A Comparative Study of Creativity and Cognitive Problem-Solving Strategies of High-IQ and Average Students

Gifted Child Quarterly
http://gcq.sagepub.com
A Comparative Study of Creativity and Cognitive Problem-Solving Strategies of High-IQ and Average
Students
Christine Fiorella Russo
Gifted Child Quarterly 2004; 48; 179
DOI: 10.1177/001698620404800303
The online version of this article can be found at:
http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/48/3/179
Published by:
http://www.sagepublications.com
On behalf of:
National Association for Gifted Children
Additional services and information for Gifted Child Quarterly can be found at:
Email Alerts: http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts
Subscriptions: http://gcq.sagepub.com/subscriptions
Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav
Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
Citations http://gcq.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/48/3/179
Downloaded from http://gcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009
C R E AT I V I T Y A N D C O G N I T I V E P R O B L E M - S O LV I N G S T R AT E G I E S
A Comparative Study of Creativity

and Cognitive Problem-Solving Strategies
of High-IQ and Average Students
Christine Fiorella Russo
Hofstra University
formance (Houtz, Denmark, Rosenfield, & Tetenbaum,
1980; MacKinnon, 1962).
ABSTRACT
This study assessed the creative thinking abilities of
high-IQ and average students on f luency, f lexibility,
originality, and elaboration. Seventeen high-IQ fifth
and sixth graders and 20 average fifth and sixth
graders were given 4 batteries of Torrances Verbal
and Figural Tests (A and B) as pretests and posttests
and three Future Problem Solving tasks to assess
their creative thinking and problem-solving skills. A
significant interaction between performance and IQ
over time was demonstrated for verbal f luency. The
high-IQ students scored low and finished higher
over time. The average students scored high on the
pretest, but dropped over time. The interaction for
figural elaboration indicated little difference
between the groups at pretest, but there was an
increase for the average students and a decrease for
the high-IQ students at posttest. Variability in performances of both high-IQ and average students
suggests the need for training in creative thinking
skills.
Is creative thinking related to IQ or is creativity a

useful extension of IQ? Extensive studies of the relationship between IQ and creativity have shown that there are
low correlations between IQ and creativity (Guilford,
1975). While creative thinking is commonly greatest
among children with high IQs, a high IQ is not sufficient
for creativity, and many children with high IQs are very
low in creative aptitudes (Guilford & Christensen, 1973;
Guilford & Hoepfner, 1966). These findings were confirmed by Torrance (1980), who found low correlations
between creativity and intelligence. Intellectual skills may
be necessary for creative performance, but are not sufficient by themselves. Attention should be focused upon
personality characteristics that can affect creative per-
Intelligence and Creativity

In their study of young children, Getzels and Jackson
(1962) found that IQ is not the determining factor in
creativity. Data revealed that a certain amount of intelli-
PUTTING THE RESEARCH

TO USE
The data obtained from this study reveals that both
high-IQ and average students have the potential to
develop and expand their creative thinking skills.
This type of research is important because it showed
that the average students scored higher than the
high-IQ students on figural elaboration, which indicates that attention should be given to students who
fall in the average range. Since the high-IQ students
did not score consistently on all tasks, this is another
indication that training is needed for both high-IQ
and average students. For this reason, the curriculum
should be revised to include programs in divergent
thinking, as it is a viable avenue for assisting students
in developing their creative thinking skills.
The results from this study are encouraging for
the average student population, as creativity is not
solely dependent upon intelligence. Gardner (1988a)
maintained that the most finely honed set of intelligences are unlikely to yield creative products unless
the individual also exhibits certain traits of personality. Definite degrees of drive, motivation, and energy may even prove more constant concomitants of
creativity than any particular pattern of cognitive
strengths.
G I F T E D C H I L D Q U A RT E R LY S U M M E R 2 0 0 4 VO L 4 8
NO 3
179
gence is required for creativity, but intelligence and creativity are by no means synonymous. Wallach and Kogan
(1965) demonstrated that highly intelligent, but not particularly creative subjects have a disinclination, rather
than an inability, to use their imaginations. Getzels and
Jackson (1959) and Torrance (1959) pointed out that, if
an intelligence test were used to select top-level talent,
70% of the people with the highest 20% of scores on a
battery of creativity tests would be missed. The work of
Getzels and Jackson (1962) and Wallach and Kogan
(1965) has made it clear that an IQ score tells only a fraction of the story, as the full knowledge of a persons
potential can only be discovered when IQ scores are
paired with creativity scores. Terman and Oden (1947)
revealed in a follow-up study of high-IQ students that
these students showed greater productivity in arts and
sciences when compared to an average-ability group,
though few reached the highest f lights of creative ability.
This suggests that intelligence is of some relevance to
achievement.
A distinct definition and interpretation of both creativity and intelligence can establish a theoretical prediction of the relationship between these two variables. This
prediction can be realized when creativity is viewed as
performance on a specific measure of divergent production and intelligence is defined as performance on a specific IQ test (Treffinger & Poggio, 1972).
Houtz, Rosenfield, and Tetenbaum (1978) investigated the relationship between intelligence, achievement, creative thinking, and problem solving among
233 intellectually gifted second through sixth graders.
The results of the factor analysis suggested that intelligence, achievement, creative thinking, and problem
solving can be separated conceptually. Gifted students
demonstrated strengths and weaknesses across the range
of tasks, rather than consistently high performance.
There was great individual variation within the sets of
creative thinking and problem-solving tasks, suggesting
a need for creativity and problem-solving skills training
for the gifted.
Intelligence and creativity tests have been widely
used as a basis for assessing intellectual giftedness
(Sternberg, 1983). Accumulation of evidence reveals that
intelligence tests disclose only minor variations in creative performance, but do not directly involve the ability
to create ideas or things. Research indicates that the ability to sense problem areas, to be f lexible in each of several ways, and to produce original ideas tend to have little
relation to tests used to measure intelligence (French,
1951; Guilford, 1959).
180
M e a s u r e s o f D i ve r g e n t T h i n k i n g
Since ordinary IQ tests fail to identify the potential
creative problem solver, IQ tests should be expanded to
include creative aptitude tasks (Guilford, 1950).
Divergent production tests, which require students to
produce their own answers, are absent in modern group
tests of intelligence (Guilford, 1972). It isnt necessary to
include IQ within creativity tests. Creativity tests are in
some ways an IQ test because both tests measure cognitive skills. However, creativity tests evaluate the students
higher mental functions as insight and creative imagination (Guilford, 1950). Guilford (1967) isolated a large
number of intellectual factors, among them convergent
and divergent thinking, and he believed that creativity
tests are tapping something that is ignored by conventional IQ tests.
An examination of the content of intelligence tests
reveals very little coverage of creative abilities (Guilford,
1950). IQ tests ref lect a conformist type of knowledge,
which is obtained from living in a specific social and educational environment; they rarely assess a students skill in
assimilating new information or in solving new problems
(Vernon, 1964). In addition, they reveal very little about
an individuals potential for further development
(Gardner, 1983). In contrast, tests of creative ability assess
those skills that are independent of academic achievement as measured by intelligence tests (Guilford, 1984).
Creativity tests measure creative behavior and reveal the
students creative talents in the areas of f luency, f lexibility, originality, and elaboration (Guilford, 1975). While
divergent thinking tests are not perfect measures of creativity, they are useful estimates of the individuals potential for creative thought (Runco, 1991). According to
Sternberg (1984), intelligence and creativity can be separated conceptually, and there are underlying processes
and strategies that can be used to improve mental processing.
C r e a t i v i t y a n d D i ve r g e n t
Thinking
For the past 50 years, there has been no general consensus among psychologists and educators about the
nature of creativity and the reliability of criteria that
could be used in measuring this psychological construct.
It is thought that the lack of agreement on this issue
among psychologists and educators has been due to the
multidimensional nature of creativity, which has brought
NO 3
about considerable diversity and little uniformity. In

