The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is the most widely used norm-referenced creativity test used in gifted identification. Although commonly used for identifying talent, little is known about how creativity tests, like the TTCT-Figural, contribute to the probability of being identified as gifted especially with underrepresented populations. Using nominated students (n = 1,191) from a diverse midsized urban school district, this study examined the differential predictive validity among student demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, free/reduced price lunch status, English learning status, sex) and the TTCT-Figural to the probability of being identified as gifted. Results of a multilevel hierarchical generalized linear regression indicated underrepresented groups showed no difference in the probability of being identified after controlling for cognitive ability and academic achievement; the same was true when the TTCT-Figural was included within the model. The inclusion of the TTCT-Figural does contribute to the probability of identification; however, the disproportionality of underrepresented student groups remains in this school district. Gifted administrators looking to enhance equity may not find the solution with the mere inclusion of a creativity assessment. Implications for practice and future directions are discussed.
Abdulla AlabbasiA. M.PaekS. H.KimD.CramondB. (2022). What do educators need to know about the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: A comprehensive review. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, Article 1000385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1000385
2.
AcarS.BranchM. J.BurnettC.CabraJ. F. (2021). Assessing the universality of the zero originality lists of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT)-Figural: An examination with African American college students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(4), 354–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211012964
3.
AcarS.LeeL. E.HodgesJ. (2023). Assessing the robustness of the factor structure of TTCT-Figural: Replication-extension of a meta-CFA. Creativity Research Journal, 35(4), 547–567. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2023.2209393
4.
AcarS.SenS.CayirdagN. (2016). Consistency of the performance and nonperformance methods in gifted identification: A multilevel meta-analytic review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(2), 81–101. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216634438
5.
AcarS.TadikH.UysalR.MyersD.InetasB. (2023). Socio-economic status and creativity: A meta-analysis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 57(1), 138–172. https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.568
6.
AmabileT. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Westview Press.
7.
AndersonB. N. (2020). “See me, see us”: Understanding the intersections and continued marginalization of adolescent gifted Black girls in U.S. classrooms. Gifted Child Today, 43(2), 86–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/1076217519898216
8.
BaerJ. (2018). The trouble with “creativity.” In SternbergR. J.KaufmanJ. C. (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 16–31). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108185936.004
BarbotB.Reiter-PalmonR. (2019). Creativity assessment: Pitfalls, solutions, and standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 131–132. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000251
11.
BartW. M.HokansonB.CanI. (2017). An investigation of the factor structure of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 515–528. https://doi.org/I10.12738/estp.2017.2.0051
12.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS.ChristensenR. H. B.SingmannH.DaiB.ScheiplF.GrothendieckG.GreenP.FoxJ.BauerA.KrivitskyP. N. (2022). lme4: Linear mixed-effects models using “Eigen” and S4 (R package version 1.1-31). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/lme4/lme4.pdf
13.
BenjaminiY.HochbergY. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B, 57(1), 289–300. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2346101
14.
BorlandJ. (2004). Issues and practices in the identification and education of gifted students from under-represented groups. U.S. Department of Education. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED485164
15.
CarmanC. A.WaltherC. A. P.BartschR. A. (2020). Differences in using the Cognitive Abilities Test (CogAT) 7 Nonverbal Battery versus the Naglieri Nonverbal Ability Test (NNAT) 2 to identify the gifted/talented. Gifted Child Quarterly, 64(3), 171–191. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220921164
16.
ClaphamM. M. (2004). The convergent validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and creativity interest inventories. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64(5), 828–841. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164404263883
17.
CramondB.Matthews-MorganJ.BandalosD.ZuoL. (2005). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child Quarterly, 49(4), 283–291. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698620504900402
18.
DixsonD. D.PetersS. J.MakelM. C.JollyJ. L.MatthewsM. S.MillerE. M.Rambo-HernandezK. E.RinnA. N.RobinsJ. H.WilsonH. E. (2020). A call to reframe gifted education as maximizing learning. Phi Delta Kappan, 102(4), 22–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721720978057
19.
