Creative Education
2012. Vol.3, No.8, 1326-1331
Published Online December 2012 in SciRes (http://www.SciRP.org/journal/ce) http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/ce.2012.38194
1326
Studies of the Turkish form of the Test for Creative
Thinking-Drawing Production
Aysenur Yontar Togrol
Faculty of Education, Bogazici University, Istanbul, Turkey
Received August 16th, 2012; revised September 18th, 2012; accepted October 2nd, 2012
This paper explains the results of multi-year applications of the Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Pro-
duction in a Turkish context with Turkish participants. The purpose of the study is to present the results of
several empirical studies conducted by different Turkish samples, using the instrument which was devel-
oped by Jellen and Urban for measuring the creative thinking potentials of individuals. The number of the
subjects of all the studies described here totaled to 1529. These participants were of various ages and at
various levels of ability, and they included primary school students, university students, and adults, as
well as 369 gifted students, and 64 subjects with neurological problems. The author introduces the
evaluation procedures, discusses the culturally fair characteristics of the test, and makes a case for the
utility of the instrument in Turkey with a comparison of existing data in the literature related to the instru-
ment.
Keywords: Creativity; Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Production—TCT-DP; Creative Problem
Solving; Divergent Thinking Tests
Introduction
Creativity is recognized as a valuable human trait for social,
technological, economical, and personal reasons. It is important
to understand its complexity and its development as a human
characteristic, because people express themselves and their
imaginative potential best through creativity. For a long time
creativity was seen as an extraordinary talent possessed by a
few people who became famous for their discoveries or prod-
ucts. On the other hand, authors writing about creativity today
tend to accept the premise that all people are creative to some
degree in some specific domain—distinguishing between sub-
lime creativity and everyday creativity (Gardner, 1983; Brown,
1989; Baer, 1991, 1996, 1998; Sternberg, 2001; Tan & Law,
2004; Runco, 2004; Kaufman & Baer, 2009; Silvia, Nusbaum,
Berg, Martin, & O’Connor, 2009).
Creativity is actually a general term with various definitions,
but it usually involves a product or a solution that is both ap-
propriate and novel in the context of a task or problem. Through
creativity people generate useful ideas and solutions to chal-
lenging problems by combining previously uncombined ele-
ments. Creative people see problems where others do not, and
produce significant related ideas. They have synthesizing and
analyzing abilities; are able to shift from one set of ideas to
another, and they can manipulate several interrelated ideas
simultaneously. Whatever the profession, a scientist doing a
research, a poet writing a poem, an economist proposing the so-
lution to a problem, or a teacher finding a better way to teach,
each possesses some of the characteristics of creativity. Of
course, motivational and temperamental factors influence whether
or not an individual with creative potential actually displays
creative behavior. Additionally, historical, cultural, situational,
and sociological variables also have an effect on the manifesta-
tion of creative behavior. According to Cropley (1999), creativ-
ity is facilitated by some social factors and inhibited by others.
According to Guilford (1950), the primary abilities underly-
ing creativity, the following are often discussed: sensitivity to
problems (seeing the problems); fluency (producing large num-
bers of ideas); production of novel ideas (unusual but appropri-
ate); flexibility synthesizing, analyzing, and complexity (the
number of interrelated ideas an individual can manipulate at
once); and evaluation (selecting good ideas, eliminating bad
ideas).
Researchers seem to agree that being creative means being
novel and appropriate in context. According to Cropley (2001),
there is a common core in the diverse definitions of creativity
and this core has three main elements: novelty, effectiveness,
and ethicality. Most definitions of creative thinking include the
generation of a novel product or idea, or an improvement on a
pre-existing product or idea. Appropriateness includes the quail-
ties of fit, utility, and value.
There are several traditions influential in constructing a defi-
nition of creativity, which also foster the development of prac-
tices and techniques (Sternberg, 2006; Villalba, 2012). Creative
thinking is the harmonic interaction of convergent and diver-
gent thinking with a stress on divergent thinking, which is the
intellectual ability to think of and produce elaborate original
ideas; while convergent thinking is the ability to evaluate, and
choose logically the best from a group of ideas. Of these, di-
vergent thinking is no longer considered to be synonymous
with creativity but is considered to be an important component
of creative thinking. Divergent thinking is also for novel crea-
tive products whereas convergent thinking is for their appropri-
ateness. Divergent thinking is finding fifty different ways to use
a scissor whereas convergent thinking is finding the most ap-
propriate and relevant uses.
