Test Number |
24 |
Title |
Creativity Tests for Children |
Author |
Guilford, J. P. |
Category |
Test |
Copyright Date |
1976 |
Availability |
Out of print |
Restrictions |
|
Age/Grade Level |
Elementary+ |
Cost |
No current information available |
Forms |
Two forms: A and B |
Source |
Sheridan Psychological Services, Inc. (No longer available) |
Address |
|
Phone |
|
Fax |
|
web or e-mail |
|
Definition |
Deals with diversity and production, fluency in production of alternative ideas to meet somewhat open situations. Linked to the Divergent Production factors in Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model. |
Purposes |
A battery of 10 tests that deal with visual-figural and semantic abilities. |
Characteristics |
Generating Ideas |
Manual |
Good |
The manual is thorough, well-organized, and clearly-written. It includes a discussion of: definition and purposes, the theoretical rationale, directions for administration, and the history and development of the instrument. Some of the data could be more |
Validity |
Fair |
Low correlations are reported with TTCT. One study is reported for Concurrent Validity with widely varied results grade to grade. |
Reliability |
Good |
Split-half reliability ranged from .42 to .97. Most correlations clustered in the .70’s and 80’s. |
Utility |
Fair |
The tests cover: adding decorations, different letter groups, hidden letters, kinds of people, make something out of it, making objects, names for stories, similar meanings, and writing sentences. |
Interpretation |
Fair |
Norms were established in 1972 – 1700 lower to upper middle class children in California, Florida and Illinois school systems including 150 blacks, 100 of Mexican heritage, and 190 noted as having high IQ scores. (Would not be useful without extensive updating.) |
Propriety |
Fair |
While an effort was made to place the data in a realistic context, much more information would be necessary for use today. |
Reviews & Related Lit |
MMY #9, 1978: French, J. W. “Good research data show these tests to be reliable and to be related to teachers’ ratings of creativity. However, this criterion is a doubtful one and the whole concept of creativity has been only poorly defined.” Yammamoto, K. “…the CTC may be described as a useful research instrument that awaits further exploration. For instance, various validation studies need to be continued to give support to both the technical and conceptual claims of these tests. The suspected influence of sociopsychological variables on test performance is likely to be another fertile ground for inquiry. Most critical, however, will be to establish clear relationships between children’s performance on the test and their actual creative accomplishments in life, both concurrently and longitudinally. |
Back to Index Next Test |