1254 M. A. RUNCO

KocÁN, N., & PANKovE, E. (L974) Long-term ptedictive validity of divetgent-thinking tests: some negative evidence. Joørnal of Eàucøti'onal Psychology, 66,802-810.

MEDNICK, S. ,{. (1962) The associative basis for the c¡eative process. Psycbological,Reuieu, 69, 220-232.

À{ILGRAM, R. M., & MILGRÁM, N. A. (1976) Creative thinking and creative per-formance in Is¡aeli students. loørnal cl Ed,r.cational Psltchology, 68,25t-259.

NIcHoLLs, J. G. (1972) Creativity in the person who will never produce anythingotiginal and useful: the concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait.Americøn Psychologist, 27, 717-727.

NUNNALLY, J. C. (1978) Psycbonøetric theor5t, (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.RENZULLI, J. S. (1978) IØhat makes giftedness? Ree>:amining a definition. Pb¿

Deltø Kappaø, 60, 180-184.RorrER, D. M., LÀNGLÂND, L., & BERGER, D. (1971) The validity of tests of creative

thinking in seven-year-old children. Gi'fted. Cbild, Qøanerly, 76, 27i-278.RuNco, M. A. (L984) Teachers' judgments of creativity ancì social validation of

divergent thinking tests. Perceþtøal and' Moror Sþi'll¡, 59, 7ll-7l7.RuNco, M. A. (1985) Reliability and convergent validity of icleational flexibility

as a function of academic achievement. Perceþtøal and. Moto,¡ Sþills,61,, 1,075-108 1.

RuNco, M. Â. (1986) Divergent thinking and creative performa-nce in giftcd andnongifted chilclren. Ed.acati.onal anà Psycbologìcal Measuremeni, 46, 375384.

RuNco, M.,t. (in Þress) The generality of creative performance in gifted and non-gifted children. Gifted. Chi.ld QøarterlS'.

RuNco, M.4.., &.,{.LBBRT, R. S. (1985) The reliability and validity of ideationalciginality in the divetgent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children.Eàøcariondl and, Psl'cbological Measørenøent, 4), 48j-501.

RuNco, M.-A., & PEzÐElr-, K. (1984) The effect of television and radìo on children'screarivity. Haman Conzmunàcarions Researcb, 17, 109-120.

SiMoNToN, D. K. (1984) Geniøs, øeari.aity, anà leadership. Cambridge, MA:Flarvard Univer. Press.

SKÁcER, R. \ø., ScHULTZ, C. 8., & KLEIN, S. P. ( 1965 ) Quality and quantity ofaccomplishment as measuies of cteativity. Journøl of Ed.acational Psychology,t6, jr-39.

\øALKUP, L. E. (L977) Detecting creativity: some practical approaches. loøna.J ofCt'eatiae Bebaoior, 5, 88-93.

WÀLL,orcH, M. A. (7977) Tests tell us little about talent. In I. l. Janis (Ed.), Cørrenttrend.s in psycbologlt. Los Altos, CA: \Øm. Kaufmann. Pp. 237-24).

\øÀLL,{CH, M..4,., & KocAN, N. (1965) Mod,es ol tbinkàng iø yoøng chàldren.New York: Holt, Rinehart & IØinston.

SøALLÄCH, M. Á., & lØrnc, C. nø., JR. (1969) Tbe talented. stød.ent. New York:Holt, Rinehart & \Øinston.

Y^M^Moro, K. (1965) Effects of restriction o1 range ard test unreliability on corre-lation between measures of intelligence and c¡eative thinking. Bri.tisb Joarnal ofEd.øcati.onal Psycbologlt, 3r, 300:30r.

Acceþîed. Seþternlter 30, 1986,

P s1' c holo gical Reþorts, 1986, 59, 1247 -I2r 4. @ Psychological Reports 1986

PREDICTING CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMANCEI

M,TRK Ä. RUNCOUni.aersity of Hatuaü. ø Hilo

Sønzmary.-The predictive validity of the fluency index of divergent-think-ing tests was evaluated, with extracur¡icula¡ creative performance in sevendomains as the criteria. The unique aspects of this project were (a) that giftedand talented children were represeûted in the samÞle of 150 subjects, (b) thatboth performarìce quantity and, quality scores were used as citeil^, and (c)that fluency, fluency2, and an inte¡action of IQ ¡ fluency were tested as pre-dictors. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that fluency has predictivevalidity; however, this is limited to certain a¡eas of perfoimance, e.g., writingand crafts. IQ was significantly ¡elated to othet areas of performance, e.g.,science and performing arts, but there was little indication of a quadraricrelationship or an inreraction of IQ \ fluency.

Eady investigations of divergent thinking were primarily concerned with"construct validity." As a result, divergent-thinking tests have typically beenevaluated inclependently of or com.pared, with traditional measures of intelli-gence (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; \Øallach & \Øing, 1969). Most research onthe predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests has also been comparative.Milgram and Milgrain (1976), for example, used partial-correlational pro-cedures to compare (a) the preclictive valiclity of ideational fluency controllingfor IQ and (b) the pteclictive validity of IQ controlling for fluency. Resultsindicated that divergent-thinking test scores accurately predicted ¡eal-worldaccomplishment in several areas, e.g., fine arts, writing, for both males andfemales.

IThile it is info¡mative to compare divergent thinking and intelligencetests and to examine their unique yatiaflce, contelnporaty theories of creativeachievement suggest that divergent thinking and t¡aditional forms of intelli-gence do not operate independently in the "real-world." Instead, they prob-ably interact (Albert, 1975, 1980; Albert & Runco, 1986; Nicholls, 1972;Renzulii, I978). A realistic evahÌation of the predictive validity of divergent-thinking resrs should consider their interaction as well as their uriique con-tribution.