Guilford’s (1950) divergent thinking tests are now consid-
ered to be the starting point for large-scale efforts to measure

A. Y. TOGROL
the construct in a quantitative way. Following Guilford, Tor-
rance’s (1966, 1972, 1974) and Wallach and Kogan’s, (1965)
divergent thinking tests continue the pioneering effort. Because
creativity is a complex of characteristics, measurement and eva-
luation are also complex in nature. Apart from divergent think-
ing tests, the literature on assessment reports that various other
types of instruments have been developed: Attitude and interest
inventories, personality inventories, and biographical invento-
ries, ratings by teachers, peers and supervisors, judgments of
products, eminence, self-reported creative activities and achie-
vements (Brown, 1981; Cropley, 2000).
The author of the present study prefers to exemplify and fo-
cus on one of the measurement instrument developed for as-
sessing the trait. The Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing Pro-
duction—TCT-DP (Jellen & Urban, 1987) is one of the instru-
ments developed for measuring the divergent and convergent
thinking potentials of individuals. The purpose of this article is
to present the results of empirical studies conducted using the
TCT-DP and to discuss the characteristics and applicability of
the instrument for Turkish participants. This discussion is based
on the results of several studies conducted by using different
Turkish samples (Togrol, A., Togrol, E., Saracoglu, Tanrıdag,
& Akyatan, 1998; Togrol, 1999; Togrol, 2000; Togrol, A., Tog-
rol, E., & Can, 2002). In total, the subjects comprised of 1529
participants of belonging to various ages and at various levels
of ability, including primary school students, university stu-
dents, and adults beyond the age of formal schooling (mean age
= 28). Also included were 369 gifted students (Togrol, 1999)
and 64 subjects with neurological pathologies (Togrol, A., Tog-
rol, E., Saracoglu, Tanrıdag, & Akyatan, 1998; Togrol, 2000;
Togrol, A., Togrol, E., & Can, 2002). Basic approach of the
study is to compare the results of the above mentioned Turkish
studies with existing data in the literature and to give an idea
related to the relationship of the test scores to some factors like
age, gender, level of education, neurological impairment etc.
The TCT-DP was designed by Jellen and Urban as a paper-
and-pencil instrument that asks the respondents to complete an
incomplete drawing—showing six distinct figural fragments
placed in a square frame—in any way they wish. According to
Urban (2005), the various fragments are geometric and nongeo-
metric, round and straight, singular and compositional, broken
and unbroken, either inside or outside a given frame, all irregu-
larly placed and incomplete. When analyzing respondents’ draw-
ing products, an evaluator refers to eleven criteria related re-
spectively as;
 Continuations
 Completion
 New elements
 Connections made with a line
 Connections made to produce a theme
 Boundary-breaking that is fragment dependent
 Boundary-breaking that is fragment independent
 Perspective
 Humor and affectivity
 Unconventionality—with following sub criteria—
■ Any manipulation of material
■ Use of surrealistic, fictional, or abstract elements
■ Use of symbols or signs
■ Unconventional use of given fragments
 Speed (Jellen & Urban, 1986, 1987; Urban, 1991, 2005).
These dimensions are derived from a Gestalt psychology
theory of creativity (Cropley, 2000). According to Urban (2004)
“..... assessment device may be seen as an attempt to apply a
more holistic and gestalt-oriented approach to diagnostics of
creativity.” A total assigned score indicates the creative value
of the drawing. The instrument has two forms, A and B. The
test manual includes an extensive description of the evaluation
procedure. The 15-minute working time and the broadly appli-
cable age range as well as applicability as an individual or
group test are important features of the instrument.
Empirical Studies
Translation, Reliability and Validity Studies
Togrol (1999) translated the TCT-DP from English into Tur-
kish, subsequently a back translation study was conducted. Tur-
kish and the English versions of the tests were both adminis-
tered to university students (N = 58) who were competent in
both languages in order to find out sameness of the two forms.
