining AQ‐Social skills, AQ‐Attention switching, AQ‐Communication). Using child and parent reports, data from 149 children revealed an association between autistic traits and creative personality traits (both positive and negative) while also showing a (weaker) relationship with creative artistic choices. Global and core autistic symptoms negatively predicted creative personality traits. At the same time, AQ‐Imagination predicted lower creative attributes across nearly all creative domains. Finally, and in contrast, AQ‐Attention to detail positively predicted a number of creative attributes (i.e., creative personality traits, creative talent). Our results show how autistic traits map to a range of creative attributes, across children in the general population.
Article
The assessment of creativity as an individual difference has historically focused on divergent thinking, which is increasingly viewed as involving the associative processes that are also understood to be a key component of creative potential. Research on associative processes has proliferated in many sub-fields, often using Compound Remote Associates (CRA) tasks with an open response format and relatively small participant samples. In the present work, we introduce a new format that is more amenable to large-scale data collection in survey designs, and present evidence for the reliability and validity of CRA measures in general using multiple large samples. Study 1 uses a large, representative dataset (N = 1,323,480) to demonstrate strong unidimensionality and internal consistency (α = .97; ωt = .87), as well as links to individual differences in temperament, cognitive ability, occupation, and job characteristics. Study 2 uses an undergraduate sample (N = 685) to validate the use of a multiple-choice format relative to the traditional approach. Study 3 uses a crowdsourced sample (N = 357) to demonstrate high test–retest reliability of the items (r =.74). Finally, Study 4 uses a sample that overlaps with Study 1 (N = 1,502,922) to provide item response theory (IRT) parameters for a large set of high-quality CRA items that use a multiple-choice response mode, thus facilitating their use in future research on creativity, insight, and related topics.