This article was downloaded by: [72.152.245.219]
On: 11 September 2011, At: 21:45
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Creativity Research Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of
Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty-Year FollowUp
a
a
a
Mark A. Runco , Garnet Millar , Selcuk Acar & Bonnie Cramond
a
a
Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens
Available online: 09 Nov 2010
To cite this article: Mark A. Runco, Garnet Millar, Selcuk Acar & Bonnie Cramond (2010): Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
as Predictors of Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty-Year Follow-Up, Creativity Research Journal, 22:4, 361-368
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
CREATIVITY RESEARCH JOURNAL, 22(4), 361–368, 2010
Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1040-0419 print=1532-6934 online
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of Personal
and Public Achievement: A Fifty-Year Follow-Up
Mark A. Runco, Garnet Millar, Selcuk Acar, and Bonnie Cramond
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens
This article presents the results of the 50-year follow-up of the longitudinal study E.
Paul Torrance initiated 5 decades ago. The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT)
was administered in the late 1950s and personal and public achievement data were
obtained 50 years later and used as criteria in analyses reported here. These showed that
TTCT scores were moderately correlated with personal, but not with public, achievement. However, an interaction of intelligence and creativity was significantly related
to public achievement but not to personal achievement. When a composite was formed
from the 4 TTCT indexes (fluency, originality, flexibility, and elaboration), a significant
quadratic trend was found with the personal achievement criterion. Three of the indicators (‘‘Love of work,’’ Tolerance of mistakes, and Minority of one) from the Beyonder
instrument developed by Torrance (2003) were related to public achievement. Only one
other indicator from the Beyonder measure (‘‘Well-roundedness’’) was associated with
personal achievement. Men were significantly higher in public achievement than women,
but there was no significant gender difference in personal achievement.
Longitudinal studies may be the most useful kind of
investigation for the study of creativity and its fulfillment. Obviously, they are time-consuming and potentially expensive. They are prone to sampling issues,
including simple attrition and systematic biases (e.g.,
loss of individuals within particular segments of the
sample). Yet they are ideal for tracking developmental
changes and trajectories and for pinpointing the impact
of experiences. They are also extremely useful in a
psychometric sense, and especially for determination
of predictive validity.
No wonder several informative longitudinal studies
have been conducted. Feist and Barron (2003), for
example, reported a longitudinal investigation that
began in 1950 with 80 graduate students (all male)
who were at that time approximately 27 years of age
and were followed up in 2003 (n ¼ 43). The predictor
measures covered a fairly broad range, including
Sandra Russ was the Action Editor for this article.
Correspondence should be sent to Mark A. Runco, Torrance
Creativity Center=Aderhold Hall, University of Georgia, Athens,
GA 30602. E-mail: runco@uga.edu
creativity, personality, and intelligence. The criterion
measures, administered for the follow-up, covered the
same domains as well as career data. Significantly, the
personality predictors from 1950 accounted for nearly
20% of the variability in the creativity criteria at
follow-up, and this is after the contributions of intelligence were statistically controlled.
Albert (1969, 1978, 1980a, 1980b; Runco & Albert,
1989, 2005) conducted a longitudinal study of exceptionally gifted boys. He found quite a bit of evidence that (a)
talent is dependent on family background and (b) different domains of talent differ in family background and
personality. In particular, the families of mathematically
talented children have several idiosyncrasies (e.g.,
father–son closeness). The expectations of the mothers
was especially important for the divergent thinking
and autonomy of the boys in the sample (Albert &
Runco, 1989) and the trait flexibility stood out in the
personality profiles (Runco & Albert, 2005).
Helson (1996, 1999, 2000) described a longitudinal
study of Mills College students and, later, alumnae.
She captured the primary findings of her longitudinal
research, as well as the highly significant idea of
362
RUNCO, MILLAR, ACAR, CRAMOND
potential developing into actual productivity, as
follows:
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
A central finding is that varied measures of creative
potential assessed openness and unconventionality,
manifested in both positive and negative ways, whereas
creative productivity was associated with these traits
along with strong creative motivation and resilience.
Creative potential was actualized in some women in
self-discover through relationships rather than in
careers. Creative traits showed impressive consistency
over time, but the creative vitality of individuals fluctuated considerably with major changes in life situation.