A test-parallel test reliability study of the original test (Urban,
1990), employing a sample of 1100 Hungarian fourth grade
students, yielded statistically significant correlation coefficients,
a mean of r = .70. The correlation coefficients of separate
groups varied between r = .64 and r = .77. Similarly, Togrol
(1999) conducted a test-parallel test reliability study of the Tur-
kish version with two groups of sixth and fifth graders (N = 76).
A and B forms of the test were administered within a period of
two months, and the correlation coefficients were .59 (p = .002)
and .63 (p = .0001) respectively, which were taken to be similar
to those in the original study.
One of the important issues in using creative thinking as-
sessment techniques is the subjectivity of scoring. The reliabil-
ity of scoring is an important criterion that researchers must
consider when selecting an assessment instrument and design-
ing a research study. So a complex construct such as creativity
is assessed using a paper-and-pencil test, inter- and intra-scorer
reliability of the instrument becomes crucial. Jellen and Urban
conducted several inter-scorer reliability studies with their test
and reported that correlation coefficients between the scorings
of briefly trained scorers showed a variability between r = .89
and r = 1 (mean r = .93). The mean correlation coefficient for
the relationship between assessments of trained scorers was
reported as r = .95 (Urban, 1990: p. 4). The reported high inter-
scorer reliability coefficients contribute to the usability of the
test. In a similar kind of reliability study to obtain evidence of
the inter-scorer reliability of the Turkish version, Togrol (1999)
selected and scored 39 drawings. The same drawings were also
scored independently by an inexperienced scorer who, without
any previous training used only the original test manual while
scoring. The correlation coefficient between the scores of the
experienced and inexperienced scorer was r = .97 (p = .0001), a
high coefficient parallel to the result of the original study,
showing an acceptable level of agreement between scorers.
To obtain evidence of intra-scorer reliability, the Togrol
(1999) randomly selected 40 drawings that she had scored pre-
viously, and scored them again, several months later. The cal-
culated correlation coefficient between two sets of scores was r
= .98 (1 = 21.05 2 = 21.45, p = .0001). In another study simi-
lar to the author’s by Can, Yasar, and Aral (2010), both the
test-retest reliability coefficient (.98) and parallel forms reliabi-
lity coefficients (.99) were calculated by using a sample of 210
six-year-old Turkish children.
As it was mentioned before, during past years several num-

A. Y. TOGROL
bers of creativity tests have been created, although many have
not been sufficiently validated (Martinsen, 2011). Gathering
evidence related to the validity of an instrument is a difficult
task. Comparing results with those derived from a different ins-
trument that measures the same construct is one way to have evi-
dence related to validity, but according to Urban (1990, 2005)
no other instrument is comparable to the TCT-DP. However,
Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is the most widely
used (Togrol, 1999; Cropley, 2000; Hu & Adey, 2002; Almeida,
Prieto, Ferrando, Olivera, & Ferrandiz, 2008; Cropley, 2010; Lau
& Cheung, 2010) and validated (Martinsen, 2011; Kim, 2012)
instrument for measuring creative thinking, and as Cropley
(1999) reports that, Torrance and Presburg found the TTCT has
been used in most of the research studies in the history of crea-
tive studies. So Togrol (1999) used the TTCT—Figural Form A
(Torrance, 1972) for the purpose of gathering evidence related
to validity.
The TTCT includes both figural and verbal subtests. The
figural form A composes of three items—“compose a drawing”,
“complete a drawing”, and “compose a drawing by using re-
peated parallel lines”—was selected. According to Torrance
(1974), items included in the subtests may also be used sepa-
rately or in combination for measuring the construct, so only
the last two questions, which are comparable to the TCT-DP,
were used. Both tests were administered to the same group (N =
70) of fifth and sixth graders with a time interval in between,
and the correlation coefficient between the two sets of scores
was r = .58 (p = .0001). Also another similar administration,
with 32 sixth graders, yielded a correlation coefficient of .56 (p
= .0002). Results of both studies gave statistically significant
positive correlations that can be taken as evidence for the con-
struct validity of the Turkish version of TCT-DP (Togrol, 1999)
even though, perhaps because of the different characteristics of
the instruments, the correlation coefficient is a modest one. Si-
milarly Blumen-Pardo (2002), conducted a study for gathering
evidence related to concurrent validity of TCT-DP by using
TTCT. Pearson correlation coefficient between the total scores
of both instruments calculated as .53 (p < .001, N = 49) which
is very parallel to the Turkish study.
