Remote Associates Test



The Remote Associates Test ( RAT ) is a creativity test used to determine a human’s creative potential. The test typically lasts forty minutes and consists of thirty to forty-four questions in which each of these three common stimuli is considered to be unrelated. The person being tested must think of a word that is somehow related to each of the first three words. [1] Scores are calculated based on the correct questions.

Development

The Remote Associates Test (RAT), published in 1959 by Professor Sarnoff Mednick and Martha T. Mednick. [2] In 1971, Mednick and Mednick published the high school form of the RAT. [3] Mednick and Mednick, the creative thinking process in the field of “the forming of associative elements in the new combination” the process or solution. ” [4] [5] Mednick reported a Spearman-Brown reliability of RAT = 0.92 in a sample of students at an Eastern women’s college, and 0.91 in a sample of men tested atUniversity of Michigan . [2]

Layout

The two adult forms of RAT consists of 30 items each. The answer is allowed 40 minutes to complete the test. Each item provides three stimuli that are remote from one another; The answer is then required to find (via the creative process) another word that is a criteria-meeting mediating link, which can be associated with a meaningful way. The test-taker’s score is the correct number. [2]

Example items [2]

Widow, Cock, Monkey Bass, Complex, Sleep Bald, Screech, Emblem [ show ]Room, Blood, Salts

Compound Remote Associates Test

In Mednick’s two college-level versions of the test, each consisting of 30 items, each item can be associated with the solution word in a number of ways. [6] [7] For example, the three words Sami / tennis / head are associated with the solution match by moyen de synonymy (same game =) formation of a compound (matchhead) and semanticsassociation (tennis match). In 2003, Edward M. Bowden and Mark Jung-Beeman developed a combination of remote compound problems and subset of RAT problems for their studies of insight problem solving. They were more likely to be involved in the study of RAT, and to present participants with a more consistent task – that the solution would also be related to the stimulus words in the same way. They are a set of problems in the compounding of a compound word (or phrase) (eg, age / mile / sand for the compounds stone age , milestone , and sandstonewith the solution word stone). Solution words were never repeated or used as problem words were sometimes repeated. The problems can be divided into two types: homogeneous , for which the solution is a prefix (or suffix ) to all three words of the triad problem, and heterogeneous , for which the solution is a prefix (or suffix) to at least one of the words of the triad and a suffix (prefix) to the other word (s) of the triad. The 144 problems were made according to the time required to solve the problem. This compound RAT gives researchers a normative cohesive and operational definition list, where subjects are able to solve tasks in less time. The increase in the task of solving difficulties in the relationship with the problem of a greater degree of reliability , the goal of the problem, and the ability to solve the problem. [6] [7] [8]

Example items [6]

Fox, Man, Peep Sleeping, Bean, Trash [ show ]Dust, Cereal, Fish

Validity

According to Mednick, the RAT could be used to test “all fields of creative endeavor” and to suggest that those who will be more successful in the sciences . [2] Mednick aussi suggéré That this test be used to select students from lower-income families to be admis to special educational programs . However, there is no doubt that they have done so well in the field of RAT. [1] Worthen and Clark (1971) [9] concluded that the RAT measured sensitivity to languagerather than creative potential. The correct response is often the most important response. Worthen and Clark on the RAT to create the Functionally Remote Associates Test (FRAT) that depends on functional relationships.

Impact

Despite the original intent for the RAT has been used as a measure of individual differences in associative ability, the RAT has fallen as a self-standing test of creativity. [7] This test has been used to assess the range of cognitive abilities thought to underline creative thinking. [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]

Over the years, the RAT has been used to assess various cognitive abilities linked to creativity , insight , memory and problem solving . [10] [11] [14] It has-been used to study the relationship entre creativity and rapid eye movement sleep (REM), [16] peripheral attention [17] deficit care , [18] memory , [14] synesthesia , [19] and mental illness . [20] In a meta analysis, [21]A study of the study of neurodegeneration, the RAT is shown in the second most standardized test, following the Alternate Uses Test [22] [23] and placing the Torrance Test of Creativity [24] in third place.

Whether the RAT should be used as a measure of associative processing, convergent thinking and / or creative thinking remains an open question on both theoretical and empirical grounds. [7] Currently, the debate surrounding the use of RAT is difficult to determine in the absence of additional empirical studies of the internal and external structure of the RAT. Findings from one study [7] provide evidence for the RAT as a convergent thinking test, but much still remains to be understood about potential subprocesses of convergent thinking theorized to be assessed by the RAT [2]and how these processes are linked to actual creative behaviors. [7]

International versions

The RAT has been adapted into several versions. Researchers have developed in Jamaican [25] adaptation as well as Hebrew , [26] Dutch , [27] Italian , [28] Chinese [29] and Japanese [30] versions.