Creative productivity showed more relation to psychosocial development than did measures of creative potential. (Helson, 1999, p. 89)
E. Paul Torrance initiated a longitudinal study while
working in Minnesota in the 1950s. Torrance, himself,
reported results from four follow-up assessments, and
later, Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, and
Zuo (2005) reported a 40-year follow-up. This article
reports the 50-year follow-up. To put these findings in
context, something should be said about development
of the Torrence Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) and
the earlier assessments.
Torrance’s objective was to develop a reliable and
valid test of creative thinking abilities that could be
administered to individuals from kindergarten through
adulthood (Torrance, 2008). Torrance believed there
were general mental abilities that are involved in, and
predict, creative achievements. Therefore, the scales in
TTCT are regarded as indicators of creative potential
that increase the likelihood of creative behavior.
Torrance recognized that high scores on the TTCT
do not guarantee actual creatively accomplishment.
Motivation and the like can make a difference. Still,
he conducted extensive research and identified several
candidate scales that seem to measure important aspects
of creativity. He chose those with lowest intercorrelations (Torrance, 2003) so that each component of the
test has a unique contribution to overall assessment. Significantly, Torrance argued that TTCT differs from the
tests developed by Guilford (1967, 1970) and Wallach
and Kogan (1965). The first of these was an attempt
to measure factorially pure mental functioning. The
latter was designed to allow ideational associations
using an untimed and game-like testing environment.
Activities on the TTCT aim to measure creative thinking
tasks that are necessary for daily life activities and
creative breakthroughs under traditional test conditions.
In the 1950s and 1960s, the participants of Torrance’s
longitudinal study were students in grades one through
six. Slightly later, students in grades 7 through 12
received the TTCT. Seven years later, many of the
students received the follow-up measures (Torrance,
1969), which allowed studies of the predictive validity
of the TTCT. Torrance (1972a, 1972b) reported a
second follow-up, which occurred approximately 5 years
later. At this point, he used a checklist of creative
achievement and accomplishment as one criterion. This
checklist asked participants about several different
domains, including life philosophy, invention, innovation at work, research, and the arts. Checklists like
this one are often used and have been refined through
the years (Holland, 1961; Runco, 1986; Wallach &
Wing, 1969). The next follow-up was 22 years after the
TTCT had been administered to the schoolchildren
(Torrance, 1980, 1981a, 1981b).
Very likely, the most significant result of the first few
follow-up studies was that the TTCT was a better predictor of creative achievement and accomplishment than
traditional intelligence. It was also a better predictor
than achievement in high school or peer nomination.
Torrance reported that the TTCT explained approximately 25% of the variance in the creative quality index
of the aforementioned checklist and 21% of the variance
of quantity of achievement and activity. Torrance found
a hint of sex differences, at least in multivariate analyses,
with a canonical predictive validity correlation of .59 for
males and .46 for females. He realized that predictions
of life success that depend upon external measures of
achievement would necessarily discriminate against
females because they had fewer opportunities than did
the males for public achievements. So, for the 1980 data
collection, he introduced the criterion measure called the
Creative Style of Life Achievements. This allowed
respondents to list achievements that were more personal in nature. Women were encouraged to explain
any problems that they had had in realizing their creative potential (Millar, 2002).
The Creative Style of Life questions asked about
activities and experiences that are not always socially
recognized. Participants were asked to respond to questions about everyday creative behavior, including things
such as having organized an action-group (food cooperative, environmental pressure group, etc.), designed a
house, started a new school or other educational program, had a striking religious experience, or become seriously involved in a new hobby (Torrance, 2002). The
questionnaires that were sent to the participants had
them answer questions to provide basic demographic
data, as well as information on their public creative
achievements, personal creative achievements, strengths,
and weaknesses (Millar, 2002, appendix D). Each time,
at least three raters, trained in creativity research and
theory, looked for five things: the creativeness of a
future career image, the quality of the most outstanding
creative achievements, the number of creative style of
life achievements, the number of creative achievements
since completing high school, and the number of high
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
TORRANCE TESTS OF CREATIVE THINKING AS PREDICTORS OF PERSONAL AND PUBLIC ACHIEVEMENT
school creative achievements. With the 1998 follow-up,
one index of adult creative achievement was derived
from the questionnaire responses—the number of
publicly acknowledged creative achievements (Millar,
2002, p. 38). Torrance (1981b) found very high predictive validity (multivariate) correlations (.63) when this
new criterion measure was analyzed using TTCT scores
from previous data collection dates—even when the
TTCT had been administered 25 years previously.