The results of another study by Togrol (2000) may also be
accepted as evidence for the validity of the Turkish version of
TCT-DP. In this study the researcher investigated the divergent
thinking abilities of prospective science (N = 64) and prospec-
tive English language teachers (N = 75). The TCT-DP, and two
additional instruments, the Objects Test and the Problem Test
were used. Both instruments had been developed for the pur-
pose of measuring creative problem-solving abilities. They were
administered along with the TCP-DP to a sample of 139 uni-
versity students, and it was found that the mean scores of the
groups were similar in all three of the tests. By using a t-test for
independent groups, sub-samples were compared in terms of
their divergent thinking abilities, and the comparison showed
that there were no statistically significant differences between
the mean scores of the groups in terms of the TCT-DP, the Ob-
jects Test, and the Problem Test.
How creativity is related to intelligence is not clear enough
because of the complexity of each construct (Guilford, 1967;
Sternberg & O’Hara, 1999; Simonton, 2000; Horan, 2007; Furn-
ham & Bachtiar, 2008; Kaufman, 2009; Kim, 2012), although
they clearly interact in the larger context of intellectual ability.
The literature seems to say that traditional IQ scores and meas-
ures of creativity are only moderately related. “There may even
be a threshold of intelligence that is necessary for creative idea-
tion” (Runco, 1999: p. 581). In some studies, relationship be-
tween creativity test scores and IQ scores is negligible (Kim,
2005) or the relationship is even negatively correlated (Runco,
Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010). It appears that intelligence is
a necessary but not sufficient condition for creative production.
May be as in the paradoxes defined by Cropley (1999) “creativ-
ity is not the same as intelligence, but it is also not completely
different.” Urban (1990) reported a parallel relationship between
scores on intelligence tests (German Verbal Creativity Test and
Intelligence Structure Test IST-70) and TCT-DP scores. The
presence of slightly positive correlations between those scores
was reported as evidence for the construct validity of the TCT-
DP. Urban, in a later study (2005), reported a zero correlation
between TCT-DP scores with IQ scores in a high achieving
group.
Following the above studies Togrol (1999) conducted a si-
milar correlational study of the Turkish version of the instru-
ment and the Wechsler Intelligence Test for Children Revised
(WISC-R) using a sample of 252 fifth grade and 30 sixth grade
gifted students. The calculated correlation coefficients of r252
= .20 (min = 104, max = 152, WISC-R = 128.1) and r30 = .21
(min = 132, max = 152, WISC-R = 141.1) reflected a low posi-
tive correlation between the constructs. This result is consistent
with results in the literature and also the results of Urban’s stu-
dy. Urban (2004, 2005) also reported a Polish study conducted
by Wolonska and Necka in 1990. The researchers investigated
the relationship between Raven’s Matrices and the TCT-DP
scores of students from several ages: age 7 - 10, N = 19, r = .29;
age 11 - 18, N = 410, r = .21. These results were very similar to
author’s 1999 study. According to Getzels (1991) hundreds of
similar studies show low correlation coefficients between the
two constructs—IQ and creativity—changing between 0 and .7.
This accumulation of results mentioned above may be accepted
as evidence for construct validity of the test.
Other validity studies of the original instrument were based
on the correlation of teacher nominations of students and the
students’ TCT-DP total scores. It was found that eight out of 14
of these rank correlation coefficients were statistically signifi-
cant (Urban, 1990: p. 5). A similar study was conducted by To-
grol (1999) with a group of primary school students (N = 132)
and their teachers. An evaluation form containing questions
about the creativity level of their students was administered to
three teachers, and it was found that all of the students that the
teachers nominated for their creativity had TCT- DP scores
above the mean for their class.