In the only investigation of the interaction of divergent thinking ancl in-telligence, Hocevar (1980) found that fluency scores were only marginally

'Preliminary results were presented at the meeting of the IØeste¡n Psychological .Associa-tion in Seattle, \Øashington, May, 1986. The author acknowledges Ann Yoshikawa forheÌ assistance in preparing this manuscript. Address cotrespondence to Mark ,{. Runco,Psychology, Social Scie¡ce Division, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Hawaii,Hilo, Hawaii 96720-409I.

t248 M. A. RUNCO

related to creative performance, and an inteiaction of fluency )( intelligencewas untelated to performance. Still, these results have limited generalizabilitybecause they are based cn verbal divergent-thinking tests, verbal intelligence,nongifted subjects, and a performarìce ctiterion that assessed only the quantiryof the subjects' accomplishments. Having only nongifted subjects is especiallyproblematic because the psychcmetric properties of tests administered to onepopulation do not necessarily apply to other populations ( Albetr & Runco,1986; Chauncey & Hilton, 1965; ì7allach, 1977 ) . Divergent-thinking tests inparticular are more reliable and valid in the gifted than the nongifted popula-tion (GuilfoÀ, L968; Mednick, 1962; Runco, 1985, 1986; Runco & .Albert,198r ).

Divergent thinking and its interaction with intelligence should thereforebe examined further. The present ptoject was conducted to evaluate the Pre-dictive validity of divergent thinkiag fluency-before and after controllingIQ-the interaction of fluency X iQ, and the quadratic term, fluency.2 Theunique facets of this ptoject include use of gifted and nongifted subjects,figutal and vetbal divergent thinking tests, and perfotmance quality andquantity as criteria.

METHOD

PartàcþøntsFifth- through eighth-grade child¡en from a public intermediate school participated

in this project (N - 1t0). Many of these children were labeled "gifted" by schoolpsychologists based on teachers' recommendations and IQs above 130. The mean IQwasI33 (with a standard deviation of I3), and the range was 98 to 165. Sixty-sevenof the patticipants were bovs (44.7%), anò 83 were girls (r5.3%). Thete were 28fifth-graders, 35 sixth-gradets, 45 seventh-graders, and 42 eighth-graders. Because thisis one aspect of an on-going study of divergent thinking, more detailed descriptions ofthese children can be found in ea¡lie¡ reports (Runco, 7)84, io press; Runco & Albert,198t ).Me at ør e s and. Pro ce d'øre

IQs (Stanford-Binet or IøISC-R) were obtained from the school dist¡ict's records.Five divergent-thinking tests (Instances, Uses, Similarities, Patte¡n-meanings, and Line-meanings) f¡om IØallach and Kogan (1965) we¡e used to estimate divergent thinling.Each of these tests had th¡ee items. The divergent-thinking tests were administered inthe classroom to groups of about 30. Later the tests weÌe scored for "ideatio¡alfluency," which is simply the number of ideas given. A total fluency scote was calculatedby aclding together the 15 item-sco¡es. Ideational originality and flexibilìty we¡e notused because their relationship with fluency and reliability was dubious (Runco, 1985;Runco & .A.lbe¡t, 1985).

Creative performance was assessed on a questionnaite developed by Runco (inpress). This self-report was comparable in fo¡mat to those of Hoceva¡ (1980), Milgramand Milgram (1976), and \Øallach and IØing (1969). There we¡e 65 questions fromseven extracurricular domains: writing, music, crafts, art, science, performing arts, aod

CHILDREN'S CREÄTIVE PERFORM,{NCE t25i

the ¡eal world, the quality of performance is probably more important thanthe quantity of performance (Anderson, 1960; Runco, in press; Simonton,1984).

The criterion measure used in this study was a self-report and so hasseveral inherent problems (e.g., subject's rnemory and honesry). Still, this isa widely used criterion (Bull & Davis, 1980; Hocev^r, 1976, 1980; Holland,1961; Hou'iesoo, 1981; Milgram & Milgram, 1976; Rotter, Langland, &Berger, 1971; Runco, in ptess; Skager, et al., 1965) \Øallach * nØing, 1969)and also has several virtues. This test is, for example, easily interpreted(given the plethora of earlier reseatch), has vety good psychometric qualities,and is a measure of performance rather than of potential. Bull and Davis(1975) and \Øalkup (197L) have argued in favor of this type of measureprecisely because it is a self-report, fot examinees are well informed abouttheir own past perforrnance. Even though the coefficients reported hete areprobably lowe¡ than would be observed for a sample with less restricted rangeof scores (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Yamamoto, 1965), we can conclude thatthe fluency index of divergent-thinking tests cloes have predictive validity butthat this validity is applicable oûly to cettain areas of creative perfomaûce.

REFERENCES

ALBERT, R. S. (1975) Toward a behavio¡ial definition of genius. Ameri'can Psy'cbologist, 30, I40-I51.

ALBERT, R. S. (1980) Genius. In R. H. IØoody (Ed.), The encycloped'ia oÍ cliøi'cdlassessrnent. YoL 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 729-743.

,{LBERT, R. S., & RuNCo, M. A. (1986) rlchievement of eminence: a model of ex-ceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson(Eds.), Concepti.ons ol gàfted'ness. New Yo¡k: Cambridge Univer. P¡ess. Pp.3i2-357.

ANDERSoN, J. E. (1960) The nature of abilities. In E. P. To¡rance (EÀ.),Talent and'ed,ucarion. Minneapolis, MN: U¡iver. of Minnesota P¡ess. Pp. 9-31.

BULL, K. S., & D,wrs, G. A. (1980) Evaluating c¡eative potential using the statementof past creative activities. Joørnøl of Creatàae Bebøuior, 14, 249-2t7.