Cramond et al. (2005) reported a 40-year follow-up to
the Torrance longitudinal study. Data for this study
were collected starting in 1998. Of the 170 respondents
who could be located, complete data were obtained for
99 of them with a fairly equal representation of females
and males (45 and 54, respectively). Cramond et al.
examined various predictors including the global creativity index from the initial TTCT data collection, IQ,
elaboration, originality, flexibility, fluency, and some
data about the experience with mentors. They used the
quality and quantity of creative achievements as their
criteria. Expert judgments were again used to quantify
the criteria with a very high level of agreement (interrelater correlations >.78). Cramond et al. introduced a
new comparison; they decided to compare the bottom
third of the respondents in terms of number of public
achievements with the top third on the same measure.
There were no differences in the proportion of males
and females in the two. A two-way ANOVA of quality,
by gender by group (high vs. low creative) was statistically significant; F[1,49] ¼ 9.53, p < .01. Not surprisingly, the quality ratings for both males and females
were significantly higher for the high quantity group.
Plucker (1999) reported a reanalysis of Torrance’s
(1980) data and described how IQ and verbal TTCT
scores were both significant predictors of creative
achievements. The inclusion of IQ was a surprise given
earlier reports of a threshold of intelligence (Albert &
Runco, 1987; Guilford, 1968; Kim, 2002) but its association may have been uncovered because the analytic
approach—structural equation modeling (SEM)—had
not been used previously. Most important was that
Plucker (1999) found TTCT scores to be much stronger
predictors of creative achievement than the childhood
intelligence test scores (also see Wallach & Wing, 1969).
Cramond et al. (2005) also used SEM and found that
originality, fluency, and the IQ, each obtained in the
initial phases of the longitudinal study, were reasonable
predictors of the quantity of creative achievement 40
years later. IQ, flexibility, originality, and the global
creativity index were the best predictors when quality
of creative achievements was the criterion. Having a
mentor was also related to the quality and quantity of
creative achievements. Again, quality and quantity of
achievement shared quite a bit of their variance
(approximately 72%).
363
Several specific differences between men and women
were found as well. Data from the women, for example,
showed a strong correlation between creative achievement and IQ (rs ¼ .38 and .43 for quality and quantity,
respectively). Additionally, the correlation between
having a mentor and creative achievement was much
more pronounced among the women. This makes sense,
given the difficulties for women of the time in several
career areas. The relationship between quality and quantitative of creative performance was, on the other hand,
higher among the men (r ¼ .90) than the women (r ¼ .81).
The general objective of this investigation was to
assess the participants of the longitudinal investigation
50 years after the initial data collection. It is possible
that developmental and experiential changes have
occurred among Torrance’s sample in the past 10 years.
Comparisons with the last follow-up, reported in
Cramond et al.’s (2005) 40-year follow-up, were of special interest. Most concretely, this investigation provided a test of the predictive validity of the TTCT
using criteria and data collected 50 years after the tests
of creative thinking were first administered.
METHOD
Participants
Participants of the 1998 follow-up study were contacted
by mail in 2008 and invited to take part in the 50-year
follow-up. Sixty participants (28 male and 32 females)
responded to the invitation. This number represents
more than half of the previous follow-up study in 1998
(Cramond et al. 2005; Torrance, 2002).
The average age of the participants is 56 years. The
average intelligence score derived in the 1958–1965 period was 126 (Range ¼ 105–176) and average TTCT score
is 101 (Range ¼ 75–127). Forty percent of the participants still live in Minnesota, and the remainder lives
in other states. Generally, the participants are well educated; 87% have attained some postsecondary education
and 32% have earned doctoral degrees.
