This article examined a new creativity test designed for engineers, CQ: Creativity Quotient for Climates, Attitudes, and Thinking skills with Eye-Tracking. The creativity quotient expanded and enhanced both the figural and verbal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking skills. Creativity quotient added new, more comprehensive measures of creative climates, attitudes, and thinking skills that comprise Kim’s creative climates, attitudes, and thinking skills model of creativity. Additionally, its patented online eye-tracking technology assesses test-takers’ creative-attitude and thinking-skill tendencies by tracking the changes in test-takers’ pupil diameters, eye-blink frequency, micro-saccade rates, fixation durations or curves, and smooth-pursuit movements. Finally, the creativity quotient assesses creative thinking skills using pattern-recognition technology to instantly and objectively analyze and score test-takers’ drawings, which previously required trained human scorers. Upon completion of the creativity quotient, test-takers receive a detailed, comprehensive, itemized report about the strengths and weaknesses of their climates, attitudes, and thinking skills along with individualized advice on how to enhance their creativity to achieve an innovation.
Kim KH. The creativity challenge: how we can recapture American innovation. Amherst, NJ: Prometheus, 2016.
2.
OwensWA. The owns’ creativity test for machine design, Iowa City: Iowa University Press, 1960.
3.
LawsheCHHarrisDH. The Purdue creativity test, West Lafayette, IN: Purdue Research Foundation, 1960.
4.
CharytonCJagacinskiRJMerrillJA. CEDA: a research instrument for creative engineering assessment. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts2008; 2: 147–54.
5.
CharytonCMerrillJA. Assessing general creativity and creative engineering in first year engineering students. J Eng Educ2009; 98: 145–156.
6.
HennesseyBAAmabileTMMuellerJS. Consensual assessment, San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 2011, pp. 253–260.
7.
DensonCDBuelinJKLammiMDet al.Developing instrumentation for assessing creativity in engineering. J Tech Educ2015; 27: 23–40.
8.
CasakinHPKreitlerS. The cognitive profile of creativity in design. Think Skills Creat2011; 6: 159–168.
9.
CharytonC. Creativity (scientific, artistic, general) and risk tolerance among engineering and music students, USA: Doctoral Dissertation, Temple University, 2004.
10.
CharytonCSnelbeckerGE. General, artistic and scientific creativity attributes of engineering and music students. Creativity Res J2007; 19: 213–225.
11.
ChristiaansH. Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Res J2002; 14: 41–45.
12.
CropleyDCropleyA. Engineering creativity: a systems concept of functional creativity, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence, 2005.
13.
ShahJJSmithSMVargas-HernandezN. Metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud2003; 24: 111–134.
14.
KimKH. Commentary: the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking already overcome many of the perceived weaknesses that Silvia et al.’s (2008) methods are intended to correct. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts2008; 2: 97–99.
15.
KimKH. Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. J Creat Behav2008; 42: 106–130.
16.
KimKH. Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts2011; 5: 314–315.
17.
KimKH. The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century?Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts2011; 5: 302–308.
18.
KimKH. Can we trust creativity tests? A review of The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Creativity Res J2006; 18: 3–14.
19.
MillarGW. The Torrance kids at mid-life, Westport, CT: Ablex, 2002.
20.
RuncoMAMillarGAcarSet al.Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: a fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Res J2010; 22: 361–368.
21.
TorranceEP. The manifesto: a guide to developing a creative career, West Westport, CT: Ablex, 2002.
22.
BaerJ. Creativity and divergent thinking: a task-specific approach, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993.
23.
Baer J. The division 10 debate – are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century?: Torrance tests are not still relevant in the 21st century. In: Paper presented at the 117th convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Canada, 16–10 August 2009.
24.
PluckerJA. Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalysis of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Res J1999; 12: 103–114.
25.
Kim KH, Shim PC and Lee JS. Systems and methods for video communication. Patent 9843713, USA, 2017.
26.
Kim KH and Lee JS. Systems and apparatus for creativity testing and scoring using eye and/or head-tracking. Patent application USPTO 15/398,269, USA, 2017.
27.
EricssonKA. The road to excellence, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996.
28.
EricssonKANandagopalKRoringRW. Giftedness viewed from the expert-performance perspective. J Educ Gifted2005; 28: 287–311.