CHAUNcEv, H., & HILToN, T. t. (1965) ,{re aptitude tests valid for the highly able?S cience, 748, 7297 -1304.

ConrN, J., & CoHEN, P. (1975) Applied' mthiple regressionf correlation anzlysis forthe behauàorøL sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GETZELS, J. \ø., & J,q,cKsoN, P. W. (1962) Creariuitlt and, intelligence: exþloratàonswith gàfted, srld,ents. New York: IØiley.

GUILFoRD, J. P. ( 1968 ) [øtelli.gence, crealiuity, and, thei.r ed.ucatàonal imþli.cati.ons.San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.

HocEvÂR, D. (L976) Dimensions of creativity. P:ycbological Reþorts, )9, 869-870.HocEvÄR, D. (1980) Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence,

4, 25-40.HoLLÂND, J. L. (L961) C¡eative and academic performance among talented adolescents.

Jotrnøl of Ed.øcational Prychology, 52, 136-147.Ho\íIEsoN, N. (1981) Ä longitudìnal study of creativity: 1965-7975. loørnal of

Creat.i.oe Bebaaior, 75, 177-134.HIDSoN, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.

1252 M. A. RUNCO

DrscussroxThese results indicate that certain areas of extracurricular crearive per-

fotmance are predictable from fluency-both without and with control ofIQ-and other ateas are predictable from IQ. That the IQ predicts certainareas ol performance may seem somewhat surprising because the performancecriteria were extracurricular; but simila¡ results have been repcrted by Koganancl Pankove (I974) in their longitudinal study of nongifted individuals. Ofmost importance is that both the zero-order and multiple-regression coefficientsreported here support more the predictive validity of fluency than might beexpected based on eadier reports (llocevar, L!80; Kogan & Pankove, 1974).This is probably because the subjects in the presenr investigation includedgifted children (Runco, 1985; Ru¡co & Albert, 1935).

The multiple-regression analyses indicated that the interaction of IQ andfluency was not significantly ¡elated to üearive performance. One explanationis psychometric. The tests used here may not caprure the specific abilitiesthat interact in creative performance. For exarnple, perhaps it is a "problem-finding" component of intelligence that interacts with divergent thinking, andproblem-finding ability is not tapped by the measures of IQ selected here.A second explanation for the nonsignificant interactions is that the interactiontested may have been incomplete. Perhaps motivation or "task-commitment"is necessary for creative performance (Renzulli, 1978; Simonton, 1984), anda three-way interaction would preclict real-world performance. Research coulcltest a motivation \ fluency \ IQ predictor. A final possibility is that the ageof the participants precluded an interaction of fluency X IQ. Most inter-active theories of achievement have involved adults so the present results donot entirely refute such interpretation.

Looking at the diffe¡ences among the performance areas, it is especiallynotewofthy that performance in aft was predictable from fluency scores, whilescience was not; and science was predictable from IQ while performance in artwas not. This is consisrent with Hudson's (1966) view about convergent anddivergent thinking in art arid science. Of course, given that the participantsin this study were children and adolescents, the difference between an andscience might at least in part reflecr a difference in the tasks ( e.g., conceptual-izing a picture vs designing an experiment) rather than just differences inwhat is brought to the tasks by the subjects. In this sense, the arr-sciencedifference is also consistent with the ¡esearch on the influence of type ofstimulu-s on divergent thinking (Guilford, 1968; Runco & ,{lbert, 1985;Runco & Pezdek, L984).

The present findings also suggest that the quality of creative performanceis not related to fluency or IQ. This point should be ernphasized because in

CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMÄNCE 1249

public presentation. Each domain of performance had at least six items; and each itemhad fou¡ possible ¡esponses (i.e., "never," "once or twice," "three to five times," "sixo-r more times"). Q/øntiry of performance was calculated by finding the avengerating within each domain, and a total quantity scoie was the sum of the domain scores,

Quali'tyt of petformance was evaluated as in the research of Milgram and Milgram(1976), Runco (in press), and Skager, Schultz, and Klein (1965). This involvedasking the children to describe on the questionnaire their ¡nost creative activity in eachdomain. These responses wele then scored by two independent judges using a l0-pointscoring system cleveloped by Runco (in press). High scores reflect self-motivated andoriginal work, and low sco¡es ¡eflect extrinsically motivated and unoriginal activities.

RnsurrsThe reliability of the quantity scores of the performance measure was

evaluated with alpha, an index of interitem consistency. Âll scales were re-liable, with aþha coefficients as follows: writing (.67), music (.79), crafts(.84), art (.69), science (.76), performing arts (.77), and public presenta-tion (.69). Because the nature of the quality scores was subjective, their re-liability w-as evaluated with interrater ieliability. These too were reliable,with two judges in agreement o¡ 77 7o of their ratings. Means and standarddeviations for all criteria are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEvIÄTIoNs FoR CRITERI¿,

Perfo¡mance Area QuantityM .SD

QualityM .'D

rüØritingMusicCrafts,{rtSciencePerforming ArtsPublic PresentationTotal

2.6 0.tl.t 0.62.L 0.52.5 0.67.4 0.4r.6 0.t7.9 0.3t.9 0.4

4.2 2.22.6 2.94.j 2.34.0 2.71.9 2.t3.r 2.74.3 3.03.3 1.5

Hiera¡chical regression analyses were conducted using sex, age, IQ, fluency,IQ \ fluencl, IQ', fluencyz, sex \ IQ, and sex )( fluency (in that sequence)as predictors. Note that detailed descriptions of procluct terms (IQ )( fluency)for interactions and squared terms (fluency2) for curvilineat (quadratic)trencls are given by Cohen ancì Cohen ( 1975). Using qøanti,/y scores for per-formance as ctiteria, ¡esults are presented in TaÍ¡le 2. The zero-order correla-tions indicate that fluency was related to six performance areas and the per-formance total. Also, the unique variance of fluency (R'-À) was related towriting and arr, and rhe unique vatiaîce of IQ to science, performing art, aÍdwriting. None of the quadratic or interactioo predictors had significant R2-A