Measures
Four scores from the initial administration of the TTCT
were used, namely, fluency, flexibility, originality, and
elaboration. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
(WISC) intelligence test scores were also available and
included in several analyses. These had been collected
between 1958–1964, as detailed in the introduction to
this article and in Cramond et al. (2005).
The creative style of life (Torrance, 2002) was one
criterion. It asks about public (socially recognized) and
personal achievements. As mentioned above personal
achievements include action group work, designing a
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
364
RUNCO, MILLAR, ACAR, CRAMOND
house, founding an educational program, and various
hobbies. Torrance (2002) reported good reliabilities for
the creative style of life: interrater agreement among
three experts ranged from .78 to .88 for the quantity
and quality of public achievements, for example.
Torrance (1980) also reported good interrater reliability
for the ‘‘quality of highest creative achievements’’
(rs ¼ .86 and .83 for males and females) and ‘‘creativeness of future career image’’ (both rs ¼ .81 for men
and women). Six variables from The Beyonder Checklist
(Torrance, 1993, 2002) were also administered: sense
of mission, love of work, delight in deep thinking,
tolerance of mistakes, well-roundedness, and feeling
comfortable as a minority of one. The Beyonder Checklist was created by Torrance (1993) from qualities that
he had observed in 10 of the respondents from the
30-year study whose creative achievements were so
much higher than the others in the group. He concluded
that factors such as motivation, persistence, courage,
and loving what one is doing become more important
than ability (Torrance, 2003). Percentiles from the
Beyonder Checklist were included in that study. The
six Beyonder variables listed were dichotomous in our
analyses (as described in the following). Torrance’s measure of creative achievement, modified in 1998, with
quantity and quality scores and covering public and
personal areas, was also administered.
Procedure
The TTCT scores were obtained from longitudinal
records. The other measures were sent to each participant electronically. Unfortunately, one question related
to quality of achievement was omitted from the electronic version of the creative achievement scale. It was
sent out later, also electronically, but the response rate
was low (n ¼ 44). For this reason, the analyses specifically of the quality scores used smaller samples than
the other analyses.
RESULTS
Two statistical decisions should be explained. First,
one-tailed tests were used for the TTCT results, just
given, and for all regression and correlational results
that follow. Second, it may not seem like much of an
issue, given that the emphasis in the social sciences is
on effect sizes, but it is still worth noting that probability
levels (tests of significance) were calculated but not given
much weight in this research. This was, after all, an
investigation of predictive validity, not a test of hypotheses, and in this kind of psychometric research, probability levels are not of critical importance (Nunnally,
1978). Several sets of product moment correlations
TABLE 1
Bivariate Correlations of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Scores
and Personal and Public Achievement, and the WISC
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Fluency
Flexibility
.67
Originality
.41
.41
Elaboration
.39
.41
.57
Public ach.
.15
.03
.07
.04
Personal ach.
.29
.22
.20
.27
.28
WISC
.16
.04
.06
.29 .07 .08
Beyounder
.21
.16
.05
.01
.30
.35 .06
p < .05 (1-tailed).
p < .01 (1-tailed).
are reported immediately following (also see Table 1).
The regression and canonical correlation results are
then presented.
Product moment and interitem (alpha) correlations
showed moderate but statistically significant relationships between the TTCT scores and personal achievement (fluency r ¼ .29, p ¼ .014, flexibility r ¼ .22,
p ¼ .05, elaboration r ¼ .27, p ¼ .02). Originality was
slightly lower than all of these (r ¼ .20, p ¼ .06). None
of the correlations with Public Achievement were
statistically significant (rs < .15).
The four TTCT test scores were moderately
inter-related (.67 < rs < .39; a ¼ .77), as predicted by
theories of divergent thinking (Guilford, 1968; Runco,
1999; Torrance, 1995). Given this moderate overlap
and the need for parsimony, a composite was computed
by converting each of the fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores into a z-score and then adding them together. This standardized composite was
correlated with personal (r ¼ .31, p ¼ .009) but not public achievement (r ¼ .05, ns). The four TTCT scores were
not related to the Beyonders total score but it was significantly correlated with both personal (r ¼ .35,
p ¼ .04) and public achievement (R ¼ .30, p ¼ .012).