DunbarS. B.WelchC.HooverH. D.ForsythD. A.FrisbieD. A.AnsleyT. N. (2015). Forms E and F: Research and development guide Iowa Assessments. University of Iowa.
20.
DunbarS. B.WelchC. J.HooverH. D.FrisbieD. A. (2011). Iowa assessments, Form E. Riverside Publishing.
21.
FinchW. H.BolinJ. E.KelleyK. (2014). Multilevel modeling using R. CRC Press.
22.
FordD. Y. (2010). Multicultural issues: Underrepresentation of culturally different students in gifted education: Reflections about current problems and recommendations for the future. Gifted Child Today, 33(3), 31–35. https://doi.org/10.1177/107621751003300308
23.
FordD. Y.GranthamT. C. (2003). Providing access for culturally diverse gifted students: From deficit to dynamic thinking. Theory Intopractice, 42(3), 217–225. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4203_8
24.
FordD. Y.WrightB. L.ScottM. T. (2020). A matter of equity: Desegregating and integrating gifted and talented education for underrepresented students of color. Multicultural Perspectives, 22(1), 28–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/15210960.2020.1728275
25.
GagnéF. (2017). The integrative model of talent development (IMTD): From theory to educational applications. In PluckerJ. A.RinnA. N.MakelM. C. (Eds.), From giftedness to gifted education: Reflecting theory in practice (pp. 149–182). Prufrock Press.
26.
GajdaA.KarwowskiM.BeghettoR. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133
GentryM.GrayA.WhitingG. W.MaedaY.PereiraN. (2019). Access denied/system failure. Gifted education in the United States: Laws, access, equity, and missingness across the country by locale, title I school status, and race. Report cards, technical report, and website. Purdue University. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation.
29.
GetzelsJ. W.JacksonP. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Exploration with gifted students. John Wiley.
30.
GrahamJ. W.OlchowskiA. E. (2007). How many imputations are really needed? Some practical clarifications of multiple imputation theory. Prevention Science, 8(3), 206–213. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11121-007-0070-9
31.
GranthamT. C. (2013). Creativity and equity: The legacy of E. Paul Torrance as an upstander for gifted Black males. The Urban Review, 45(4), 518–538. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11256-013-0257-2
32.
GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.Ottone-CrossK.McCoachD. B.LangleyS. D.CallahanC. M.BrodersenA. V.CaugheyM. (2021). Identifying and serving gifted and talented students: Are identification and services connected?Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 115–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220988308
HodgesJ.MunR. U.RinnA. N. (2022). Disentangling inequity in gifted education: The need for nuance in racial/ethnic categories, socioeconomic status, and geography. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 154–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211040533
36.
HooverH. D.DunbarS. B.FrisbieD. A.OberleyK. R.BrayG. B.NaylorR. J.LewisJ. C.OrdmanV. L.QuallsA. L. (2007). Iowa tests of basic skills: Norms and score conversions. Riverside Publishing.
JaukE.BenedekM.DunstB.NeubauerA. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212–221. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
JollyJ. L.RobinsJ. H. (2018). History of gifted education. In RobertsJ. L.InmanT. F.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Introduction to gifted education (pp. 17–30). Prufrock Press.
41.
KarwowskiM.DulJ.GralewskiJ.JaukE.JankowskaD. M.GajdaA.ChruszczewskiM. H.BenedekM. (2016). Is creativity without intelligence possible? A necessary condition analysis. Intelligence, 57, 105–117. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.04.006
42.
KaufmanJ. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14(3), 189–203. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0020133
43.
KaufmanJ. C.PluckerJ. A. (2011). Intelligence and creativity. In SternbergR. J.KaufmanS. B. (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of intelligence (pp. 771–783). Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511977244.039
44.