Culture Fairness and TCT-DP
One important criterion used for the evaluation of divergent
thinking tests is the originality of a respondent’s product or, as
the term is used in TCT-DP, its unconventionality. This crite-
rion best reflects the cultural sensitivity of the instrument. In
order to identify stereotypical usage of the given figural frag-
ments in the test, each of the drawing productions obtained
from administering TCT-DP to 1300 (1154 + 140) participants
was analyzed according to the whole production and according
to each of its six figural fragments (Togrol, 1999). Participants
in this particular study included all the samples from all above
cited studies. In order to prevent scoring inconsistency, all the
drawings were scored again together by the researcher. Tran-
scription of the results identified and classified the stereotypical
1328

A. Y. TOGROL
usages of the figural fragments. When the Turkish students’
stereotypical usages were compared with those reported in the
original test manual, some tendencies were noted. It is an im-
portant researcher bias to assume that all cultures are alike and
all instruments are culture fair. Analyzing results derived from
an instrument within the culture in which it will be used is an
important precaution before choosing any instrument. Jellen
and Urban (1989 a, 1989 b) conducted a cross-cultural study (N
= 569) in eleven different countries. Their aim was to assess the
cultural sensitivity and fairness of the instrument. As a result
they reported that the instrument is culture fair, culture-sensi-
tive, and gender fair/sensitive. They also clarified that stereo-
typical thinking is cross-cultural. Based on this, they also added
that stereotypical usages of some fragments have some cultural
tendencies. The same kind of tendencies in usage of stereotypi-
cal usages of fragments were also observed in the Turkish
studies conducted by Togrol (1999); for example, completion
of one figural element as a television or a car, completion of
second one as a human body, which are very typical usages for
eastern cultures according to Jellen and Urban (1989). These
usages are similar with Turkish participants too. But these ten-
dencies do not change the scoring related to the unconvention-
ality so in that respect instrument is culture fair.
Assessing the instrument in terms of gender fairness was the
other focus of interest in the above mentioned cross cultural
study. In one of the Turkish study (Togrol, 1999), 230 sixth
grade students became a sub-sample for testing the gender dif-
ferences portrayed in their drawing productions. The group was
composed of 113 male and 101 female students. The means of
the total scores of girls and boys were compared by the use of a
t-test for independent samples. Results of this study showed
that there were no significant differences between the mean to-
tal scores of two groups (N = 214, t = .60, p = .55). This result
is consistent with results existing in the related literature (Wood-
man & Schoenfeld, 1989; Jellen & Urban, 1990; Baer, 1999;
Urban, 2005). Can Yasar and Aral (2010) reported similar find-
ings for a younger age Turkish sample. In their comparative
study, using the Mann Whitney U test, there was no significant
difference between girls and boys in terms of their total scores
from the TCT-DP (N = 210, age = 6, z = –1.35, p  .05). Using
a t-test for independent samples, Togrol (1999) also investi-
gated differences between the scores of students who were at-
tending schools with different socio-economic compositions.
The students (N = 190) were fifth graders from three different
schools with students of high, middle, and low socio-economic
status. No statistically significant differences were calculated be-
tween the creative performances of students from high-middle
(t = .69, sd = 60.5, p = .49), low - middle (t = 1.95, sd = 69.4, p
= .055), and high-low groups (t = 1.13, sd = 72.9, p = .26). All
of these results provide evidence of the cultural fairness of the
instrument.
Neurologi c al Pathologies and Creati v i t y
Creativity takes place unavoidably inside one’s own personal,
environmental and social boundaries, which may facilitate or
hinder creativity. Various pathologies, diseases, and physical
handicaps are also personal variables which may influence an
individual’s creative behavior. Historically, creatively talented
people have often been associated with madness or other forms
of disordered behavior (Horan, 2007). Multiple sclerosis (MS)
and epilepsy are among the neurological pathologies which may
cause cognitive changes in the afflicted individuals.
