The provocative title of John Baer's “Why You Shouldn't Trust Creativity Tests” (December 1993/January 1994) leads me to ask, “Trust creativity tests to do what?” If, as Baer suggests, it is to trust that they will be an absolute measure of the sum total of an individual's creativity, then he is right. We shouldn't trust them to do that. As Baer points out, the problem is analogous to the problem of people trusting that IQ tests measure intelligence. We know that they do not. Yet, IQ tests retain their “hard-to-eradicate appeal” because they measure some aspects of intelligence better than any other method to date. The same is true of creativity tests.
According to Torrance (1974), a high degree of these abilities (usually designated as fluency; flexibility; originality; and ability to sense deficiencies, elaborate, and redefine) does not guarantee that the possessor will behave in a highly creative manner. A high level of these abilities, however, increases a person's chances of behaving creatively.
The Problem with Expert Judgment
What of Baer's suggestion that we use experts in the field as judges of creativity? We need only to examine the literature on the lives of creative individuals to see how many of them were judged harshly during their lifetimes by experts in the field. Van Gogh, whose work now commands astounding prices at art auctions, had difficulty getting showings at galleries other than his brother's. Much evidence suggests that the judgment of creativity changes over time and place; the vanguards in a field may have particular problems getting recognition from those who have a stake in the status quo. So judgment by experts has its problems, too.
Another problem with using products to judge whether someone is creative is the difficulty in differentiating between achievement and aptitude. Do we measure a person's aptitude for mathematics, for example, by his or her achievement in mathematics without considering his or her mathematical experience? Do we assume that children who write poetry are the ones who possess creative talent? Looking at achievement is a good way to decide who should be included under the term creative but it is not a good exclusionary criterion. Precocious writers certainly have a good chance of being good adult writers, but children have unequal access to experiences that might develop their talents. This is especially true in music, dance, and the arts, and in some sciences, like physics. Einstein, Edison, and Maya Angelou probably would have been missed by experts judging their work in childhood.
How well, then, do tests such as the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking predict creativity? Baer notably excluded the longitudinal studies that have shown predictive validity for these tests (for a summary see Cramond 1993). Of course, they do not have perfect predictability. Torrance would be among the first to acknowledge that many other variables go into becoming creatively productive: motivation and opportunity are two of the most important. Surely these factors will affect the predictive validity of the consensual assessment approach, too, when its proponents attempt longitudinal predictive validity studies.
Assessment Can Be Multidimensional
So what, then, is the answer? Why not assume that since creativity is multidimensional, so too should be its assessment. Instead of an either/or proposition, why not use any and all methods available to ascertain where children's strengths lie? Critics might suggest the issues of cost and availability.
Although creativity testing is costly, expert opinions can be costly, too, especially in rural areas where experts may not be readily available. Also, there is the question of what the schools are trying to assess.
In keeping with his stated purpose of measuring creativity in order to develop it, Torrance (1966) delineated the following five purposes for using creativity tests: (1) to promote understanding of the human mind, its functioning and development; (2) to assist in the development of individualized instruction; (3) to provide additional information for remedial and psychotherapeutic programs; (4) to assess the differential effects of educational materials, programs, curriculums, procedures, and so on; and (5) to point out potentialities that might otherwise go unnoticed—especially in children from culturally diverse and lower socioeconomic backgrounds.
As Torrance asked,Do we want to identify only those potentialities that will flourish in spite of all efforts to thwart them? Or, do we want also to identify those potentialities that will be realized under intelligent guidance, more favorable learning conditions, and the like?(1966).My own research, for example, (Cramond and Gollmar 1993) has demonstrated that creativity tests can highlight strengths in children who previously have been viewed as school problems.
I totally agree with Baer that all children should receive training in creative thinking. In the case of children who show precocious development or strong interest in a field, talent development in that field is probably appropriate. Creativity tests will yield additional information on many children that accomplishment alone does not.