recent years, many theorists (Runco & Okuda, 1988)
have maintained the concept that creative performance
results from the interaction of two important factors:
cognitive ability and metacognitive strategy. Runco
(1986) demonstrated that, when gifted and nongifted students approach open-ended problems, the gifted students
will avail themselves of elements that facilitate originality.
This view has been empirically supported by Davidson
and Sternberg (1984). However, some psychologists and
educators (e.g., Guilford, 1977; Guilford & Hoepfner,
1966), taking into account the relationship among divergent thinking, problem solving, and intelligence, have
identified the concept of divergent production, consisting of the creative abilities of f luency, f lexibility, originality, and elaboration.
Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creative
thinking, but research shows that divergent thinking is an
important component of the creative process (Runco,
1991). From a metacognitive perspective, Flavell (1979)
hypothesized that divergent thinking is necessary for students to categorize strategic knowledge. Carr and
Borkowski (1987) further theorized that divergent thinking is a basic foundational element of metacognition and
provides for the development and execution of cognitive
processes that serve as strategic intellectual behaviors in
analyzing, discriminating, synthesizing, and integrating
information and making adjustments to a complex environment. Sternberg, Conway, Ketron, and Bernstein
(1981) maintained that problem solving and verbal facility are integral aspects of intelligent functioning.
Moreover, within the framework of divergent thinking,
knowledge is viewed as not being constant, but as f lexible and transferable from a previously learned schema to
a new and different task, thus enabling students to utilize
their strategic skills in a creative manner (Carr &
Borkowski, 1987). Within Guilfords (1975) multidimensional psychological construct, concepts such as creative intelligence, creative problem solving, and divergent
thinking are all aspects of a total conceptual system of creativity (Sternberg, 1985).
With the advent of the psychometric approach and
the use of paper-and-pencil tasks, many researchers
adopted Guilfords divergent thinking tasks, which
quickly became the main instruments for measuring creative thinking. These tests became a convenient way of
comparing individuals standard scores on a creativity
scale (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999). The search to quantify
the creative process was achieved through the development of divergent thinking batteries that accelerated the
psychometric study of creativity (Plucker & Renzulli,

1999). The psychometric approach of measuring creativity has had both positive and negative effects on the field.
On the positive side, the tests facilitated research by providing an objective scorable assessment device. Research
was now possible with everyday people (Sternberg &
Lubart, 1999). Both researchers and educators have used
tests of the creative process for decades, and divergent
thinking tests remain a popular measure of creative
potential and process (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999). On the
negative side, critics have suggested that more significant
productions, such as actual drawings or writing samples,
should be included or used instead (Sternberg & Lubart).
Moreover, after 30 years of investigation in this area, the
criterion problem continues to remain the major stumbling block for the advancement of psychometric creativity research. Critics maintain that evidence of predictive
validity and criterion validity is still lacking (Gardner,
1988b, 1993; Wallach, 1976).
Creativity and Problem Solving

