Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking



The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking is a test of creativity .

Description

Built on JP Guilford’s work and created by Ellis Paul Torrance , the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT), a test of creativity , Originally Involved mere tests of divergent thinking and other problem-solving skills, qui Were Scored one oven scales:

  • Fluency. The total number of interpretable, meaningful, and relevant ideas generated in response to the stimulus.
  • Flexibility. The number of different categories
  • Originality. The statistical rarity of the responses.
  • Development. The amount of detail in the responses.

The third edition of the TTCT in 1984, but added resistance to premature closures (based on Gestalt Psychology ) and Abstractness of Titles to two new criteria-referenced scores on the figural. Torrance called the new scoring procedure Streamlined Scoring. With the five norm-referenced measures that he now had, he added 13 criteria-referenced measures which include: emotional expressiveness, story-telling articulateness, movement or actions, expressiveness of titles, synthesis of incomplete figures, synthesis of lines, circles, unusual visualization, extending or breaking boundaries, humor, richness of imagery, colorful imagery, and fantasy.[1]

According to Arasteh and Arasteh (1976), the most systematic assessment of creativity in primary schooling by Torrance and his associates (1960a, 1960b, 1960c, 1961,1962,1962a, 1963a 1964), who developed and administered the Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking (MTCT), which was later renamed as TTCT, to several thousands of school children. They have used many of Guilford’s concepts in their test construction, the Minnesota group, in contrast to Guilford, which has been devised which can be scored for several factors, involving both verbal and non-verbal aspects and relying on senses other than vision. These tests represent a fairly sharp departure from the type tests developed by Guilford and his associates (Guilford, Merrifield and Cox, 1961, Merrifield, Guilford and Gershan, 1963),

To date, several longitudinal studies have been conducted at the elementary school-aged students who were first administered the Torrance Tests in 1958 in Minnesota. There was a 22-year follow-up, [2] [3] [4] a 40-year follow-up, [5] and a 50-year follow-up [6]

Torrance (1962) grouped the different subtests of the Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking (MTCT) into three categories.

  1. Verbal tasks using verbal stimuli
  2. Verbal tasks using non-verbal stimuli
  3. Non-verbal tasks

Tasks

A brief description of the tasks used by Torrance is given below:

Verbal tasks using verbal stimuli

Unusual Uses
The usual uses of verbal stimuli are direct modifications of Guilford ‘s Brick uses test. After preliminary tryouts, Torrance (1962) is a replacement for tin cans and books for bricks. It was believed that children would be able to handle more easily than children and bricks.
Impossibilities task
It was used by Guilford and his associates (1951) as a measure of fluidity involving complex restrictions and large potential. In a race in personality development and mental hygiene, Torrance has a number of modifications of the basic task, making the restrictions more specific. In this task the subjects are asked to list as many impossibilities as they can.
Consequences task
The consequences were also used by Guilford and his associates (1951). Torrance has made several modifications in adapting it. He was improbable three situations and the children were required to list their consequences.
Just guess task
It is an adaptation of the consequences of type of test designed to elicit a higher degree of spontaneity and to be more effective with children. As in the consequence task, the subject is confronted with an improbable situation and can not be predicted.
Situations task
The situation was modeled after Guilford’s (1951) test designed to assess the ability to see what needs to be done. Subjects were given three common problems and asked to think of as many solutions to these problems as they can. For example, if all schools were abolished, what would you do to try to become educated?
Common problems task
This task is an adoption of Guilford’s (1951) Test designed to assess the ability to see defects, needs and deficiencies. Subjects are instructed that they will be given common situations and that they will be asked to consider these situations as they arise. For example, doing homework while going to school in the morning.
Improvement task
This test was adopted from Guilford ‘s (1952) apparatus, which was designed to assess the ability to recognize all aspects of sensitivity to problems. In this task the subjects are given a list of common objects and can not be improved. They are asked to make a difference.
Mother- Hubbard problem
This task was conceived as an adoption of the situation for the first time and for older groups. This test has stimulated a number of ideas which inhibit the development of ideas.
Imaginative stories task
In this task the child is told to write the most interesting and exciting story he can think of. Topics are suggested (eg, the dog that did not bark); or the child may use his own ideas.
Cow jumping problems
The Cow jumping problem is a companion task for the Mother-Hubbard problem and has been administered to the same groups under the same conditions. The task is to think of all possible things that could have happened when the cow jumped over the moon.

Verbal tasks using nonverbal stimuli

Ask and guess task
The question and answer to questions about a picture – questions which can not be answered by just looking at the picture. It is possible to formulate or to formulate hypotheses about the possible causes of the event depicted, and then their consequences both immediate and remote.
Product improvement task
In this task they are used to make things more fun to play with. Subjects are then asked to think of unusual uses of these toys other than ‘something to play with’.
Unusual uses task
In this task, along with the product improvement task, another task (unusual uses) is used. The child is asked to think of the cleverest, most interesting and most unusual uses of the toy, other than a plaything. These uses could be for the toy as it is, or for the toy as changed.

Non-verbal tasks

Incomplete figures task
It is an adaptation of the ‘Drawing completion test’ developed by Kate Franck and used by Barron (1958). An ordinary white paper is divided into two parts each containing a different stimulus figure. The subjects are asked to sketch some novel objects or by adding as many lines as they can to the ten figures.
Picture task or task
In this task the children are given shape of a triangle or a jelly bean and a sheet of white paper. The children are asked to think of a picture in which the shape is an integral part. They should paste it wherever they are. They have to think of a name for the picture and write it at the bottom.
Circles and squares task
It was originally designed as a notion of fluidity and flexibility, then modified in such a way as to stress originality and elaboration. Two printed forms are used in the test. In one form, the subject is confronted with a page of forty-two circles and asked to sketch objects or pictures which have circles as a major part. In the alternate form, squares are used instead of circles.
Creative design task
Hendrickson has been tested, but scoring procedures have been tested. The materials consist of circles and strips of various sizes and colors, a four-page booklet, scissors and glue. Subjects are instructed to construct pictures or designs, making all of the colored circles and strips with a thirty-minute time limit. Subjects may use one, two, three, or four pages; alter the circles and strips or use them as they are; add other symbols with pencil or pencil.

See also

  • Creativity

References

  1. Jump up^ Kim, Kyung-Hee (2002), Critical on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking , archived from the original on 19 January 2008
  2. Jump up^ Torrance, EP (1980). Growing Up Creatively Gifted: The 22-Year Longitudinal Study. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 3, 148-158.
  3. Jump up^ Torrance, EP (1981a). Predicting the creativity of elementary school children (1958 80) and the teacher who “made a difference.” Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 55-62.
  4. Jump up^ Torrance, EP (1981b). Empirical validation of criterion of indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136-140.
  5. Jump up^ Cramond, B., MatthewsMorgan, J., Bandalos, D., & Zuo, L. (2005). A report on the 40 year followup of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and Well in the New Millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 283-291.
  6. Jump up^ Runco, MA, Millar, G., Acar, S., Cramond, B. (2010) Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as Predictors of Personal and Public Achievement: A Fifty Year Follow-Up. Creativity Research Journal, 22 (4). DOI: 10.1080 / 10400419.2010.523393.