A canonical analysis was computed using z scores
from the fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration
indexes of the TTCT as predictors and quantity of personal and public achievement are criteria. The resulting
canonical coefficient was .34. A second canonical
analysis used the same TTCT predictors but had both
quantity and quality for public and personal achievements as criteria (Rc ¼ .40). When intelligence test
scores were added as a predictor, the coefficient
increased to .46. Although statistically nonsignificant
with the probability levels used in hypothesis testing
research (.05 and .01), each of these canonical coefficients offers reasonable support for the predictive
validity of the TTCT. This is especially true given
that the predictors and the criteria were administered
50 years apart.
TORRANCE TESTS OF CREATIVE THINKING AS PREDICTORS OF PERSONAL AND PUBLIC ACHIEVEMENT
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
Intelligence
In addition to predictive validity, there was also support
for the discriminant validity of the TTCT. Each of the
four individual TTCT scores was negatively related
to WISC scores, though only the association with
elaboration reached statistical significance (r ¼ .29,
p ¼ .026). The composite TTCT score, described above
(a sum of four z scores), was negatively related to WISC
scores, but not significantly (r ¼ .17).
The next analysis tested the interaction of divergent
thinking and intelligence as a predictor of achievement.
This was a regression using the product term
(TTCT IQ) as predictor, as described by Cohen and
Cohen (1983). The variable representing the interaction
(TTCT IQ) was entered into the regression in a second
step, after the two main effects (TTCT and IQ). Results
indicated that the interaction was related to Public (R2
change ¼ .15, p ¼ .012) but not Personal Achievement
(R2 change ¼ .03, ns).
Pearson correlations between the WISC and Personal
and Public Achievement were both negative (rs ¼ .08
and .07) but not statistically significant. Personal and
Public Achievement were only moderately related
(r ¼ .28, p ¼ .019).
GROUP DIFFERENCES
Groups were formed from the Beyonder measure and
two-tailed t-tests were used to compare them. Given
the sample size, equal variances were not assumed.
Results are summarized in Table 2. Note that individuals who indicated a ‘‘love of work’’ had higher public
achievement; t(55) ¼ 2.19 (p ¼ .016, Ms ¼ 38.4 and 81.3,
respectively; SDs ¼ 22.0 and 71.7); than those who did
not. There was also a significant group difference in
achievement in ‘‘tolerance of mistakes,’’ with those
reporting a higher tolerance reporting higher public
achievement; t(14) ¼ 2.45 (p ¼ .027, Ms ¼ 75.4 and
365
39.0, for high and low tolerance, respectively;
SDs ¼ 68.4 and 27.6). Responses to the ‘‘minority of
one’’ Beyonder scale indicated significantly higher public achievement scores as well; t(20) ¼ 2.55 (p ¼ .019,
M ¼ 82.33 and 38, respectively; SDs ¼ 70.5 and 40.62).
The only significant difference involved ‘‘well roundedness,’’ with those responding affirmatively having higher
personal achievement scores than those reporting less
well roundedness; t(55) ¼ 2.74 (p ¼ .008, Ms ¼ 6.08 and
3.67, respectively; SDs ¼ 2.47 and 2.77).
SEX DIFFERENCES
Because some estimates of creativity show differences
between men and women (for a recent review, see
Runco, Cramond, and Pagnani, in press) the next set
of analyses compared the men and women in the sample. Results indicated that they differed significantly in
their achievements. Men had higher scores than women
for public achievement; t(55) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .023, Ms ¼ 90
and 56, respectively, SDs ¼ 79 and 49). Women had
higher scores than men on personal achievement, but
this difference was not statistically significant
(Ms ¼ 4.7 and 3.6, respectively; SDs ¼ 3.2 and 2.4).