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:b Backman, Margaret E .; Tuckman, Bruce W. (January 1, 1972). “Review of Remote Associates Test”. Journal of Educational Measurement9 (2): 161-162. JSTOR  1433810 .
  2. ^ Jump up to:f Mednick, SA, & Mednick, MT (1959.1962). Remote Test Associates, college and adult form.
  3. Jump up^ Mednick, SA, & Mednick, MT (1967). Remote Associates Test, high school form.
  4. Jump up^ Mednick, SA (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69(3), 220-232.
  5. Jump up^ Baird, LL (1972). [Test review of Remote Associates Test]. In OK Buros (Eds.),The seventh mental measurements yearbook.
  6. ^ Jump up to:c Bowden, E., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). “Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems”. Behavior Research Methods Instruments & Computers , 35 (4), 634-639.
  7. ^ Jump up to:f Lee, CS, Huggins, AC, & Therriault, DJ (2014). “A measure of creativity or intelligence” of the remote association test. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts , 8 (4), 446-460.
  8. Jump up^ Bowden, E., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). “Aha! – insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere”. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10 (3), 730-737.
  9. Jump up^ Worthen, Blaine R .; Clark, Philip M. (January 1, 1971). “Toward an Improved Measure of Remote Associational Ability”. Journal of Educational Measurement . 8 (2): 113-123. doi : 10.2307 / 1433966(inactive 2017-01-24). JSTOR  1433966 .
  10. ^ Jump up to:b Aiello, DA, Jarosz, AF, Cushen, PJ, & Wiley, J. (2012). Firing the executive: How to solve problems? The Journal of Problem Solving, 4, Article 7.
  11. ^ Jump up to:b Ansburg, PI (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Current Psychology, 19, 143-146.
  12. Jump up^ Fodor, EM (1999). Subclinical inclination toward manic depression and creative performance on the Remote Associates Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1273-1283. doi: 10.1016 / S0191-8869 (99) 00076-8
  13. Jump up^ Mikulincer, M., & Sheffi, E. (2000). Adult attachment style and cognitive reactions to positive affect: A test of mental categorization and creative problem solving. Motivation & Emotion, 24, 149-174.
  14. ^ Jump up to:c Storm, BC, Angello, G., & Bjork, EL (2011). Thinking can cause forgetting: Memory dynamics in creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology-Learning Memory and Cognition, 37 (5), 1287-1293.
  15. Jump up^ Vohs, KD, & Heatherton, TF (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1103-1118.
  16. Jump up^ Cai, DJ, Mednick, SA, Harrison, EM, Kanady, JC, & Mednick, SC (2009). REM, not incubation, enhanced creativity by priming associative networks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106 (25), 10130-10134.
  17. Jump up^ Ansburg, P., & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34 (7), 1141-1152.
  18. Jump up^ White, HA, & Shah, P. (2006). Uninhibited fantasies: creativity in adults with attention-deficit / hyperactivity disorder. Personality and Individual Differences, 40 (6), 1121-1131.
  19. Jump up^ Sitton, SC, & Pierce, ER (2004). Synesthesia, creativity and puns. Psychological reports, 95 (2), 577-580.
  20. Jump up^ Johnson, SL, Murray, G., Fredrickson, B., Youngstrom, EA, Hinshaw, S., Bass, JM, … & Salloum, I. (2012). Creativity and bipolar disorder: touched by fire or burning with questions ?. Clinical psychology review, 32 (1), 1-12.
  21. Jump up^ Arden, R., Chavez, RS, Grazioplene, R., & Jung, RE (2010). Neuroimaging creativity: a psychometric view. Behavioral Brain Research, 214 (2), 143-156.
  22. Jump up^ Guilford, JP (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
  23. Jump up^ Guilford, JP, Christensen, PR, Merrifield, PR, & Wilson, RC (1978). Alternate uses: Manual of instructions and interpretation. Orange, CA: Sheridan Psychological Services.
  24. Jump up^ Torrance, EP (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking: Norms-technical manual (Research ed.). Verbal Tests, Forms A and B. Figural Tests, Forms A and B. Princeton, NJ: Personnel Press.
  25. Jump up^ Hamilton, M. (1982). “Jamaicanizing the mednick remote associates test of creativity”. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 55 (1), 321-322.
  26. Jump up^ נבו, ב, לוין, א, Levin, I., & Nevo, B. (1978). An Hebrew Remote – Associates – Test: An Hebrew Version for Assessment of Creativity / מבחן הקשרים רחוקים – כלי לאבחון חשיבה יוצרת. Megamot / מגמות, כ”ד (1), 87-98.
  27. Jump up^ Chermahini, SA, Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). An item-response theory approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7 (3), 177-186.
  28. Jump up^ Salvi, C., Costantini, G., Bricolo, E., Perugini, M., & Beeman, M. (2016). Validation of italian rebus puzzles and compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, 48 ​​(2), 664-685.
  29. Jump up^ Shen, W., Yuan, Y., Liu, C., Yi, B., & Dou, K. (2016). “The development and validity of a Chinese version of the compound remote associates test”. American Journal of Psychology, 129 (3), 245-258.
  30. Jump up^ Terai, H., Miwa, K., & Asami, K. (2013). “Development and evaluation of the Japanese Remote Test Associates”. Japanese Journal of Psychology, 84 (4), 419-428.