Unquestionably, a decisive understanding of the
essence and evolution of the creative process remain one
of the most compelling challenges to psychologists and
educators (Guilford, 1964, 1977). However, irrespective
of the plethora and diversity in this field, as educators
and psychologists, we should recognize the fact that
some process is being measured (McNemar, 1964).
Problem solving and creative production are the most
complex of recognized intellectual activities. They are
based on both creative and critical types of thinking
(Isaksen & Parnes, 1985). These two facets of learning
are treated together, as they have commonalities.
Problem solving is creative and creative production is the
means to the end of solving some problem (Guilford,
1964). Solving problems requires the deployment of various cognitive and behavioral (affective) strategies, training in metamemory, metalearning habits, metacognition, and divergent thinking skills. All of these mental
constructs are the basis of a metacognitive theory, which
requires strategic behaviors for successful cognitive processing in creativity and problem solving. The cognitive
approach to creativity attempts to understand the mental
representations and processes underlying creative
thought (Sternberg & Lubart, 1999).
What enables certain individuals to make creative
contributions, while others of equal skill and commitment do not? Problem solvers are individuals who create
NO 3
181
new ways of thinking about a new problem or solving an

old one. The thoughts and behaviors characteristic of
creative individuals are termed creative processes; those
products which come to be valued are termed creative
achievements (Gardner, 1988b, p. 9).
Creativity is revealed in the products of the mind that
ref lect the uniqueness of the idea (Yamamoto, 1956); its
scope is wide, as it engenders numerous mental skills,
operations, and products such as reasoning, cognition,
memory, evaluation, critical thinking, decision making,
and divergent thinking (Sternberg, 1984). It refers to the
production of novel ideas. Novelty means getting away
from the conventional ideas and arriving at the solution
of a problem in an unusual, unique way. A person who is
determined to seek creative solutions must first focus
upon problem discovery, which necessitates greater reorganization and appreciable narrowing down of options
(Gardner, 1988b). Moreover, the best kinds of learning
are those that involve novel concepts and thinking
(Sternberg, 1981). Are these novel ideas a product of
ones environment or a result of IQ? According to
Guilford (1975), research has demonstrated that these
creative thinking skills can be improved with specific
practices. The research of Parnes and Noller (1973),
Torrance (1972), and Isaksen and Parnes (1985) has
shown that creative thinking skills can be substantially
increased by means of proper treatment. The Future
Problem Solving program, which involves the essential
creativity components of the Osborn-Parnes Creative
Problem Solving Model, including sensitivity, f luency,
f lexibility, originality, and elaboration, can be used to
improve individual problem-solving skills (Osborn,
1963; Parnes, 1967; Rose & Lin, 1984). The concept of
creativity is now viewed in a broader perspective, as it is
perceived to be composed of a group of general abilities,
personality variables, and problem-solving traits.
Torrance (1980) maintained that this resulted in a call for
a wider range of abilities in both identification and program development.
as intellectual sensitivity. Intellectual sensitivity includes

sensing problems, developing novel ideas, exhibiting
f lexibility of the mind, and conceptualizing numerous
ideas at one time (Guilford, 1950). Creativity is a part of
and not separate from intelligence, and it is necessary to
develop a broad range of tests that incorporate intelligence and creativity factors (Parnes, 1972). IQ alone is
not the sole factor for the determination of creative talent (Guilford, 1975); therefore, as educators, psychologists, and laypeople, we must look well beyond the IQ
(Guilford, 1950). Creative thinking comprises a variety
of skills such as intelligence and intellectual abilities,
including cognition, productive functions (convergent
and divergent), and transformations (Guilford, 1975).
Moreover, Taylor and Holland (1962) revealed that studies of creativity show minimal, if any, relationship
between creativity and intelligence. Gardner (1983)
challenged the theory that intelligence consists solely of
verbal or analytic abilities, which tend to measure microscopic knowledge. He argued for a broader understanding of the intelligent mind, one that includes creativity
in the arts and music and spatial reasoning. His theory of
multiple intelligences is exhibited in the ordinary activities of nonspecialized individuals and, to a greater extent,
in artistic or scientific production.
This study investigated the possible relationships that
may exist among IQ, measures of creativity, and cognitive
problem-solving skills of middle school students. The
following research questions were investigated:
1. Is there a difference in the cognitive problem-solving
strategies of high- and average-IQ students as measured by their performance on three Future Problem
Solving tasks?
2. Is there a different pattern of performance on creative thinking for high- and average-IQ students
engaged in a problem-solving program from pretest
to posttest?
Method
C r e a t i ve I n t e l l i g e n c e
Participants
Guilford (1950), Torrance (1980), Parnes (1972),

and Lowenfelds (1959) theories of creativity were congruent, as they believed that creativity goes beyond
intelligence and involves overlapping variables. They
have described creative intelligence as a multivariate
thinking process that involves numerous cognitive abilities and, in particular, a differentiating characteristic such
The subjects were 37 participants in an after-school