MS is a progressive chronic disease of the central nervous
system. Its symptoms may include those related to cognition,
memory, perception, and language as well as motor problems
(pareses), spasticity, bowel and bladder problems, sexual prob-
lems, visual disturbances, posture and balance problems, and
psychological disorders. Researchers (Togrol, A., Togrol, E.,
Saracoglu, Tanrıdag & Akyatan, 1998; Togrol, A., Togrol, E.,
& Can, 2002) investigated the creative thinking abilities of pa-
tient groups by using some medical as well as cognitive in-
struments, including the TCT-DP. A sample of 34 MS patients
and 129 controls were included in the first study (Togrol, A.,
Togrol, E., Saracoglu, Tanrıdag, & Akyatan, 1998). All patients
were assessed for cognitive dysfunction by the same researcher,
using an adapted and standardized form of the Mental Status
Examination (Folstein, Folstein, & Mc Hugh, 1975). Imaging
and evoked potential examinations of the MS patients were also
conducted. The TCT-DP was used as a screening instrument for
testing the creative skills of the sample. Total creativity scores
of the groups were not significantly different as compared by
t-test for independent samples. Patients with a longer duration
of the disease tended to get lower scores. A moderate negative
correlation coefficient was found between the variables (r =
–.38, p < .02). As the duration of the disease increased, the total
creativity score decreased.
The purpose of the second study (Togrol, A., Togrol, E., &
Can, 2002) was to compare the creative thinking abilities of
epilepsy patients with those of normal individuals. 30 epilepsy
patients and 36 controls were included in the sample. The mean
duration of disease in the epilepsy group was 6.32  4.9 years.
As in the previous study, TCT-DP was used as a screening
instrument for testing the creative thinking potentials of indi-
viduals. At the beginning of the study, a detailed neurological
examination using a standard cognitive assessment interview
technique was used to eliminate gross cognitive pathologies.
All patients were assessed for cognitive dysfunction by the
same researcher, using the Turkish form of the Mental Status
Examination (Yavuz & Gurtekin, 1997). The total creativity
scores of the two groups were compared by using a t-test for
independent samples. The mean total score of the control group
(20.83  7.81) was higher than that of the patient group (16.87
 9.27), and this difference was not statistically significant (p
= .064). While there were no significant differences between
the two groups overall, the researchers did find a possible link
between creativity and epilepsy in a subset of seven men with
complex partial epilepsy.
Discussion
Pioneering studies of Guilford (1950), Torrance (1966, 1974),
and other scientists collaborating with them lead the widespread
usage of instruments developed for measuring creative ability.
Nowadays, as a result of ongoing research, there are more ap-
proaches to an understanding of creativity as well as different
instruments for measuring the trait. For example Hu and Adey
(2002) reported that there were more than a hundred creativity
tests described and studied in the literature in those days. Today
this number may be much higher. Morover studies related to
the electronic version compatibility of creative thinking tests
have been started (e.g., Lau & Cheung, 2010). The TCT-DP is
one of the paper-pencil instruments, used economically in time
and effort for measuring divergent thinking. Its main function is

A. Y. TOGROL
as a screening instrument for identifying the creative problem
solving potential of individuals. Its broad applicability for dif-
ferent age groups, fairness in terms of gender, socio-economic
status and culture are among the strengths of the instrument.
The 15-minute sitting time, broadly applicable age range, and
minimum training requirements for scoring are additional posi-
tive aspects of the instrument.
This article is a review of the results of emprical research
studies using the TCT-DP in Turkish samples. Results of the
empirical studies were presented in comparison with the results
of the similar studies take place in the literature. It is an impor-
tant bias to assume that different cultures are alike, and research
findings from one culture will automatically similar for another
culture. Most research studies and theoretical essays (Runco &
Pritzker, 1999; Sternberg, 1999) mainly focus on western-Ame-
rican or/and European-perspectives. So in that respect adapting
an instrument to a new culture by clarification its usability is an
important task. Coming back to TCT-DP, one of the important
characteristics that contribute to its usefulness is its cultural
fairness; results obtained so far encourage its applicability for
use with Turkish samples. Additionally; its application, scoring
and interpretation, simplicity and economic characteristics are
its important advantages.
As it is indicated by the results of empirical studies con-
ducted in Turkey, nearly all of them are parallel to the results of
the several original studies conducted by Jellen and Urban and
existing results conducted by other researchers in the literature.
Another group working on the same construct, using Turkish
samples, Oral, Kaufman and Agars (2007) examined creativity
in three different studies, including the relationship of creativity
to motivation, age, gender, and various factors that contribute to
creativity. It was reported that, these studies validated research
results obtained from other, western samples and it was noted
that, for the relationships mentioned above similar findings to
other studies were obtained. Similarly several empirical studies
conducted by the author using the TCT-DP in Turkey; these
studies, in a similar way, revealed results that were consistent
with the results of original studies of the instrument.
