Dear Anjali Chayal,

The scientific research has been very creative in creating tests for the measurement of creativity.

The problem, however, is about the matter that you wish evaluate (the creativity).

For some it is a specific property, linked to the development of certain skills.

For others it is a more general capacity, connected to the quality of a person's intellectual capacity.

For some it is a genetically transmitted component.

For others it may be learned and developed.

In addition, your question poses the problem of standardization, in other words, the reference to a specific sample representing a whole population. This considering that the standard implies reasoning in terms of average and standard deviation.

Amidst all this, where is your question?

For now, your test must be an 'authority' represented by one or many people who would ideally be all-rounded, wise, experienced, creative in their own field, and the most important ingredient of all - gifted with impeccable intuition (that is why artists and spiritual or particularly sensitive people often 'see' creativity). For instance, science fiction authors (as gifted as I. Asimov, Sir A.C.Clarke or R. Bradbury) would be more appropriate to recognize and encourage creativity (irrespective of the field) rather than conventional scientists or writers. But this is just one example.

While at this point it is not very likely to imagine that there would be a single test measuring creativity (in any field or capacity), at some point in the future technology (if still existing) may make it possible for people to be tested or 'scanned'. The reason for this is that the internet (and other devices and robots) is becoming more semantic, i.e. intelligent and intuitive. However, I don't think that a single test at one particular point of time would be enough. I am guessing that scientists from the fields of bioinformatics, genetics, neuroscience and physics will play a crucial role in designing the 'test'.

You may want to explore what others have said on the topic of creativity by typing 'creativity' in the search box on the RG site and then filtering by question and/or topic. Here below the link to a previous discussion (and still ongoing) on leading scholars in creativity research: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Who_is_are_the_leading_scholar_s_in_creativity_research

Basically I agree with Hristina.

I think it is now clear that it is not possible to reduce complex phenomena such as intelligence or creativity to a single main variable, in relation to a select group of qualities or indicators of experimental protocol.

Similarly, remains open the question of mutual influence between socio-educational environment and genetic heritage.

I think, rather, it may be most relevant understand how does the creative attitude of a person, or a group of individuals, in certain situations and in particular contexts.

However you can always read classics studies and researches as:

Guilford, J.P. (1950). Creativity. In American Psychologist, 5, pages 444-445.

Torrance, E.P. (1966). Torrance tests of creativity, Personnel Press, Princeton.

Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking, Ginn & Company (Xerox Corporation), Lexington, MA.

R.J. Sternberg, R.J. (ed) (1988). The nature of creativity, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Feldman, D.H, Czikszentmihalyi, M, & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world, a framework for the study of creativity, Praeger Publishers, Westport, Connecticut, London.

Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39(5), 1154.

M.A.Runco, M.A. (ed) (1997).The creative research handbook, vol.1, Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.

Plucker, J. A. & Runco, M. A. (1998). ‘The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment’ in Roeper Review, vol.21, no.1, Sept 1998, pages 36-39.

Dacey, J. & Lennon, K. (2000). Understanding creativity: the interplay of biological, psychological and social factors, Creative Education Foundation, Buffalo, NY.

Hi, Mauro

The most widely-used standardized measure would be the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). There are two main versions: Verbal and Figural. As the names suggest, the Verbal one involves verbal cues and responses, while the Figural one involves producing line drawings (and captions). They don't exactly measure "creativity," but they do a pretty good job of measuring divergent thinking, which is one of the key underlying cognitive abilities. The Verbal TTCT is more easily scored: the scores are (a) fluency [number of appropriate responses], (b) originality [number of unusual responses], and (c) flexibility [number of different categories the responses fall into]. The Figural version involves a number of scoring parameters.

There are some other measures of creativity-related cognitive abilities out there, though not all are in print or easily available. A German researcher (Klaus Urban?) recently developed one that uses drawings. Mednick's Remote Associates Test (and later tests of this type), various sentence completion measures (scored for unusual responses), and arguably the Embedded Figures Test (a measure of field dependence) have all been used as well. In my own research I have used most of these, as well as the straightforward (but labor-intensive) process of having people draw pictures or write poems in response to standard cues, then (a) rating the products for unusual features and (b) having several judges rate each piece independently, using simple rating scales. (This last resembles Theresa Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique.) The ideal judge or rater is someone who is pretty familiar with the medium in question, but if you use several judges you can get pretty reliable, valid results even from lay people.

Perhaps the best measure of creativity, in the form of a questionnaire, with excellent psychometric qualities (i.e., reliability, validity, absolute zero, etc.) is the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. I believe Shelly Carson is the author, and we have published neuroimaging correlates on it: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19722171

The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) is quite good of its kind. It is a checklist of accomplishments in various categories, ranging from common low-level achievements to much rarer, higher-level ones. It does not measure "creativity" in the sense of cognitive abilities or personality characteristics, at least not directly, but the achievement checklist approach has a long history and generally works well.

Yes, in terms of person, process, press, product (I think these are the four "p's" of creativity) the CAQ is a measure of product more than the other 3 underlying creative expression...

Carson published a nice summary of her CAQ in the Creativity Research Journal, and if that is the interest--creative activity and performance (not creative potential), there are a few good alternatives as well. I can dig up the exact citation for the CRJ article, if you need it (even though I am not at all comfortable with the idea that it is the best measure). "The best measure" depends on your population, objectives, and so on.