Future Problem Solving program. Of these students, 17
were in the high-IQ group and 20 in the average-IQ
group. The range was 118 to 141 for the high-IQ group
and 97 to 110 for the average group. The mean IQ for the
high-IQ group was 130, while the mean for the average
group was 104. This difference of 26 points was close to
182
NO 3
two standard deviations in size, suggesting that the highIQ group was functioning in the very superior to superior range and the average group was functioning in the
average range. The fifth-grade high-IQ group consisted of 4 boys and 4 girls, and the sixth-grade high-IQ
group was made up of 5 boys and 4 girls. The participants
in the fifth-grade average group included 5 boys and 7
girls, and the sixth-grade average group was comprised of
4 boys and 4 girls. There were several ethnic groups represented in this study: 34 White students (91.9%), two
Asian students (5.4%), and one Hispanic (2.7%) student.
Materials
Creativity. The Verbal Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking With Words (TTCT), Form A (Torrance,
1990b) was administered as a pretest at the beginning of
the program in October. The Verbal TTCT uses six
word-based tasks to assess the three mental functions of
f luency (total number of relevant responses), f lexibility
(number of divergent categories of relevant responses),
and originality (the statistical rarity of responses). These
exercises are models of important kinds of creative thinking required in daily life (Torrance, 1990b). They give
students opportunities to look at pictures and then
respond by asking questions, improving products, and
supposing. The Figural Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking With Pictures, Form A (Torrance, 1990a) was
also given as a pretest. The Figural TTCT uses three picture-based exercises to assess the mental characteristics of
f luency, f lexibility, originality, elaboration (adding details
to the original concept), abstractness of titles, and resistance to closure (keeping open to new ideas; Torrance,
1966; Torrance & Ball, 1992).
Validity and Reliability of the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking. Data on the Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking (TTCT) suggests that a different kind of ability is being measured than that assessed by traditional
achievement and ability tests. Torrance and others have
conducted follow-up studies showing that high-scoring
individuals on the TTCT continue to be highly creative
5 to 40 years later (Millar, 2002; Torrance, 2000;
Torrance & Wu, 1981). The raw scores for the tests are
determined through the use of standard rubrics by
trained scorers with reported interrater reliabilities of .95
or higher. The norm-referenced scores are national percentiles and standard scores (40180), with a mean of
100 and a standard deviation of 15. The scores are
reported for different grade and age groups (Torrance,
1998).
Upon completion of the 6-month Future Problem

Solving program and to preclude the inf luence of retesting on scores, the Verbal Torrance Test of Creative
Thinking With Words, Form B (Torrance, 1990b) and
the Figural Torrance Test of Creative Thinking With
Pictures, Form B (Torrance, 1990a) were given as
posttests. The verbal posttest included six semantically
divergent production tasks, and the figural posttest
included three picture-based tasks. Scholastic Testing
Service did the scoring for both the verbal and figural
tests.
For the Verbal Tests of Creativity, the students are
allowed 5 or 10 minutes for the completion of each verbal task, with the actual student working time totaling to
40 minutes across tasks. For these tasks, the students are
asked to think of the most clever, interesting, and unusual ideas and put them into words. The verbal tasks
assessed ideational f luency in a variety of settings and
were scored for f luency, f lexibility, and originality. The
subsets from the Torrance Verbal battery (Form A)
include the following:
1. Asking Questions and Making Guesses (Activities
13): The examinee writes out questions and makes
guesses about possible causes and consequences of
happenings based on a drawing of a scene.
2. Product Improvement (Activity 4): The examinee
lists ways to change a toy elephant so that children
will have more fun playing with it.
3. Unusual Uses (Activity 5): The examinee lists interesting and unusual uses of a cardboard box.
4. Supposing (Activity 7): The examinee is to list all the
consequences if an improbable situation were to
come true. (Activity 6 has been eliminated, as
research has indicated that it doesnt contribute as
much predictive validity to the total scores as was
originally believed; Torrance, 1990.)
The students were given 10 minutes to complete
each figural task. They were asked to use their imaginations to think of ideas and put them together in various
ways. The students were encouraged to build upon their
idea so that it would tell the most imaginative and exciting story. The Figural tasks were scored for f luency, f lexibility, originality, and elaboration. The figural activities
(Forms A and B) consisted of the following:
1. Picture Construction: The examinee is asked to
think of a picture or an object that can be made from
a curved shape.
2. Picture Completion: The examinee is asked to add
lines to an incomplete figure for the purpose of
sketching some interesting pictures or objects.
NO 3
183
3. Parallel Lines (Form A): The examinee is asked to

draw as many objects or pictures as possible from
pairs of straight lines.
4. Circles (Form B): The examinee is asked to draw as
many objects or pictures as possible from circles.
The Creative Problem Solving Model assessed the
cognitive, productive, and evaluative abilities of the students. It involved six conceptual steps of divergent thinking: problem identification, statement of the underlying
problem, formulation of alternative solutions to the
underlying problem, development of criteria for evaluating alternative solutions, evaluating solutions to determine the best solution, and selection of the best solution.
For 90 minutes per week over a 6-month period, students worked in groups of four or five (there was a total
of eight groups) to solve three future cognitive problems.
For problem identification, the teams needed to
identify up to 20 different issues or challenges that
showed a clear understanding of the future scene. Each
challenge was classified into one of three categories:
yes, perhaps, and why. Only the yes challenges
received scoring credit. Each yes challenge was scored
for f luency and could receive up to .5 points for a maximum of 10 points in this category, if the challenge stated
what the concern was, why it was a concern, and how it
related to the future scene.
Each yes challenge was also scored for f lexibility,
which consisted of the number of different types of categories included in the challenge. The f lexibility score
ranged from 1 to 10 and was based on the number of categories the team generated compared to the number generated by the other teams. Teams with the most categories scored at the high end of the 10-point rating scale,
the weaker teams at the low end, and the average teams
somewhere in between.
Clarity evaluated the overall communication skills
demonstrated in the challenge statements. The evaluator
based the score on a comparison of the various teams
performances. On a rating scale of 110, a score of 10 was
awarded to a team whose challenge statements were well
written and exhibited depth of thought. Lower scores
ref lected challenges that lacked description or were not
tied to the future scene.
Originality was a separate and distinct score. The
yes challenges viewed as unique by the evaluator
received three points. The highest score possible for originality was 60. However, it was very rare that a team
would earn credit for more than three to five original
challenges or original solution ideas. Therefore, a more
common high score was 30 points (Patton, 2002).
184
For problem solution, the scoring of solution ideas