Creativity is a multi-dimensional construct so its assessment
should reflect the same property. Measuring the trait by only
using a single paper pencil test will give an idea about respon-
dents’ ability framed by that unique instrument and this limita-
tion may lead a weakness in assessment procedure. Obviously
each instrument measuring creativity may have different opera-
tional definition related to the concept. Finally as a conclusion,
TCT-DP offers a culturally fair way to identify and measure
creative potential or creative problem solving capabilities of in-
dividuals. It may work as a useful tool to identify high creative
potentials as well as low or poorly developed ones. Cropley
(2000) has stated that “among tests of creative thinking the
TCT-DP has much to recommend...” with reasons very similar
to the advantages mentioned in this study. So TCT-DP, is an
instrument which can be easily used by the researchers and edu-
cators as one of the screening instrument.
REFERENCES
Almeida, L. S., Prieto, L. P., Ferrando, M., Olivera, E., & Ferrandiz, C.
(2008). Torrance test of creative thinking: The question of its con-
struct validity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 3, 53-58.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2008.03.003
Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains.
Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
doi:10.1080/10400419109534371
Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training.
Creativity Research Journal, 30, 183-187.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity
Research Journal, 11, 173-177. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
Baer, J. (1999). Gender differences. In M. A. Runco, & S. V. Pritzker
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 753-758). London: Academic
Press.
Blumen-Pardo, S. (2002). Effects of a teacher training workshop on cre-
ativity, cognition, and school achievement in gifted and non-gifted
second-grade students in Lima, Peru. High Ability Studies, 13, 47-58.
doi:10.1080/13598130220132307
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glo-
ver, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity
(pp. 3-321). New York: Plenum Press.
Can Yasar, M., & Aral, N. (2011). The study of the effect of socioeco-
nomic level and parents’ educational status on creative thinking skills
of six-year-old children. Kuramsal Egitimbilim, 4, 137-145.
Cropley, A. J. (1999). Definitions of creativity. In M. A. Runco, & S. V.
Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 511- 524). London:
Academic Press.
Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity
tests worth using? Roeper Review, 23, 72-79.
doi:10.1080/02783190009554069
Cropley, A. J. (2001). Creativity in education and learning: A guide for
teachers and educators. London: Kogan Page.
Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). Mini mental
state: A practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients
for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12, 189-198.
doi:10.1016/0022-3956(75)90026-6
Funham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as pre-
dictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45, 613-
617. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.06.023
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences.
New York: Basic Books.
Getzels, J. W. (1991). Creativity and human development. In K. Marjo-
ribanks (Ed.), The foundations of students’ learning (pp.155-166).
Oxford: Pergamon Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
doi:10.1037/h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, today and tomorrow. The
Journal of Creative Behavior, 1, 3-14.
doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00002.x
Horan, R. (2007). The relationship between creativity and intelligence:
A combined yogic-scientific approach. Creativity Research Journal,
19, 179-202. doi:10.1080/10400410701397230
Hu, W., & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary
school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 389-
403. doi:10.1080/09500690110098912
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1986). The TCT-DP (Test for creative
thinking-drawing production): An instrument that can be applied to
most age and ability groups. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly,
3, 138-151.
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1987). The TCT-DP: Test for Creative
Thinking-Drawing Production manual. Hannover: University of Han-
nover.
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1989a). Expanding world-wide aware-
ness of creative potential. Gifted Child Today, 12, 31-33.
Jellen, H. G., & Urban, K. K. (1989b). Assessing creative potential
worldwide: The first cross-cultural application of the test for creative
thinking-drawing production (TCT-DP). Gifted Education Interna-
tional, 6, 78-86. doi:10.1177/026142948900600204
Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-
analysis. The Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57-66.