r250 M, A, RUNCO

TltßLE 2HIERARCHICÄL REGRBSSIoN VITH IQ AND THBN FLUENCY AS PREDICTORS

R'?-^ F-^

CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMANCE

TÂBLE 3

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSIoN VITH FLUBNCY, THEN IQ AS PREDICTORS

r25l

R,R' R2-A F-^IØriting Perfo¡mance

SexABeIQFluency

Music PerformanceSexAgeIQFluency

Crafts PerformanceSexÁgeIQFluency

A.rt PerformanceSexÄgeIQFluency

Science PerformanceSexAgeIQFluency

Performing ,{rtsSexAgeIQFluency

Public PresentationSexAgeIQFluency

Performance TotalSexAgeIQFluency

.008 .010

.326* .398

.3L4* .384

.280* 342

.L72* .tg4

.044 .0t0-.074 -.083.018 .020

.t44 .Lr1.100 .109

.170* .185

.t6g* .184

.108 .130-.232* -.279.t23 .L48.t57* .189

.L74 .200-.027 -.031.302+ .346.t6t* .789

.748 .769-.036 -.041.206* .215.776* .20t

.071 .085

.276* .3i2

.L7t* .206.r79* .2L'

.086 .089

.069 .072

.23t* .240

.225* .233

.008 .000

.327 .L07

.442 .t95

.471 .222

.r72 .030

.180 .0)2

.188 .O35

.188 .035

J44 .02r.180 .032.259 .067.28' .081

.108 .Ar2

.2t0 .063

.29' .087

.313 .t24

.t74 .030

.r78 .032

.n4 .111

.360 .t30

.t48 .022

.1t0 .023

.277 .077

.3t6 .100

.071 .001

.281 .079

.1t6 .100

.330 .109

3.47 .0301.90 .003t.37 .003l 02 .000

2.40 .02r1.89 .0122.69* .0312.45* .014

t.jj .012).78+ .0513.17* .025J.94* .0i7

3.16 .0301.85 .0014.67* .0804.74* .019

254 .022r.30 .0013.r7* .0543.07* .02)

0.t8 .0054.8>* .0744.t4* .02t3.40+ .009

\ØritingFluencyIQ

MusicFluencyIQ

CraftsFluencyIQ

,trtFluencyIQ

ScienceFluencyIQ

Performing ArtsFluencyIQ

Public P¡esentationFluencyIQ

Pe¡formance TotalFluencyIQ

.280* .342

.374* 384

.018 .020-.074 -.081

.t6g* .t84

.170* .185

.lr7* .189

.r23 .148

.L65* .189

.)02* .346

.L76* .20L

.206* .235

.t7g* .2r5.t7t* .206

6.62* .044 t.75*7.92* .071 10.19*

L.2t .000 0.00t.02 .003 0.40

2.rj .022 2.562.4t* .027 3.29

4.57* .047 t.84*3.94* .01t 1.93

2.56* .032 ).87*4.r4* 0.66 8.38*

2.27 .035 4.14*3.07* .042 t.2l*

).84+ .074 r.763.40* .016 1.9A

0.016.76*9.07*7.92*

0.01lj.t2tFt2.12*3.78*

).470.t50.320.02

2.40t.174.78*1.70

r336.16*3.014.7t*

).t60.16

10.03*2.j6

2.540.086.r9+2.80

0.t89.08*2.57L.L7

0.Bi0.6j7.05 *j.85*

.388

.471

.180

.188

)^).281

.3i0

.)53

.25i360

.239

.)t6

.301

.330

.15 1))).033.0i,

.0t4

.081

.109

.724

.064

.130

.057

.100

.093

.109

.000

.107

.089

.027

.225* .n3 .242 .018 2.jr .04)

.23r .240 .?20 .r02 i.77* .044Note,---t'is adjusted for the ¡eliability of the c¡iterion (Nunnally, 1978).*p a .05.

Table 2 with an adjustment from Nunnalty (1978) applied to the zero-ordercoefficients.

A second analysis was conducted to test fluency before IQ, and IQ ølterfltrency, as done by Milgram and N{ilgram (1976). These results are givenin Table 3. Here fluency was related to s/ritiog, art, science, and performing

^rt. (Sex and age were controlled in this particular set of analyses; but, ofcourse, the results fot sex and age are identical to those found in Table 2.)

Qøality of petformance was evaluated in a similar fashion, but resultsindicated that these were largely unrelated to the predictors. The only signifi-cant R2-A coefficieûts were between fluency and music (R : .26, R2-Ã:.05,þ <.01) and IQ and science (R: .25, R2-A - .03,þ < .05). Therewas some indication of an interaction of IQ I fluency for ctafts Performance(R: .34, R2-A : .10, þ <.001) and some indication of curvilineat relation-ship between IQ2 and writing (R : .27, R2-L - .04, O I .05), and IQ2and performing arts (R: .24, R2-¿ - .03, p 1 .05).