was similar to the scoring of f luency, f lexibility, and originality in problem identification. Fluency in problem
solution identified relevant solutions and f lexibility and
originality remained the same as above. A fourth criterion, elaboration, was scored for problem solutions.
Elaboration consisted of the who, what, why, and how
elements of solution ideas. If three of these four elements
were explained, a solution idea was worth .5 points.
Certified Future Problem Solving evaluators scored all
three problems.
Cognitive Skills. The Test of Cognitive Skills2 is a
group-administered test that assesses three cognitive factors: verbal, nonverbal, and memory abilities (CTB
Macmillan/McGraw-Hill, 1993). The TCS-2 is designed
to measure general cognitive ability, but subtest scores are
also reported. There is some overlap in the skills measured by the subtests; however, the skills measured by the
subtests differ in the demands they make upon students.
Each of the four TCS-2 subtests measures a different
aspect of the three cognitive ability factors: verbal ability
(verbal reasoning subtest), nonverbal ability (sequence
and analogies subtests), and memory (memory subtest).
The reliability of the Test of Cognitive Skills is described
by several kinds of data, including the Kuder Richardson
formula 20 (KR20), test-retest data, and the standard
error of measurement (SEM). The range of test-retest
reliabilities for the total test for grades 211 is 0.84 to 0.75
and at acceptable levels (CTB Macmillan/McGraw-Hill).
Procedure
The school system allowed accessibility to the students Cognitive Skills Index (CSI) scores, but precluded
any further testing of IQ by the examiner. Based upon
the districts group IQ test, the CSI, 17 students were
placed in the high-IQ group and 20 students in the average group. Torrances Figural and Verbal Tests A of
Creative Thinking, used as pretests, were administered to
all participants as a group in a regular classroom setting
during the first session. At the end of 6 months,
Torrances Figural and Verbal Tests B of Creative
Thinking were given to all the students during the last
session.
For 6 months, all the students attended one 90minute session per week and worked on three problems
developed by the Future Problem Solving program using
the six-step creative problem-solving process. For
approximately 7 weeks, the participants researched and
solved Practice Problem #1 using only two steps of the
NO 3
Table 1
The Verbal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Scores of High-IQ and Average Students
Pretest
Posttest
Average IQ
TTCT Scores
Fluency
Flexibility
Originality
High IQ
Average IQ
High IQ
SD
SD
SD
SD
83.0
37.1
47.8
27.8
11.8
21.4
74.3
33.2
46.1
40.6
15.9
25.2
74.6
34.6
45.7
26.8
13.8
16.4
84.9
32.4
43.4
45.6
17.4
24.5
Table 2
The Figural Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) Scores of High-IQ and Average Students.
Pretest
Posttest
Average IQ
TTCT Scores
Fluency
Flexibility
Originality
Elaboration
High IQ
Average IQ
High IQ
SD
SD
SD
SD
29.9
21.9
35.7
38.9
7.0
4.2
11.2
15.3
29.1
21.6
34.9
40.6
10.1
6.8
13.9
15.4
16.1
13.3
36.6
44.2
10.0
6.0
14.7
22.7
13.1
11.8
33.6
34.3
6.2
4.5
15.1
17.4
problem-solving process. Practice Problem #2 involved

four steps of the problem-solving process and took
another 7 weeks to complete. The third competitive
problem consisted of all six steps of the problem-solving
process and was finished during the last 7 weeks of the
program.
Results
The first research question asked whether there were
any significant differences in problem identification and
problem solution for the variables of f luency, f lexibility,
originality, and elaboration between high-IQ and average
students. The data collected for problem identification
and problem solutions consisted of the eight teams
aggregate numerical scores in each area. Results of t-tests
indicated no significant differences for problem identification (t [10] = .87, p = .40) or problem solution (t [10] =
-.54, p = .60). Although there was no significant difference between the two groups, the high-IQ groups moti-
vation appeared to be inf luenced by the type of problem

