<p>The <strong>Torrance Test of Creative Thinking</strong> is a good place to start.  It scores for fluency (number of responses) as well as originality (statistical rarity of responses) and elaboration (level of detail) on a variety of different tasks. The validity of the TTCT has been examined with several long-term studies, so there is a fair amount of data on its measurements as well as the form of the test itself.</p>

<p>Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136-140.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-24T15:27:35.910Z
2015-06-24T15:27:35.910Z
Krysta
<p>The concept of creativity <em>per se</em> makes it hard to measure it in a standardized way, since creativity by definition opposes standardization. Even tests such as the one suggested by Krysta run into the problem that  in order to rate answers with regard to their rarity will have to rely on some kind of standardization according to which one can rate the answers given. Certainly, there are tests aiming at measuring creativity. I doubt, however, that these tests truly capture the construct at which they aim.</p>

<p>This standpoint obviously prohibits any scientific investigation of creativity, at least using quantitative measures widely used in psychology.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-13T14:54:19.993Z
What about Edward deBono's methods. He has developed a lot of ways to improve thinking ,as a skill; and his methods about improving one's potential for creativity. Maybe he has some ideas on how to study creativity....
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-14T07:52:02.913Z
Unfortunately, I do not know deBono. So in case you know his work better, you might suggest some articles/books. If he has truly developed methods in order to improve thinking (of which I would be glad to read a sound theoretical definition, allowing its measurement) and creativity, he should have some ways of assessing these constructs. Although from I current standpoint I remain skeptical.
bunsenbaer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-14T19:33:09.723Z
deBONO wrote 'Practical Thinking' from Penguin books, The use of Lateral Thinking (1967), The 5-day Course in thinking( 1969) , The Mechanisms  of the Mind (1969), Teaching Thinking ((1976) ,Wordpower (1977),  many of these published by Penguin books. Dr. deBONO has contributed to several journals , including the Lancet and Clinical Science. You must have heard of the concept of 'lateral thinking' ; I don't know why his methods aren't used more.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-16T13:44:49.047Z
@ bunsenbaer; Edward deBono is a very reputable expert in psychology and thinking skills. I'm sure a lot of his works could help you.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-16T14:16:27.437Z
Well as I said I do not know any of his work and maybe I should. However, the term 'thinking skills' made me think (pun intended) as it seems a rather broad term, which in my opinion is hard to define. Current cognitive science works utilize much more fine grained definitions, such as maybe logical reasoning (which might be something like 'thinking'), or try to understand neurobiol. underpinnings of constructs such as working memory (which isn't really that fine grained either, considering several subprocesses). No offense, but I do believe CgS have developed during the last 4.5 decades.
bunsenbaer
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-16T14:24:28.267Z
Cognitive Science has developed a lot in the last 50 years yet I read some Cognitive Scientists have said they don't really know how the brain-system gives rise to what many regard as conscious experience or 'mental' processes. So you could say half of CgS has developed in the last 5 decades ; and not the cognitive-'mental' part. Even if one believes we are only 'living brains' with appendages this does answer why people  'think' they can have an active 'mental' log or diary 'within' their brain.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-07-03T19:24:49.283Z
2015-07-03T19:24:49.283Z
bunsenbaer
<p>Einstein said once something like creativity is more important than intelligence. Intelligence as it is measured is really one's speed and efficiency at processing information. How one processes the information is the 'province' of creativity. </p>

<p>Are there any effective, psychologically-approved tests that measure creativity and ones capacity for interesting or clever creative associations between sets of ideas?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-25T15:05:59.973Z
random association test
mac389
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-28T03:12:02.050Z
Marilynn vos Savant ( forgive spelling) had an interesting idea that could be used  for a creativity test. Given a question probably with a specified answer try to find as many other answers to the same question as you can. Hopefully answers that have reasonable or practical possibilities.
201044
CC BY-SA 3.0
2015-06-29T20:19:57.093Z
That is not a new idea, unless she is much older than I think--most tests of creativity since the 1960s have had a similar task.
Krysta
<measurement><methodology><intelligence><creativity>
How do cognitive scientists measure creativity?
201044
# How do cognitive scientists measure creativity?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2015-06-24)

Einstein said once something like creativity is more important than intelligence. Intelligence as it is measured is really one's speed and efficiency at processing information. How one processes the information is the 'province' of creativity.