KaufmanJ. C.PluckerJ. A.BaerJ. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. John Wiley.
45.
KaufmanJ. C.PluckerJ. A.RussellC. M. (2012). Identifying and assessing creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 60–73. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911428196
46.
KimK. H. (2006). Can we trust creativity tests? A review of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Research Journal, 18(1), 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1801_2
47.
KimK. H.CramondB.BandalosD. L. (2006). The latent structure and measurement invariance of scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3), 459–477. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164405282456
LakinJ. (2018). Making the cut in gifted selection: Score combination rules and their impact on program diversity. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(2), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217752099
LeeL. E. (2021). Evaluating program diversity and the probability of gifted identification using the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking [Doctoral dissertation, University of North Texas]. UNT Digital Library. https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc1833574/m1/203/
52.
LeeL. E.AcarS.RinnA. N.MunR. U.Rambo-HernandezK. E. (2023, April). Differential predictive validity of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking-Figural. In PuryearJ. S.DumasD. (Eds.), Classic and Novel Approaches in Creativity Assessment and Programming: Implications for Gifted Education. American Educational Research Association.
53.
LeeL. E.OttweinJ. K.PetersS. J. (2020). Eight universal truths of identifying students for advanced academic interventions. In JollyJ. L.RobinsJ. H. (Eds.), Methods & materials for teaching the gifted (5th ed., pp. 61–79). Prufrock Press.
54.
LeeL. E.PetersS. J. (2022). Universal screening: A process to promote equity. In JohnsenS.VanTassel-BaskaJ. (Eds.), Handbook on assessments for gifted learners (pp. 29–43). Prufrock Press.
55.
LiG.WangL. (2008). Model minority myth revisited: An interdisciplinary approach to demystifying Asian American educational experiences. Information Age Publishing.
56.
LittleR. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83(404), 1198–1202. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.1988.10478722
57.
LohmanD. F. (2009). Identifying academically talented students: Some general principles, two specific procedures. In ShavininaL. V. (Ed.), International handbook on giftedness (pp. 971–997). Springer Science + Business Media.
58.
LohmanD. F. (2012). Cognitive abilities test Form 7: Research and development guide. Riverside Assessments.
59.
LongD. A.McCoachD. B.PetersS. J.PetersP. M. (2022, November). Implications of multiple measures on the size, ability, and diversity of gifted populations [Conference presentation]. National Association for Gifted Children Annual Conference, Indianapolis, IN.
60.
LongD. A.McCoachD. B.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.GubbinsE. J. (2023). Inequality at the starting line: Underrepresentation in gifted identification and disparities in early Achievement. AERA Open, 9(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584231171535
LuriaS. R.O’BrienR. L.KaufmanJ. C. (2016). Creativity in gifted identification: Increasing accuracy and diversity. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1377(1), 44–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/nyas.13136
63.
MacKinnonD. P.KrullJ. L.LockwoodC. M. (2000). Equivalence of the mediation, confounding and suppression effect. Prevention Science: The Official Journal of the Society for Prevention Research, 1(4), 173–181. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1026595011371
MakerC. J. (2005). The DISCOVER Project: Improving assessment and curriculum for diverse gifted learners (RM05206). University of Connecticut, The National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.
66.
MakerC. J. (2020). Identifying exceptional talent in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics: Increasing diversity and assessing creative problem-solving. Journal of Advanced Academics, 31(3), 161–210. https://doi.org/10.1177/1932202X20918203
67.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.MillerE. M. (2016). The impact of the nomination stage on gifted program identification: A comprehensive psychometric analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(4), 258–278. https://doi.org/10.1177001169886216656256
68.
McBeeM. T.PetersS. J.WatermanC. (2014). Combining scores in multiple-criteria assessment systems: The impact of combination rule. Gifted Child Quarterly, 58(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986213513794
MunR. U.EzzaniM.LeeL. E. (2020). Culturally relevant leadership in gifted education: A systematic review. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 43(2), 108–142. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353220912009
71.