with which they were confronted. If the problem was of
particular interest to the students, they approached it
with considerable enthusiasm. The average group, always
conscious of the fact that they were competing with their
peers, constantly kept the primary focus in mind and pursued their task with great determination and perseverance irrespective of the nature of the problem. This positive attitude ultimately impacted upon their final score,
which brought them within close range of the high-IQ
groups performance.
The second research question asked whether there
were any significant differences in creative thinking from
the pretest to the posttest for high- and average-IQ students on Torrances Verbal Test A (pretest), Verbal Test B
(posttest), Figural Test A (pretest), Figural Test B
(posttest), and Figural Streamlined (a scoring method initiated in 1980; Torrance & Ball, 1980, 1992); see Tables 1
and 2. Split plots analyses of variance were computed for
the dependent variables of fluency, flexibility, originality,
and elaboration. A significant interaction between per-
NO 3
185
Figure 1. Mean pretest and posttest verbal fluency scores on Torrance Test of Creative Thinking for high-IQ
and average students.
formance and IQ over time was demonstrated for verbal
fluency (F [1, 35] = 5.37, p = .026). The average students
scored high on the pretest (M = 83.0, 67th national percentile) and dropped over time (M = 74.6, 57th percentile),
while the high-IQ students started low (M = 74.3, 57th
national percentile) and finished higher (M = 84.9, 69th
national percentile). A significant interaction was also
obtained on figural elaboration (F [1, 34] = 3.01, p = .092).
The average students scored low on the pretest (M = 39.0,
32nd national percentile), but finished higher over time on
the posttest (M = 44.0, 48th national percentile). The
high-IQ students scored high on the pretests (M = 41.0,
40th national percentile), but dropped to lower levels on
the posttest (M = 34.0, 28th national percentile). Post hoc
comparisons for simple main effects revealed that, at
posttest, high-IQ students scored higher than average students did on verbal fluency (see Figure 1) whereas the
average students did better than the high-IQ students on
figural elaboration (see Figure 2). Performance in the other
areas of flexibility and originality from pretest to posttest
appeared to be unrelated to IQ.
Discussion
In testing for the relationship among IQ, creativity,
and problem solving, two student groups were assessed:
the average group with a mean IQ of 104 and the high186
IQ group with a mean IQ of 130. Results provide statistical support for gains in f luency, f lexibility, originality,
and elaboration as a result of participation in a creative
problem solving program for both groups.
At the inception and end of the 6-month Future
Problem Solving program, the Verbal and Figural Forms
A (pretest) and the Forms B (posttest) of the Torrance
Tests of Creative Thinking were administered, and significant interactions were demonstrated between performance and IQ for verbal f luency and figural elaboration. Posttest results showed that, while the gifted students in the present study appear to perform at a higher
level than students of less superior intelligence on verbal
f luency, their performance was by no means consistent
across all types of creative thinking skills. This significant
difference in performance by the high-IQ group could be
due to the fact that both the IQ tests used to identify the
students and the verbal f luency measure are loaded with
the same verbal factors. While both the IQ tests and
Verbal Torrance Tests are dependent upon students verbal capabilities and therefore may have similar factor loadings, there are significant differences in the way in which
the abilities affect the scores. The verbal IQ tests have
correct/prescribed answers, while the TTCT Verbal tests
require responses in the form of questions, statements,
suppositions, imaginative situations, product improvement, and multiple uses of materials (Torrance, 1990b). It
is also possible that the high-IQ groups were more f luent
NO 3
Figure 2. Mean pretest and posttest figural elaboration scores on Torrance Test of Creative Thinking for
high-IQ and average students.
or more adept in structuring their mental apparatuses,
which helped them to apply their verbal skills (Hunt,
1978). Sternberg (1981) has maintained that higher order
thinking processes could possibly allow high-IQ students
to excel in the access and implementation of information.
The high-IQ students were able to reason in a logical
manner, making connections among ideas and perceiving
more aspects of a problem.
The average subjects scored higher on figural elaboration than the high-IQ students. This might be attributed to a relative strength on nonverbal tasks, which
allowed them to elaborate on their drawings over an
extended period of time. As suggested by Gardner (1983,
1995), both groups appeared to have relative strengths
and weaknesses in different areas. The findings in this
empirical study are of significance because they indicate
that IQ may be limited in its importance as a predictor of
creativity. There was no indication that the high-IQ students were more creative overall than the average students. Therefore, IQ does not correlate with creativity
measures, which is consistent with previous research
studies.
The findings, moreover, may provide some corraborative evidence for the support of Houtz, Denmark,
Rosenfield, and Tetenbaums (1980) study, which
showed that the effects of intelligence on tolerance for
ambiguity, locus of control, and self-esteem may be less
important than the effects of affective characteristics.
Previous research has indicated that intelligence, creativity, and problem solving can be separated conceptually
(Guilford, 1975; Sternberg, 1981, 1984; Taylor &
Holland, 1962) and that other factors such as motivation
and determination impact upon creativity. Many others
have also indicated that IQ alone is not the sole predictor
of creative achievement and can only be one method for
the identification of divergent thinkers (Houtz,
Rosenfield, & Tetenbaum, 1978; Parnes & Noller, 1973;
Rose & Lin, 1984). Investigations by Amabile (1983,
1996), Gardner (1993), and Sternberg and Lubart (1991,
1995) have supported the importance of multiple components that are necessary for creativity to occur. While
this study has aimed to shed more light upon the relationship among IQ, creativity, and cognitive problemsolving strategies, future research needs to address
numerous significant and relevant issues surrounding
creativity.
Creativity must be viewed from a wide perspective.
Divergent thinking and divergent thinking tests are not
the sole predictors of creative performance. According to
Sternberg and Lubart (1996),
Researchers have criticized brief paper and pencil tests as trivial, inadequate measures of creativity (see essays in Sternberg, 1986); they suggested that more significant productionssuch as
drawings, writing samples, or vocational-avoca-
NO 3
187
Moreover, since the ability to generate ideas is only one