Given these differences between men and women, the
primary analyses for this investigation were repeated
after statistically controlling gender. These were
regression analyses with the achievement criteria and
testing sex in a first step, TTCT scores in a second step,
and TTCT squared (for curvilinear trends) in a third
step. The difference between men and women was again
apparent (R2 ¼ .068, p ¼ .05) in the analysis using public
achievement. More importantly, the relationship of the
TTCT composite with personal achievement was still
statistically significant (R2 ¼ .13, p ¼ .023) and,
intriguingly, there was a quadratic trend (R2 ¼ .15,
p ¼ .033). This suggests that high scores on the TTCT
composite were associated with high personal
TABLE 2
Group Differences in Personal and Public Achievement
Public Achievement
Beyonder Scale
Sense of Mission
Love of Work
Deep Thinking
Tolerance of Mistakes
Well-roundedness
Minority of One
Personal Achievement
M
SD
M
SD
t
df
p
M
SD
M
SD
t
df
p
71.14
81.35
72.58
75.44
90.25
82.33
59.75
71.72
65.34
68.39
87.37
70.5
78.92
38.43
74.25
39.00
65.62
38.00
87.56
22.03
68.58
27.58
58.78
40.62
0.29
2.19
0.09
2.45
0.92
2.55
14
55
52
14
14
20
0.78
0.03
0.93
0.03
0.37
0.02
4.14
4.35
4.00
4.20
6.08
4.45
2.73
2.78
2.77
2.84
2.47
2.71
4.41
3.64
4.5
3.5
3.67
3.44
3.31
3.18
2.91
3.33
2.77
3.78
0.27
0.74
0.65
0.49
2.74
0.76
15
20
52
6
20
10
0.79
0.47
0.52
0.64
0.01
0.46
Note. Groups refer to those who possess or do not possess (presence vs. absence) the skill referred by the specific Beyonder scale. For example,
those who were rated ‘‘1’’ versus those with a rating of ‘‘0’’ in the ‘‘Minority of One’’ scale is compared for personal and public achievement. The same
for all other beyonder scales.
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
366
RUNCO, MILLAR, ACAR, CRAMOND
achievement, but only up to a point, and afterwards the
relationship showed a decline. None of the predictors
was significantly related to public achievement (all R2
changes <.07).
Stepwise regression analyses (Cohen & Cohen, 1983)
also indicated that there was an interaction (sex total
TTCT) when Personal Achievement was the criterion.
Sex, entered into the equation first, was not statistically
significant. The TTCT was significant (R2 change ¼ .094,
p ¼ .019). Most important from this analysis was that
the sex TTCT predictor was significant (R2
change ¼ .080, p ¼ .024). Product moment coefficients
help explain this: For men the relationship of the TTCT
and personal achievement was .153, ns, and for women
.36, p ¼ .038. The same analyses were computed using
public achievement and then the Beyonder total, but
no predictor there contributed a significant portion of
variance (all R2 changes <.03).
Threshold Theory
Given the nature of the data collected for this investigation, and the oft-cited threshold theory—in which
intelligence and creativity are related but only at lower
levels (Kim, 2006; Runco & Albert, 1987)—one set of
regressions was conducted with the composite TTCT
score as criterion and WISC scores entered in a first
step, and the square of the WISC scores entered in a
second step (Cohen & Cohen, 1983). The same analysis
was also done with each of the four individual TTCT
indexes as criteria, and again with gender controlled
by adding it in a first step. There was no indication of
a threshold relationship (all R2 < .121, ns). Although
this relationship (and all correlations) may be attenuated by restricted range of scores, the IQ range in this
sample was certainly large enough. It was over 100 IQ
points (71 to 176).
DISCUSSION
The most important finding from this investigation is
that predictions from TTCT hold up even over 50 years.
Indeed, the individual TTCT scores, and then a standardized composite calculated from them, were related to
personal achievement. They were not related to public
achievement, but this is not much of a surprise. It may
be that participants are now at a stage of life where personal achievements are more important than public
ones. Additionally, certain criteria are more or less fitting for certain samples (Runco, Plucker, & Lim,
2000), and it is possible that the personal achievement
criterion was simply the most appropriate for this age
group. Recall also that Torrance (1995) seemed to think
that such personal creativity was at least as important as
public achievement. More recently, Runco (1995, 1996)
has developed a complete theory of personal creativity,
the crux of which is that creative skills are often used
such that there is no product, not social achievement,
no interpersonal judgment. In this view, creativity can
lead to things which are original and useful but only
for the individual creator himself or herself.