Are there any effective, psychologically-approved tests that measure creativity and ones capacity for interesting or clever creative associations between sets of ideas?

**Tags:** measurement, methodology, intelligence, creativity

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: random association test  
> **username_0**: Marilynn vos Savant ( forgive spelling) had an interesting idea that could be used  for a creativity test. Given a question probably with a specified answer try to find as many other answers to the same question as you can. Hopefully answers that have reasonable or practical possibilities.  
> **username_2**: That is not a new idea, unless she is much older than I think--most tests of creativity since the 1960s have had a similar task.  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2015-06-24. Score: 8

The **Torrance Test of Creative Thinking** is a good place to start. It scores for fluency (number of responses) as well as originality (statistical rarity of responses) and elaboration (level of detail) on a variety of different tasks. The validity of the TTCT has been examined with several long-term studies, so there is a fair amount of data on its measurements as well as the form of the test itself.

Torrance, E. P. (1981b). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136-140.


---

### Answer by username_3 on 2015-07-03. Score: 3

The concept of creativity *per se* makes it hard to measure it in a standardized way, since creativity by definition opposes standardization. Even tests such as the one suggested by username_2 run into the problem that in order to rate answers with regard to their rarity will have to rely on some kind of standardization according to which one can rate the answers given. Certainly, there are tests aiming at measuring creativity. I doubt, however, that these tests truly capture the construct at which they aim.

This standpoint obviously prohibits any scientific investigation of creativity, at least using quantitative measures widely used in psychology.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: What about Edward deBono's methods. He has developed a lot of ways to improve thinking ,as a skill; and his methods about improving one's potential for creativity. Maybe he has some ideas on how to study creativity....  
> **username_3**: Unfortunately, I do not know deBono. So in case you know his work better, you might suggest some articles/books. If he has truly developed methods in order to improve thinking (of which I would be glad to read a sound theoretical definition, allowing its measurement) and creativity, he should have some ways of assessing these constructs. Although from I current standpoint I remain skeptical.  
> **username_0**: deBONO wrote 'Practical Thinking' from Penguin books, The use of Lateral Thinking (1967), The 5-day Course in thinking( 1969) , The Mechanisms  of the Mind (1969), Teaching Thinking ((1976) ,Wordpower (1977),  many of these published by Penguin books. Dr. deBONO has contributed to several journals , including the Lancet and Clinical Science. You must have heard of the concept of 'lateral thinking' ; I don't know why his methods aren't used more.  
> **username_0**: @ username_3; Edward deBono is a very reputable expert in psychology and thinking skills. I'm sure a lot of his works could help you.  
> **username_3**: Well as I said I do not know any of his work and maybe I should. However, the term 'thinking skills' made me think (pun intended) as it seems a rather broad term, which in my opinion is hard to define. Current cognitive science works utilize much more fine grained definitions, such as maybe logical reasoning (which might be something like 'thinking'), or try to understand neurobiol. underpinnings of constructs such as working memory (which isn't really that fine grained either, considering several subprocesses). No offense, but I do believe CgS have developed during the last 4.5 decades.  
> **username_0**: Cognitive Science has developed a lot in the last 50 years yet I read some Cognitive Scientists have said they don't really know how the brain-system gives rise to what many regard as conscious experience or 'mental' processes. So you could say half of CgS has developed in the last 5 decades ; and not the cognitive-'mental' part. Even if one believes we are only 'living brains' with appendages this does answer why people  'think' they can have an active 'mental' log or diary 'within' their brain.  

---