Kim, K. H. (2012). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the tor-
rance test of creative thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal,
18, 3-14. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity, intelligence and culture: Connections
and possibilities. In P. Meusburger, J. Funke, & E. Wunder, (Eds.),
1330

A. Y. TOGROL
Milieus of creativity—An interdisciplinary approach to spatiality of
creativity. New York: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). Is one dimension enough? A re-
sponse to Simonton’s varieties of (scientific) creativity. Perspectives
on Psychological Science, 4 , 453-454.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-6924.2009.01153.x
Klausen, S. H. (2010). The notion of creativity revisited: A philosophi-
cal perspective on creativity research. Creativity Research Journal,
22, 347-360. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523390
Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Creativity assessment: Comparability
of the electronic and paper-and-pencil version of the Wallach-Kogan
creativity tests. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 101-107.
doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.09.004
Martinsen, O. L. (2011). The creative personality: A synthesis and de-
velopment of the creative person profile. Creativity Research Journal,
23, 185-202. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.595656
Oral, G., Kaufman, C. J., & Agars, M. D. (2007). Examining creativity
in Turkey: Do western findings apply? High Ability Studies, 18, 235-
246. doi:10.1080/13598130701709590
Runco, M. A., & Pritzker, S. V. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity.
London: Academic Press.
Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55,
657-687. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, devel-
opment, and practice. London: Elsevier Inc.
Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance
tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achie-
vement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 361-
368. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C., Martin, C., & O’Connor, A.
(2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring
lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research
in Personality, 43, 1087-1090. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.015
Simonton, D. K. (2000). Creativity: Cognitive, personal, developmental,
and social aspects. American Psychologist, 55, 151-158.
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.151
Sternberg, R. J. (1999). Handbook of creativity. New York: Cambridge
University Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & O’Hara L. A. (1999). Encyclopedia of creativity.
London: Academic Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). What is the common thread of creativity? Its
dialectical relation to intelligence and wisdom. American Psycholo-
gist, 56, 360-362. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.56.4.360
Sternberg, R. J. (2006). The nature of creativity. Creativity Research
Journal, 18, 87-98. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1801_10
Tan, A. G., & Law, L. C. (2004). Creativity for teachers. London: Mar-
shall Cavendish Academic.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking—norms
technical manual research edition—verbal tests, forms A and B—fig-
ural tests, forms A and B. Princeton: Personnel Pres. Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Torrance tests of creative thinking—directions
manual and scoring guide—figural test, booklet A. Lexington: Per-
sonnel Pres. Inc.
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance tests of creative thinking—norms
technical manual research edition—verbal tests, forms A and B—
figural tests, forms A and B . Princeton: Personnel Pres. Inc.
Togrol, A., Togrol, E., Saracoglu, M., Tanrıdag, O., & Akyatan, N.
(1998). Creativity in multiple sclerosis. International Journal of Psy-
chophysiology, 30, 139. doi:10.1016/S0167-8760(98)90359-2
Togrol, A. (1999). Turkish form of the test for creative thinking. Egitim
ve Bilim Dergisi, 23, 45-51.
Togrol, A. (2000). Prospective teachers’ divergent thinking abilities.
Fourth International Conference on Creative Thinking, Malta, 24-25
July 2000.
Togrol, E., Togrol, A., & Can, S. (2002). Creative thinking in epilepsy.
12th Meeting of the European Neurological Society, Berlin, 22-26
June 2002.
Urban, K. (1990). The test for creative thinking-drawing production
(TCT-DP). Hannover: University of Hannover.
Urban, K. K. (1991). On the development of creativity in children. Cre-
ativity Research Journal, 4, 177-179.
doi:10.1080/10400419109534384
Urban, K. K. (2004). Assessing creativity: The test for creative think-
ing-drawing production (TCT-DP)—The concept, application, evalu-
ation, and international studies. Psychology Science, 46, 387-397.
Urban, K. K. (2005). Assessing creativity: The test for creative think-
ing-drawing production (TCT-DP). International Education Jour-
nal, 6, 272-280.
Villalba, E. (2012). Searching for holy grail of measuring creativity.
Creativity Research Journal, 24, 1-2.
doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.649235
Yavuz, N., & Gurtekin, Y. (1997). Unutkanlık ve kısa mental durum
degerlendirme testi (KMDDT). GATA Bulteni, 39, 251-255.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young chil-
dren. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Woodman, R. W., & Schoenfeld, L. F. (1989). Individual differences in
creativity: An interactionist perspective. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ron-
ning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 77-91).
New York: Plenum Press.