, 40*5 45*

.086

.t13

.267

.320

.007 0.85 .007

.013 0.74 .001

.071 2.87* .0t8

.L02 3.r7* .jiLNote.---+' is adjusted fo¡ the reliability of the c¡ite¡ion (Nunnally, 1978).*þ < .or.

values so they were omitted from the table. The extentefficients are atte¡uated by the reliabilities of these tests

co

iswhich these co-demonstrated in

r250 M, A, RUNCO

TltßLE 2HIERARCHICÄL REGRBSSIoN VITH IQ AND THBN FLUENCY AS PREDICTORS

R'?-^ F-^

CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMANCE

TÂBLE 3

HIERARCHICAL REGRESSIoN VITH FLUBNCY, THEN IQ AS PREDICTORS

r25l

R,R' R2-A F-^IØriting Perfo¡mance

SexABeIQFluency

Music PerformanceSexAgeIQFluency

Crafts PerformanceSexÁgeIQFluency

A.rt PerformanceSexÄgeIQFluency

Science PerformanceSexAgeIQFluency

Performing ,{rtsSexAgeIQFluency

Public PresentationSexAgeIQFluency

Performance TotalSexAgeIQFluency

.008 .010

.326* .398

.3L4* .384

.280* 342

.L72* .tg4

.044 .0t0-.074 -.083.018 .020

.t44 .Lr1.100 .109

.170* .185

.t6g* .184

.108 .130-.232* -.279.t23 .L48.t57* .189

.L74 .200-.027 -.031.302+ .346.t6t* .789

.748 .769-.036 -.041.206* .215.776* .20t

.071 .085

.276* .3i2

.L7t* .206.r79* .2L'

.086 .089

.069 .072

.23t* .240

.225* .233

.008 .000

.327 .L07

.442 .t95

.471 .222

.r72 .030

.180 .0)2

.188 .O35

.188 .035

J44 .02r.180 .032.259 .067.28' .081

.108 .Ar2

.2t0 .063

.29' .087

.313 .t24

.t74 .030

.r78 .032

.n4 .111

.360 .t30

.t48 .022

.1t0 .023

.277 .077

.3t6 .100

.071 .001

.281 .079

.1t6 .100

.330 .109

3.47 .0301.90 .003t.37 .003l 02 .000

2.40 .02r1.89 .0122.69* .0312.45* .014

t.jj .012).78+ .0513.17* .025J.94* .0i7

3.16 .0301.85 .0014.67* .0804.74* .019

254 .022r.30 .0013.r7* .0543.07* .02)

0.t8 .0054.8>* .0744.t4* .02t3.40+ .009

\ØritingFluencyIQ

MusicFluencyIQ

CraftsFluencyIQ

,trtFluencyIQ

ScienceFluencyIQ

Performing ArtsFluencyIQ

Public P¡esentationFluencyIQ

Pe¡formance TotalFluencyIQ

.280* .342

.374* 384

.018 .020-.074 -.081

.t6g* .t84

.170* .185

.lr7* .189

.r23 .148

.L65* .189

.)02* .346

.L76* .20L

.206* .235

.t7g* .2r5.t7t* .206

6.62* .044 t.75*7.92* .071 10.19*

L.2t .000 0.00t.02 .003 0.40

2.rj .022 2.562.4t* .027 3.29

4.57* .047 t.84*3.94* .01t 1.93

2.56* .032 ).87*4.r4* 0.66 8.38*

2.27 .035 4.14*3.07* .042 t.2l*

).84+ .074 r.763.40* .016 1.9A

0.016.76*9.07*7.92*

0.01lj.t2tFt2.12*3.78*

).470.t50.320.02

2.40t.174.78*1.70

r336.16*3.014.7t*

).t60.16

10.03*2.j6

2.540.086.r9+2.80

0.t89.08*2.57L.L7

0.Bi0.6j7.05 *j.85*

.388

.471

.180

.188

)^).281

.3i0

.)53

.25i360

.239

.)t6

.301

.330

.15 1))).033.0i,

.0t4

.081

.109

.724

.064

.130

.057

.100

.093

.109

.000

.107

.089

.027

.225* .n3 .242 .018 2.jr .04)

.23r .240 .?20 .r02 i.77* .044Note,---t'is adjusted for the ¡eliability of the c¡iterion (Nunnally, 1978).*p a .05.

Table 2 with an adjustment from Nunnalty (1978) applied to the zero-ordercoefficients.

A second analysis was conducted to test fluency before IQ, and IQ ølterfltrency, as done by Milgram and N{ilgram (1976). These results are givenin Table 3. Here fluency was related to s/ritiog, art, science, and performing

^rt. (Sex and age were controlled in this particular set of analyses; but, ofcourse, the results fot sex and age are identical to those found in Table 2.)

Qøality of petformance was evaluated in a similar fashion, but resultsindicated that these were largely unrelated to the predictors. The only signifi-cant R2-A coefficieûts were between fluency and music (R : .26, R2-Ã:.05,þ <.01) and IQ and science (R: .25, R2-A - .03,þ < .05). Therewas some indication of an interaction of IQ I fluency for ctafts Performance(R: .34, R2-A : .10, þ <.001) and some indication of curvilineat relation-ship between IQ2 and writing (R : .27, R2-L - .04, O I .05), and IQ2and performing arts (R: .24, R2-¿ - .03, p 1 .05).

, 40*5 45*

.086

.t13

.267

.320

.007 0.85 .007

.013 0.74 .001

.071 2.87* .0t8

.L02 3.r7* .jiLNote.---+' is adjusted fo¡ the reliability of the c¡ite¡ion (Nunnally, 1978).*þ < .or.

values so they were omitted from the table. The extentefficients are atte¡uated by the reliabilities of these tests

co

iswhich these co-demonstrated in

1252 M. A. RUNCO

DrscussroxThese results indicate that certain areas of extracurricular crearive per-

fotmance are predictable from fluency-both without and with control ofIQ-and other ateas are predictable from IQ. That the IQ predicts certainareas ol performance may seem somewhat surprising because the performancecriteria were extracurricular; but simila¡ results have been repcrted by Koganancl Pankove (I974) in their longitudinal study of nongifted individuals. Ofmost importance is that both the zero-order and multiple-regression coefficientsreported here support more the predictive validity of fluency than might beexpected based on eadier reports (llocevar, L!80; Kogan & Pankove, 1974).This is probably because the subjects in the presenr investigation includedgifted children (Runco, 1985; Ru¡co & Albert, 1935).