MunR. U.EzzaniM. D.LeeL. E.OttweinJ. K. (2021). Building systemic capacity to improve identification and services in gifted education: A case study of one district. Gifted Child Quarterly, 65(2), 132–152. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986220967376
72.
MunR. U.LangleyS. D.WareS.GubbinsE. J.SiegleD.CallahanC. M.McCoachD. B.HamiltonR. (2016). Effective practices for identifying and serving English Learners in gifted education: A systematic review of the literature (NCRGE). National Center for Research on Gifted Education. https://ncrge.uconn.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/982/2016/01/NCRGE_EL_Lit-Review.pdf
73.
NakagawaS.JohnsonP. C. D.SchielzethH. (2017). The coefficient of determination R2 and intra-class correlation coefficient from generalized linear mixed-effects models revisited and expanded. Journal of the Royal Society Interface, 14(134), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsif.2017.0213
74.
Olszewski-KubiliusP.CorwithS. (2018). Poverty, academic achievement, and giftedness: A literature review. Gifted Child Quarterly, 62(1), 37–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986217738015
PetersS. J. (2022). The challenges of achieving equity within public school gifted and talented programs. Gifted Child Quarterly, 66(2), 82–94. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862211002535
77.
PetersS. J.EngerrandK. G. (2016). Equity and excellence: Proactive efforts in the identification of underrepresented students for gifted and talented services. Gifted Child Quarterly, 60(3), 159–171. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986216643165
78.
PetersS. J.GentryM.WhitingG. W.McBeeM. T. (2019a). Who gets served in gifted education? Demographic representation and a call for action. Gifted Child Quarterly, 63(4), 273–287. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986219833738
79.
PetersS. J.Rambo-HernandezK.MakelM. C.MatthewsM. S.PluckerJ. A. (2019b). Effect of local norms on racial and ethnic representation in gifted education. AERA Open, 5(2), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419848446
80.
PetersS. J.StambaughT.MakelM. C.LeeL. E.McBeeM. T.McCoachD. B.JohnsonK. R. (2023). The CASA Criteria for evaluating gifted and talented identification systems: Cost, alignment, sensitivity, and access. Gifted Child Quarterly, 67(2), 137–150. https://doi.org/10.1177/00169862221124887
81.
PeughJ. L.EndersC. K. (2004). Missing data in educational research: A review of reporting practices and suggestions for improvement. Review of Educational Research, 74(4), 525–556. http://www.jstor.org/stable/3515980
PluckerJ. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3
84.
PluckerJ. A.MakelM. C. (2021). Replication is important for educational psychology: Recent developments and key issues. Educational Psychologist, 56(2), 90–100. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2021.1895796
85.
PluckerJ. A.PetersS. J. (2016). Excellence gaps in education: Expanding opportunities for talented students. Harvard Education Press.
86.
PreckelF.HollingH.WieseM. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022
87.
Rambo-HernandezK. E.BrigandiC.AminS.SpillaneN. (2023). Who gets identified? The consequences of variability in teacher ratings and combination rules for determining eligibility for gifted services for young children. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 46(2), 111–139. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532231162612
88.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Sage.
89.
RavenJ.RavenJ. C.CourtJ. H. (1998). Manual for Raven’s progressive matrices and vocabulary scales: Section 1. General overview. Oxford Psychologists Press.
90.
RenzulliJ. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180–184, 261.
91.
RenzulliJ. S. (2010). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students: Technical and administration manual (3rd ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781003237808
92.
RenzulliJ. S. (2016). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting creative productivity. In ReisS. M. (Ed.), Reflections on gifted education: Critical works by Joseph S. Renzulli and colleagues (pp. 55–90). Prufrock Press Inc.
93.