The results of earlier follow-up studies (Torrance,
1969) showed that TTCT scores were superior to those
obtained from tests of intelligence in predicting creative
achievements. This fits well with the report of Wai,
Lubinski, and Benbow (2005). Theirs was a follow-up
of individuals ranked in the top 1% of SAT scores.
The criteria of creativity used at follow-up were the
number of patents and secured tenure positions in top
universities, which parallel the use of public achievement
criteria in the TTCT investigations. Wai et al. compared
the top quartile to the bottom quartile and found that
7.5% of the top quartile had been granted patents, versus 3.8% of the bottom quartile. In the top group,
3.2% had earned tenure, versus 0.38% of the bottom
group. It would appear that, in some domains at least,
there is a role of convergent thinking, or at least of the
skills tapped by the SAT. Notably, Wai et al. did not
compare the SAT to the TTCT. Recall here the findings
of Plucker (1999) and the comparisons showing that the
TTCT was not only a good predictor, but a better one
that general intelligence.
The relationship between TTCT indexes and personal
achievement seemed to indicate an optimal level of
divergent thinking, at least in the regression showing
the quadratic trend. This, too, makes a great deal of
sense in that thinking divergently probably could be
taken too far and as such led to wild, crazy, and useless
ideas. Eysenck (1997) reported that psychotics can be
quite divergent in their ideation, but they are not creative because their ideas are too far out, too wild and
unrealistic. Nearly all contributions to creative performances (e.g., nonconformity, autonomy, divergence)
seem to have an optimal level of benefit (Runco & Sakamoto, 1999) and it should come as no surprise that this
applies to divergent thinking as well. Still, the present
results should be tested in future research with larger
and less select samples. Perhaps an optimal level of
divergent thinking could be defined in such a way that
it can be targeted by educators and their students.
There were notable sex differences in these results,
with men having higher public achievements and women
higher personal achievements. Recall here that Cramond et al. (2005) also found sex differences in their
report of the 40-year follow-up data. It is difficult to
say much about sex differences, given that this was a
longitudinal study with participants of approximately
60 years old, or perhaps even older. Opportunities and
expectations for the females who were in elementary
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
TORRANCE TESTS OF CREATIVE THINKING AS PREDICTORS OF PERSONAL AND PUBLIC ACHIEVEMENT
school in the 1950s and 1960s may not be the same as for
females in elementary school now.
The TTCT scores suggested good discriminant validity in low and primarily negative correlations with
WISC IQ scores. There was no indication of a threshold,
and thus no support for threshold theory, but that may
at least in part reflect the select sample involved in this
investigation. An ideal test of the threshold would
include a very wide range of ability (Kim, 2006; Runco
& Albert, 1986). Here it was an obvious analysis to compute, given the available data, but not a hypothesis
reflecting a longitudinal concern.
The four TTCT scores were moderately interrelated,
but this is typical and consistent with theory. It does
not, however, suggest that only one index should be
used when scoring the TTCT or other test of divergent
thinking. The intercorrelations do not indicate huge
redundancy, for example, and earlier research has suggested that the various indexes are functionally distinct
(Runco, 1995). Torrance (1995) himself suggested that
all indexes be used and that a composite was only meaningful as some estimate of creative energy and not
indicative of one particular cognitive process. If there
is practical exigency that requires that only one index
could be used, it should not be fluency. Originality is
more strongly tied to creativity than is fluency (Runco
et al., 2009).
There are practical implications of the results
reported here, in addition to the psychometric implications summarized earlier. Overall, the results underscore
the value of divergent thinking and they may be taken as
a reminder of how important it is as an objective for parents and teachers. Adults should encourage, model, and
value the divergent thinking of their children and provide opportunities for its practice. Apparently divergent
thinking plays a role in certain kinds of creative
expression and achievement, and does so throughout
the lifespan.
REFERENCES
Albert, R. S. (1969). Genius: Present-day status of the concept and its
implications for the study of creativity and giftedness. American
Psychologist, 24, 743–753.
Albert, R. S. (1978). Observations and suggestions regarding giftedness, familial influence, and the achievement of eminence. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 22, 201–211.
Albert, R. S. (1980a). Exceptionally gifted boys and their parents:
Basic educational, cognitive, and creative similarities. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 24, 174–179.