The multiple-regression analyses indicated that the interaction of IQ andfluency was not significantly ¡elated to üearive performance. One explanationis psychometric. The tests used here may not caprure the specific abilitiesthat interact in creative performance. For exarnple, perhaps it is a "problem-finding" component of intelligence that interacts with divergent thinking, andproblem-finding ability is not tapped by the measures of IQ selected here.A second explanation for the nonsignificant interactions is that the interactiontested may have been incomplete. Perhaps motivation or "task-commitment"is necessary for creative performance (Renzulli, 1978; Simonton, 1984), anda three-way interaction would preclict real-world performance. Research coulcltest a motivation \ fluency \ IQ predictor. A final possibility is that the ageof the participants precluded an interaction of fluency X IQ. Most inter-active theories of achievement have involved adults so the present results donot entirely refute such interpretation.

Looking at the diffe¡ences among the performance areas, it is especiallynotewofthy that performance in aft was predictable from fluency scores, whilescience was not; and science was predictable from IQ while performance in artwas not. This is consisrent with Hudson's (1966) view about convergent anddivergent thinking in art arid science. Of course, given that the participantsin this study were children and adolescents, the difference between an andscience might at least in part reflecr a difference in the tasks ( e.g., conceptual-izing a picture vs designing an experiment) rather than just differences inwhat is brought to the tasks by the subjects. In this sense, the arr-sciencedifference is also consistent with the ¡esearch on the influence of type ofstimulu-s on divergent thinking (Guilford, 1968; Runco & ,{lbert, 1985;Runco & Pezdek, L984).

The present findings also suggest that the quality of creative performanceis not related to fluency or IQ. This point should be ernphasized because in

CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMÄNCE 1249

public presentation. Each domain of performance had at least six items; and each itemhad fou¡ possible ¡esponses (i.e., "never," "once or twice," "three to five times," "sixo-r more times"). Q/øntiry of performance was calculated by finding the avengerating within each domain, and a total quantity scoie was the sum of the domain scores,

Quali'tyt of petformance was evaluated as in the research of Milgram and Milgram(1976), Runco (in press), and Skager, Schultz, and Klein (1965). This involvedasking the children to describe on the questionnaire their ¡nost creative activity in eachdomain. These responses wele then scored by two independent judges using a l0-pointscoring system cleveloped by Runco (in press). High scores reflect self-motivated andoriginal work, and low sco¡es ¡eflect extrinsically motivated and unoriginal activities.

RnsurrsThe reliability of the quantity scores of the performance measure was

evaluated with alpha, an index of interitem consistency. Âll scales were re-liable, with aþha coefficients as follows: writing (.67), music (.79), crafts(.84), art (.69), science (.76), performing arts (.77), and public presenta-tion (.69). Because the nature of the quality scores was subjective, their re-liability w-as evaluated with interrater ieliability. These too were reliable,with two judges in agreement o¡ 77 7o of their ratings. Means and standarddeviations for all criteria are given in Table 1.

TABLE 1

MEANS AND STANDARD DEvIÄTIoNs FoR CRITERI¿,

Perfo¡mance Area QuantityM .SD

QualityM .'D

rüØritingMusicCrafts,{rtSciencePerforming ArtsPublic PresentationTotal

2.6 0.tl.t 0.62.L 0.52.5 0.67.4 0.4r.6 0.t7.9 0.3t.9 0.4

4.2 2.22.6 2.94.j 2.34.0 2.71.9 2.t3.r 2.74.3 3.03.3 1.5

Hiera¡chical regression analyses were conducted using sex, age, IQ, fluency,IQ \ fluencl, IQ', fluencyz, sex \ IQ, and sex )( fluency (in that sequence)as predictors. Note that detailed descriptions of procluct terms (IQ )( fluency)for interactions and squared terms (fluency2) for curvilineat (quadratic)trencls are given by Cohen ancì Cohen ( 1975). Using qøanti,/y scores for per-formance as ctiteria, ¡esults are presented in TaÍ¡le 2. The zero-order correla-tions indicate that fluency was related to six performance areas and the per-formance total. Also, the unique variance of fluency (R'-À) was related towriting and arr, and rhe unique vatiaîce of IQ to science, performing art, aÍdwriting. None of the quadratic or interactioo predictors had significant R2-A

t248 M. A. RUNCO

related to creative performance, and an inteiaction of fluency )( intelligencewas untelated to performance. Still, these results have limited generalizabilitybecause they are based cn verbal divergent-thinking tests, verbal intelligence,nongifted subjects, and a performarìce ctiterion that assessed only the quantiryof the subjects' accomplishments. Having only nongifted subjects is especiallyproblematic because the psychcmetric properties of tests administered to onepopulation do not necessarily apply to other populations ( Albetr & Runco,1986; Chauncey & Hilton, 1965; ì7allach, 1977 ) . Divergent-thinking tests inparticular are more reliable and valid in the gifted than the nongifted popula-tion (GuilfoÀ, L968; Mednick, 1962; Runco, 1985, 1986; Runco & .Albert,198r ).

Divergent thinking and its interaction with intelligence should thereforebe examined further. The present ptoject was conducted to evaluate the Pre-dictive validity of divergent thinkiag fluency-before and after controllingIQ-the interaction of fluency X iQ, and the quadratic term, fluency.2 Theunique facets of this ptoject include use of gifted and nongifted subjects,figutal and vetbal divergent thinking tests, and perfotmance quality andquantity as criteria.