aspect of the creative process . . . its predominance devalues the integral role of creativity in the solving of problems (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999, p. 41). Runco (1991),
along with other researchers (Osborn, 1963; Torrance,
1976), contended that the evaluative component of the
creative process needs to be examined because it is a vital
constituent of the creative process and is necessary whenever a person chooses an idea in preference to another.
However, evaluative skill is only one component of
ideational creativity. Another essential ingredient for sustaining creative effort is intrinsic motivation, which is the
ability to derive rewards from an activity itself, rather
than from external incentives (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990).
Future research should attempt to uncover additional
components, develop an assessment technique that is not
biased by verbal ability, and bring to light the neurochemical bases of ideation. Additionally, empirically tested methods for training and improving creative expertise
are greatly needed. The focus of research should involve
experimental investigations in the areas of problem solving, strategies for the retrieval of knowledge, and personality variables (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995).
Expansion of more longitudinally based, multidimensional studies with larger real-world settings should
be another main objective of future research. They
should include a wider range of variables such as behavioral indices and affective assessment that may serve as
better predictors of the complex, multidimensional criterion of creative behavior.
education and training programs, the individuals natural

creative thinking abilities can be stimulated and nourished (Rose & Lin, 1984). The skills of creative thinking
are part of the skills of thinking, but have to be learned
directly in their own right. An intelligent person who has
not learned the skills of creative thinking might well be
less creative than a less intelligent person.
There probably will not be a single overarching theory of creativity that can explain all the aspects of creative
functioning. Creative cognition is by nature diverse and
affected by many processes. What is needed is the assessment and pursuit of the role of specific processes in creative functioning. At one time, the scientific approach to
the study of creativity seemed unattainable. Now, this
phenomenon is being studied with sophisticated methods
of manipulation, observation, and analysis. Future
research is promising, and teachers, educators, and psychologists can possibly expect some important strides in
the forthcoming years (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995).
In thinking about creativity, one must look at three
domains in which a person functions: the society and culture in which the person lives and the individual self.
These three areas have a considerable impact upon a person and attest the production of creative work
(Csikszentihimalyi, 1988). Humans are an enormously
creative species. The capacity for creative thought is the
rule, rather than the exception, in human cognitive functioning. Creative accomplishments are based on those
ordinary mental processes that, at least in principle, are
observable. These assumptions form the cornerstone of
the creative cognition approach to understanding human
creativity (Finke, Ward, & Smith, 1992; Smith, Ward, &
Finke, 1995). This philosophy is crucial to our next generation and all the forthcoming generations in the 21st
century. It should be remembered that Mans greatest
achievements are often the products of creative insights
and intellectual skills (Carr & Borkowski, 1987, p. 40).
Conclusion
References
In conclusion, evidence from the results of the present study suggests the need for creativity and problemsolving skills training for both average and gifted students.
The controversy surrounding the nature of creativity and
the applicable criterion used in measuring this psychological construct still remains a viable challenge to educators, psychologists, and laypeople. Through various
teaching methods, creative thinking can be developed
regardless of the individuals innate abilities. By means of
Amabile, T. M. (1983). Social psychology of creativity. New York:

Springer Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social
psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Carr, M., & Borkowski, J. G. (1987). Metamemory in gifted
children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 4044.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A
systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The
nature of creativity (pp. 325339). Cambridge, England:
Cambridge University Press.
tional accomplishmentsbe used in addition, or