Albert, R. S. (1980b). Family positions and the attainment of eminence: A study of positions and special family experiences. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 24, 87–95.
Albert, R. S., & Runco, M. A. (1987). The possible different personality dispositions of scientists and nonscientists. In D. N. Jackson &
367
J. P. Rushton (Eds.), Scientific excellence: Origins and assessment
(pp. 67–97). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression=correlation
analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005).
A report on the 40-year follow-up of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 49, 283–291.
Eysenck, H. J. (1997). Creativity and personality. In M. A. Runco
(Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 1, pp. 41–66). Cresskill,
NJ: Hampton Press.
Feist, G. J., & Barron, F. X. (2003). Predicting creativity from early to
late adulthood: Intellect, potential, and personality. Journal of
Research in Personality, 37, 62–88.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence, and their educational
implications. San Diego, CA: Robert Knapp.
Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity tests for children. Orange, CA:
Sheridan Psychological Services.
Helson, R. (1996). In search of the creative personality. Creativity
Research Journal, 9, 295–306.
Helson, R. (1999). A longitudinal study of creative personality in
women. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 89–101.
Helson, R. (2000). Personality development: Adulthood and aging.
In A. E. Kazdin (Ed.), Encyclopedia of psychology (Vol. 6, pp.
116–120). Washington, DC: APA Books.
Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among
talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52,
136–147.
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A metaanalysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57–66.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Is creativity unidimensional or multidimensional?
Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity
Research Journal, 18, 251–259.
Millar, G. W. (2002). The Torrance kids at mid-life. Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof really in the pudding? Reanalysis
of Torrance’s longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12,
103–114.
Runco, M. A. (1986). Predicting children’s creative performance.
Psychological Reports, 59, 1247–1254.
Runco, M. A. (1995). Insight for creativity, expression for impact.
Creativity Research Journal, 8, 377–390.
Runco, M. A. (1996). Personal creativity: Definition and
developmental issues. New Directions for Child Development, 72,
3–30.
Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S.
Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 577–582). San Diego,
CA: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold hypothesis
regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted
and nongifted children. Creativity Child and Adult Quarterly, 11,
212–218.
Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents’ personality and the
creative potential of exceptionally gifted boys. Creativity Research
Journal, 17, 355–368.
Runco, M. A., Cramond, B., & Pagnani, A. ( 2010). Sex differences
in creative potential and creative performance. In D. McCreary
(Ed.), Handbook of gender research in psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 343–
357). New York: Springer.
Runco, M. A., & Sakamoto, S. O. (1999). Experimental research on
creativity. In R. S. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 62–92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
368
RUNCO, MILLAR, ACAR, CRAMOND
Downloaded by [72.152.245.219] at 21:45 11 September 2011
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2000). Development and
psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393–400.
Runco, M. A., Nobel, E. P., Reiter-Palmon, R., Acar, S., Ritchie, T.,
& Yurkovich, J. M. (2009). The genetic basis of creativity and ideational fluency. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Torrance, E. P. (1969). Prediction of adult creative achievement among
high school seniors. Gifted Child Quarterly, 13, 223–229.
Torrance, E. P. (1972a). Career patterns and peak creative achievements of creative high school students twelve years later. Gifted
Child Quarterly, 16, 75–88.
Torrance, E. P. (1972b). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 236–252.
Torrance, E. P. (1980). Norms–technical manual: Demonstrator form
for the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Unpublished manuscript, Georgia Studies of Creative Behavior, Athens, GA.
Torrance, E. P. (1981a). Predicting the creativity of elementary school
children (1958–80)—And the teacher who ‘‘made a difference.’’
Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55–62.
Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced
indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative
Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136–140.
Torrance, E. P. (1993). The Beyonder in a thirty-year longitudinal
study. Roeper Review, 15, 131–135.
Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Torrance, E. P. (2002). The manifesto: A guide to developing a creative
career. Westport, CT: Ablex.
Torrance, E. P. (2003). The millennium: A time for looking forward
and looking back. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 6–12.
Torrance, E. P. (2008). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Norms-Technical Manual Figural (Streamlined) Forms A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity–intelligence distinction. New York:
Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity–intelligence distinction. New York: Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.