METHOD

PartàcþøntsFifth- through eighth-grade child¡en from a public intermediate school participated

in this project (N - 1t0). Many of these children were labeled "gifted" by schoolpsychologists based on teachers' recommendations and IQs above 130. The mean IQwasI33 (with a standard deviation of I3), and the range was 98 to 165. Sixty-sevenof the patticipants were bovs (44.7%), anò 83 were girls (r5.3%). Thete were 28fifth-graders, 35 sixth-gradets, 45 seventh-graders, and 42 eighth-graders. Because thisis one aspect of an on-going study of divergent thinking, more detailed descriptions ofthese children can be found in ea¡lie¡ reports (Runco, 7)84, io press; Runco & Albert,198t ).Me at ør e s and. Pro ce d'øre

IQs (Stanford-Binet or IøISC-R) were obtained from the school dist¡ict's records.Five divergent-thinking tests (Instances, Uses, Similarities, Patte¡n-meanings, and Line-meanings) f¡om IØallach and Kogan (1965) we¡e used to estimate divergent thinling.Each of these tests had th¡ee items. The divergent-thinking tests were administered inthe classroom to groups of about 30. Later the tests weÌe scored for "ideatio¡alfluency," which is simply the number of ideas given. A total fluency scote was calculatedby aclding together the 15 item-sco¡es. Ideational originality and flexibilìty we¡e notused because their relationship with fluency and reliability was dubious (Runco, 1985;Runco & .A.lbe¡t, 1985).

Creative performance was assessed on a questionnaite developed by Runco (inpress). This self-report was comparable in fo¡mat to those of Hoceva¡ (1980), Milgramand Milgram (1976), and \Øallach and IØing (1969). There we¡e 65 questions fromseven extracurricular domains: writing, music, crafts, art, science, performing arts, aod

CHILDREN'S CREÄTIVE PERFORM,{NCE t25i

the ¡eal world, the quality of performance is probably more important thanthe quantity of performance (Anderson, 1960; Runco, in press; Simonton,1984).

The criterion measure used in this study was a self-report and so hasseveral inherent problems (e.g., subject's rnemory and honesry). Still, this isa widely used criterion (Bull & Davis, 1980; Hocev^r, 1976, 1980; Holland,1961; Hou'iesoo, 1981; Milgram & Milgram, 1976; Rotter, Langland, &Berger, 1971; Runco, in ptess; Skager, et al., 1965) \Øallach * nØing, 1969)and also has several virtues. This test is, for example, easily interpreted(given the plethora of earlier reseatch), has vety good psychometric qualities,and is a measure of performance rather than of potential. Bull and Davis(1975) and \Øalkup (197L) have argued in favor of this type of measureprecisely because it is a self-report, fot examinees are well informed abouttheir own past perforrnance. Even though the coefficients reported hete areprobably lowe¡ than would be observed for a sample with less restricted rangeof scores (Cohen & Cohen, 1975; Yamamoto, 1965), we can conclude thatthe fluency index of divergent-thinking tests cloes have predictive validity butthat this validity is applicable oûly to cettain areas of creative perfomaûce.

REFERENCES

ALBERT, R. S. (1975) Toward a behavio¡ial definition of genius. Ameri'can Psy'cbologist, 30, I40-I51.

ALBERT, R. S. (1980) Genius. In R. H. IØoody (Ed.), The encycloped'ia oÍ cliøi'cdlassessrnent. YoL 2. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Pp. 729-743.

,{LBERT, R. S., & RuNCo, M. A. (1986) rlchievement of eminence: a model of ex-ceptionally gifted boys and their families. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson(Eds.), Concepti.ons ol gàfted'ness. New Yo¡k: Cambridge Univer. P¡ess. Pp.3i2-357.

ANDERSoN, J. E. (1960) The nature of abilities. In E. P. To¡rance (EÀ.),Talent and'ed,ucarion. Minneapolis, MN: U¡iver. of Minnesota P¡ess. Pp. 9-31.

BULL, K. S., & D,wrs, G. A. (1980) Evaluating c¡eative potential using the statementof past creative activities. Joørnøl of Creatàae Bebøuior, 14, 249-2t7.

CHAUNcEv, H., & HILToN, T. t. (1965) ,{re aptitude tests valid for the highly able?S cience, 748, 7297 -1304.

ConrN, J., & CoHEN, P. (1975) Applied' mthiple regressionf correlation anzlysis forthe behauàorøL sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

GETZELS, J. \ø., & J,q,cKsoN, P. W. (1962) Creariuitlt and, intelligence: exþloratàonswith gàfted, srld,ents. New York: IØiley.

GUILFoRD, J. P. ( 1968 ) [øtelli.gence, crealiuity, and, thei.r ed.ucatàonal imþli.cati.ons.San Diego, CA: Robert R. Knapp.

HocEvÂR, D. (L976) Dimensions of creativity. P:ycbological Reþorts, )9, 869-870.HocEvÄR, D. (1980) Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence,

4, 25-40.HoLLÂND, J. L. (L961) C¡eative and academic performance among talented adolescents.

Jotrnøl of Ed.øcational Prychology, 52, 136-147.Ho\íIEsoN, N. (1981) Ä longitudìnal study of creativity: 1965-7975. loørnal of

Creat.i.oe Bebaaior, 75, 177-134.HIDSoN, L. (1966). Contrary imaginations. Baltimore, MD: Penguin.

1254 M. A. RUNCO

KocÁN, N., & PANKovE, E. (L974) Long-term ptedictive validity of divetgent-thinking tests: some negative evidence. Joørnal of Eàucøti'onal Psychology, 66,802-810.

MEDNICK, S. ,{. (1962) The associative basis for the c¡eative process. Psycbological,Reuieu, 69, 220-232.

À{ILGRAM, R. M., & MILGRÁM, N. A. (1976) Creative thinking and creative per-formance in Is¡aeli students. loørnal cl Ed,r.cational Psltchology, 68,25t-259.

NIcHoLLs, J. G. (1972) Creativity in the person who will never produce anythingotiginal and useful: the concept of creativity as a normally distributed trait.Americøn Psychologist, 27, 717-727.