RenzulliJ. S.HartmanR. K.CallahanC. M. (1971). Scale for Rating Behavioral Characteristics of Superior Students (SRBCSS) [Database record]. APA PsycTests. https://doi.org/10.1037/t24062-000
94.
RinnA. N.MunR. U.HodgesJ. (2022). 2020-2021 State of the states in gifted education. National Association for Gifted Children and the Council of State Directors of Programs for the Gifted. https://nagc.org/page/state-of-the-states-report
95.
RStudio Team. (2020). RStudio: Integrated development for R (Version 1.2.1335). RStudio, Inc. https://rstudio.com
RuncoM. A.AlbertR. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212–218.
99.
RuncoM. A.MillarG.AcarS.CramondB. (2010). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 361–368. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2010.523393
100.
Said-MetwalyS.Fernández-CastillaB.KyndtE.Van den NoortgateW. (2018). The factor structure of the Figural Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: A meta-confirmatory factor analysis. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 352–360. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1530534
101.
ShiB.WangL.YangJ.ZhangM.XuL. (2017). Relationship between divergent thinking and intelligence: An empirical study of the threshold hypothesis with Chinese children. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 254. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00254
102.
SiegleD.GubbinsE. J.O’RourkeP.LangleyS. D.MunR. U.LuriaS. R.LittleC. A.McCoachD. B.KnuppT.CallahanC. M.PluckerJ. A. (2016). Barriers to underserved students’ participation in gifted programs and possible solutions. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 39(2), 103–131. https://doi.org/10.1177/0162353216640930
103.
TannenbaumA. J. (2003). Nature and nurture of giftedness. In ColangeloN.DavisG. A. (Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 45–59). Allyn & Bacon.
TorranceE. P. (1971). Are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking biased against or in favor of the “disadvantaged” groups?Gifted Child Quarterly, 15(2), 75–80. https://doi.org/10.1177/001698627101500201
TorranceE. P. (2004). The role of creativity in identification of the gifted and talented. In TreffingerD. J. (Ed.), Creativity and giftedness (Vol. 10, pp. 79–86). Corwin Press.
109.
TorranceE. P. (2017). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking norms-technical manual for figural Forms A and B. Scholastic Testing Service.
110.
TreffingerD. J. (2004). Research on creativity. In TreffingerD. J. (Ed.), Creativity and giftedness (Vol. 10, pp. 87–96). Corwin Press.
Van BuurenS.Groothuis-OudshoornK.VinkG.SchoutenR.RobitzschA.DooveL.JolaniS.Moreno-BetancurM.WhiteI.GaffertP.MeinfelderF.GrayB. (2020). Mice: Multivariate imputation by chained equations (Version 3.9.0). https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/mice/mice.pdf
113.
VanTassel-BaskaJ.FengA. X.EvansB. L. (2007). Patterns of identification and performance among gifted students identified through performance tasks: A three-year analysis. Gifted Child Quarterly, 51(3), 218–231. https://doi.org/10.1177/0016986207302717
114.
WallachM. A.KoganN. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
115.
WarneR. T. (2015). Test review: Cognitive abilities test, Form 7 (CogAT7). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 33(2), 188–192. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914548324
116.
WelterM. M.JaarsveldS.van LeeuwenC.LachmannT. (2016). Intelligence and creativity: Over the threshold together?Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 212–218. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1162564
117.
WooS. E.LeBretonJ. M.KeithM. G.TayL. (2023). Bias, fairness, and validity in graduate-school admissions: A psychometric perspective. Perspectives on Psychological Science: A Journal of the Association for Psychological Science, 18(1), 3–31. https://doi.org/10.1177/17456916211055374
118.
YeungG.MunR. U. (2022). A renewed call for disaggregation of racial and ethnic data: Advancing scientific rigor and equity in gifted and talented education research. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 45(4), 319–351. https://doi.org/10.1177/01623532221123795
119.
YoonC.-H. (2017). A validation study of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking with a sample of Korean elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 26(2017), 38–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2017.05.004