better, instead (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989).
Other critics suggested that f luency, f lexibility,
originality, and elaboration scores failed to capture the concept of creativity (Amabile, 1983).
(p. 681)
188
NO 3
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). The domain of creativity. In M.
A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp
190212). Newburg Park, CA: Sage.
CTB Macmillan/McGraw-Hill. (1993). Test of Cognitive
Skills/2: Technical report. Monterey, CA: Author.
Davidson, J. E., & Sternberg, R. J. (1984). The role of insight
in intellectual giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 28, 5864.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring:
A new area of cognitive developmental inquiry. American
Psychologist, 34, 906911.
French, J. W. (1951). The description of aptitude and achievement
tests in terms of rotated factors. Psychometric Monographs, 5
(pp. 113; Part 2). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind: The theory of multiple intelligences. New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1988a). Creative lives and creative works: A
synthetic scientific approach. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 298321). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge
University Press.
Gardner, H. (1988b). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 826.
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds: An anatomy of creativity seen
through the lives of Freud, Einstein, Picasso, Stravinsky, Eliot,
Graham, and Gandhi. New York: BasicBooks.
Gardner, H. (1995). Multiple intelligences as a catalyst. English
Journal, 84, 1618.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1959). The highly intelligent
and the highly creative adolescent: A summary of some
research findings. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), The third University
of Utah research conference on the identification of creative scientific talent (pp. 4657). Salt Lake City: University of Utah.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence.
New York: Wiley.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5,
444454.
Guilford, J. P. (1959). Three faces of intellect. American
Guilford, J. P. (1964). Creative thinking and problem solving.
Education Digest, 29, 2931.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1972). Intellect and the gifted. Gifted Child
Quarterly, 16, 175187.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Varieties of creative giftedness, their
measurement and development. Gifted Child Quarterly, 19,
107121.
Guilford, J. P. (1977). Way beyond the IQ. Buffalo, NY: Creative
Education Foundation.
Guilford, J. P. (1984). Varieties of divergent-production abilities
or functions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18, 110.
Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1973). The one-way relation between creative potential and IQ. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 7, 247252.
Guilford, J. P., & Hoepfner, R. (1966). Creative potential as
related to measures of IQ and verbal comprehension.
Indian Journal of Psychology, 41, 716.
Houtz, J. C., Rosenfield, S., & Tetenbaum, T. J. (1978).
Creative thinking in gifted elementary schoolchildren.
Gifted Child Quarterly, 22, 513519.
Houtz, J. C., Denmark, R., Rosenfield, S. & Tetenbaum, T.
J. (1980). Problem solving and personality characteristics related to differing levels of intelligence and
ideational f luency. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
5, 118123.
Hunt, E. B. (1978). Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological
Review, 85, 109130.
Isaksen, S. G., & Parnes, S. J. (1985). Curriculum planning for
creative thinking and problem solving. Journal of Creative
Behavior, 19, 118.
Lowenfeld, V. (1959). What is creative teaching? In Proceedings of
second Minnesota conference on gifted children. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota.
Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment
approach to creativity: Theory and data. In S. M. Smith, T.
B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach
(pp. 271302). Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of
Technology.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1962). The nature and nurture of creative
talent. American Psychologist, 17, 484495.
McNemar, O. (1964). Lost: Our intelligence? Why? American
Millar, G. W. (2002). Torrance kids at M-Life. Westport, CT:
Ablex.
Osborn, A. F. (1963). Creative imagination (3rd ed). New York:
Scribners.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guide book. New York:
Scribners.
Parnes, S. J. (1972). Creativity: Unlocking human potential.
Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.
Parnes, S. J., & Noller, R. B. (1973). Toward supersanity:
Channeled freedom. Buffalo, NY: D.O.K.
Patton, C. (Ed.). (2002). Guidelines for evaluation 20022003.
Lexington, KY: Future Problem Solving Program 117.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg
(Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3561). Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Reisman, F., & Bach, C. N. (2002, April). Applying creativity to
uncover hidden talent in high school students. Paper presented at
the meeting of the American Creativity Association,
Drexel University, Philadelphia, PA.
Rose, L. H., & Lin, H. T. (1984). A meta-analysis of long-term
creativity training programs. Journal of Creative Behavior, 18,
1122.
NO 3
189
Runco, M. A. (1986). Maximal performance on divergent
thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted children
Psychological Schools, 23, 308 315.
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ; Ablex.
Runco, M. A., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem discovery,
divergent thinking, and the creative process. Journal of
Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211220.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). Paradoxes,
principles, and prospects for the future of creative cognition. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.),
The creative cognition approach (pp. 327335). Cambridge:
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Sternberg, R. J. (1981). A componential theory of intellectual
giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 25, 8693.
Sternberg, R. J. (1983). Criteria for intellectual skills training.
Educational Researcher, 12, 612.
Sternberg, R. J. (1984). What should intelligence tests test?
Implications of a triarchic theory of intelligence for intelligence testing. Educational Researcher, 13, 515.
Sternberg, R. J. (1985). A triarchic theory of intellectual giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), Conceptions
of giftedness (pp. 223243). Cambridge, England:
Sternberg, R. J., Conway, B., Ketron, J. L., & Bernstein, M.
(1981). Peoples conceptions of intelligence. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 3755.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of
creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 131.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity.
American Psychologist, 51, 677688.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.),
Handbook of creativity (pp. 315). Cambridge, England:
Taylor, C. W., & Holland, J. L. (1962). Development and application of tests of creativity. Review of Educational Research,
32, 91102.
Terman, L. M., Oden, M. H., & Bailey, M. (1947). The gifted
child grows up: Twenty-five years follow-up of a superior group.
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (1959). Explorations in creative thinking in the
190
early school years: A progress report. In C. W. Taylor

(Ed.), The third University of Utah research conference on the
identification of creative scientific talent (pp. 5871). Salt Lake
City: University of Utah.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking:
Directions manual and scoring guide, 1966. Bensenville, IL:
Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1972). Can we teach children to think creatively? Journal of Creative Behavior, 6, 114143.
Torrance, E. P. (1976). Creativity testing in education. Creative
Child and Adult Quarterly, 1, 136148.
Torrance, E. P. (1980). Creative intelligence and an agenda for
the 80s. Art Education, 33, 814.
Torrance, E. P. (1990a). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms
technical manual: Figural (Streamlined) forms A & B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1990b). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Verbal
forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1998). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms
technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (2000). Research review for the Torrance Tests of
Creative Thinking Figural and Verbal Forms A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service, Inc.
Torrance, E. P., & Ball, O. E. (1992). Torrance Tests of Creative
Thinking: Streamlined scoring guide figural A and B.
Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. & Wu, T. H. (1981). A comparative longitudinal study of the adult creative achievements of elementary
school children identified as highly intelligent and creative.
Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 7176.
Treffinger, D. J., & Poggio, J. P. (1972). Needed research on the
measurement of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 6,
253267.
Vernon, P. E. (1964). Creativity and intelligence. Educational
Research, 6, 163169.
Wallach, M. A. (1976). Tests tell us little about talent. American
Scientist, 64, 5763.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young
children. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Yamamoto, K. (1956). Validation tests of creative thinking: A
review of some studies. Exceptional Children, 31, 281290.
NO 3

A Comparative Study of Creativity and Cognitive Problem-Solving Strategies of High-IQ and Average Students

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Comparative Study of Creativity and Cognitive Problem-Solving Strategies of High-IQ and Average Students

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Gifted Child Quarterly

National Association for Gifted Children

Downloaded from http://gcq.sagepub.com by kimbao bao on April 14, 2009