NUNNALLY, J. C. (1978) Psycbonøetric theor5t, (2nd ed.) New York: McGraw-Hill.RENZULLI, J. S. (1978) IØhat makes giftedness? Ree>:amining a definition. Pb¿

Deltø Kappaø, 60, 180-184.RorrER, D. M., LÀNGLÂND, L., & BERGER, D. (1971) The validity of tests of creative

thinking in seven-year-old children. Gi'fted. Cbild, Qøanerly, 76, 27i-278.RuNco, M. A. (L984) Teachers' judgments of creativity ancì social validation of

divergent thinking tests. Perceþtøal and' Moror Sþi'll¡, 59, 7ll-7l7.RuNco, M. A. (1985) Reliability and convergent validity of icleational flexibility

as a function of academic achievement. Perceþtøal and. Moto,¡ Sþills,61,, 1,075-108 1.

RuNco, M. Â. (1986) Divergent thinking and creative performa-nce in giftcd andnongifted chilclren. Ed.acati.onal anà Psycbologìcal Measuremeni, 46, 375384.

RuNco, M.,t. (in Þress) The generality of creative performance in gifted and non-gifted children. Gifted. Chi.ld QøarterlS'.

RuNco, M.4.., &.,{.LBBRT, R. S. (1985) The reliability and validity of ideationalciginality in the divetgent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children.Eàøcariondl and, Psl'cbological Measørenøent, 4), 48j-501.

RuNco, M.-A., & PEzÐElr-, K. (1984) The effect of television and radìo on children'screarivity. Haman Conzmunàcarions Researcb, 17, 109-120.

SiMoNToN, D. K. (1984) Geniøs, øeari.aity, anà leadership. Cambridge, MA:Flarvard Univer. Press.

SKÁcER, R. \ø., ScHULTZ, C. 8., & KLEIN, S. P. ( 1965 ) Quality and quantity ofaccomplishment as measuies of cteativity. Journøl of Ed.acational Psychology,t6, jr-39.

\øALKUP, L. E. (L977) Detecting creativity: some practical approaches. loøna.J ofCt'eatiae Bebaoior, 5, 88-93.

WÀLL,orcH, M. A. (7977) Tests tell us little about talent. In I. l. Janis (Ed.), Cørrenttrend.s in psycbologlt. Los Altos, CA: \Øm. Kaufmann. Pp. 237-24).

\øÀLL,{CH, M..4,., & KocAN, N. (1965) Mod,es ol tbinkàng iø yoøng chàldren.New York: Holt, Rinehart & IØinston.

SøALLÄCH, M. Á., & lØrnc, C. nø., JR. (1969) Tbe talented. stød.ent. New York:Holt, Rinehart & \Øinston.

Y^M^Moro, K. (1965) Effects of restriction o1 range ard test unreliability on corre-lation between measures of intelligence and c¡eative thinking. Bri.tisb Joarnal ofEd.øcati.onal Psycbologlt, 3r, 300:30r.

Acceþîed. Seþternlter 30, 1986,

P s1' c holo gical Reþorts, 1986, 59, 1247 -I2r 4. @ Psychological Reports 1986

PREDICTING CHILDREN'S CREATIVE PERFORMANCEI

M,TRK Ä. RUNCOUni.aersity of Hatuaü. ø Hilo

Sønzmary.-The predictive validity of the fluency index of divergent-think-ing tests was evaluated, with extracur¡icula¡ creative performance in sevendomains as the criteria. The unique aspects of this project were (a) that giftedand talented children were represeûted in the samÞle of 150 subjects, (b) thatboth performarìce quantity and, quality scores were used as citeil^, and (c)that fluency, fluency2, and an inte¡action of IQ ¡ fluency were tested as pre-dictors. Hierarchical regression analyses indicated that fluency has predictivevalidity; however, this is limited to certain a¡eas of perfoimance, e.g., writingand crafts. IQ was significantly ¡elated to othet areas of performance, e.g.,science and performing arts, but there was little indication of a quadraricrelationship or an inreraction of IQ \ fluency.

Eady investigations of divergent thinking were primarily concerned with"construct validity." As a result, divergent-thinking tests have typically beenevaluated inclependently of or com.pared, with traditional measures of intelli-gence (Getzels & Jackson, 1962; \Øallach & \Øing, 1969). Most research onthe predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests has also been comparative.Milgram and Milgrain (1976), for example, used partial-correlational pro-cedures to compare (a) the preclictive valiclity of ideational fluency controllingfor IQ and (b) the pteclictive validity of IQ controlling for fluency. Resultsindicated that divergent-thinking test scores accurately predicted ¡eal-worldaccomplishment in several areas, e.g., fine arts, writing, for both males andfemales.

IThile it is info¡mative to compare divergent thinking and intelligencetests and to examine their unique yatiaflce, contelnporaty theories of creativeachievement suggest that divergent thinking and t¡aditional forms of intelli-gence do not operate independently in the "real-world." Instead, they prob-ably interact (Albert, 1975, 1980; Albert & Runco, 1986; Nicholls, 1972;Renzulii, I978). A realistic evahÌation of the predictive validity of divergent-thinking resrs should consider their interaction as well as their uriique con-tribution.

In the only investigation of the interaction of divergent thinking ancl in-telligence, Hocevar (1980) found that fluency scores were only marginally

'Preliminary results were presented at the meeting of the IØeste¡n Psychological .Associa-tion in Seattle, \Øashington, May, 1986. The author acknowledges Ann Yoshikawa forheÌ assistance in preparing this manuscript. Address cotrespondence to Mark ,{. Runco,Psychology, Social Scie¡ce Division, College of Arts and Sciences, University of Hawaii,Hilo, Hawaii 96720-409I.