29.
GardnerHThe relationship between early giftedness and later achievement. In: GRBockKAckrill (eds). The origins and development of high ability, Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, 1993, pp. 175–185.
30.
HayesJR. The complete problem solver, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1989.
31.
NelsonBAWilsonJORosenDet al.Refined metrics for measuring ideation effectiveness. Des Stud2009; 30: 737–743.
32.
CasakinHP. Metaphors in design problem-solving: implications for creativity. Int J Des Ed2007; 1: 23–35.
33.
UedaYTominagaAKajimuraSet al.Spontaneous eye blinks during creative task correlate with divergent processing. Psychol Res2016; 80: 652–659.
34.
AshbyGFIsenAMTurkenAU. A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychol Rev1999; 106: 529–550.
35.
Akbari ChermahiniSHommelB. The (b)link between creativity and dopamine: spontaneous eye blink rates predict and dissociate divergent and convergent thinking. Cognition2010; 115: 458–465.
36.
ColzatoLSvan den WildenbergWPMvan WouweNCet al.Dopamine and inhibitory action control: evidence from spontaneous eye blink rates. Exp Brain Res2009; 196: 467–474.
37.
ReuterMRothSHolveKet al.Identification of first candidate genes for creativity: a pilot study. Brain Res2006; 1069: 190–197.
38.
FriedMTsitsiashviliEBonnehYSet al.ADHD subjects fail to suppress eye blinks and microsaccades while anticipating visual stimuli but recover with medication. Vision Res2014; 101: 62–72.
39.
SalviCBowdenEM. Looking for creativity: where do we look when we look for new ideas?Front Psychol2016; 7: 1–12.
40.
Van Der StigchelSRommelseNNJDeijenJBet al.Oculomotor capture in ADHD. Cogn Neuropsychol2007; 24: 535–549.
41.
RommelseNJJVan der StigchelSSergeantJA. A review on eye movement studies in childhood and adolescent psychiatry. Brain Cogn2008; 68: 391–414.
42.
AgnoliSFranchinLRubaltelliEet al.An eye-tracking analysis of irrelevance processing as moderator of openness and creative performance. Creativity Res J2015; 27: 125–132.
43.
CarsonSPetersonJBHigginsD. Decreased latent inhibition is associated with increased creative achievement in high-functioning individuals. J Pers Soc Psychol2003; 85: 499–506.
44.
PetersonJBSmithKWCarsonS. Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: replication and commentary. Pers Ind Dif2002; 33: 1137–1147.
45.
GoldschmidtGTatsaD. How good are good ideas: correlates of design creativity. Des Stud2005; 26: 593–611.
46.
van der LugtR. How sketching can affect the idea generation process in design group meetings. Des Stud2006; 26: 101–122.
47.
BendetowiczDUrbanskiMAichelburgCet al.Brain morphometry predicts individual creative potential and the ability to combine remote ideas. Cortex2017; 86: 216–229.
48.
CasakinHP. Visual analogy, visual displays, and the nature of design problems: the effect of expertise. Environ Plann B Plann Des2010; 37: 170–188.
49.
KokEMJarodzkaHDe BruinABHet al.Systematic viewing in radiology: seeing more, missing less?Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract2016; 21: 189–205.
50.
KozhevnikovM. Cognitive styles in the context of modern psychology: toward an integrated framework of cognitive style. Psychol Bull2007; 133: 464–481.
51.
KozhevnikovMKosslynSShephardJ. Spatial versus object visualizers: a new characterization of visual cognitive style. Mem Cognit2005; 33: 710–726.
52.
Nitzan-TamarOKramarskiBVakilE. Eye movement patterns characteristic of cognitive style: wholistic versus analytic. J Exp Psychol2016; 63: 159–168.
53.
RozencwajgPCorroyerD. Cognitive processes in the reflective–impulsive cognitive style. J Genet Psychol2005; 166: 451–463.
54.
TurkanBNAmadoSErcanESet al.Comparison of change detection performance and visual search patterns among children with/without ADHD: evidence from eye movements. Res Dev Disabil2016; 49–50: 205–215.
55.
AhmadG. Flow of analogical thoughts controls eye movements in scene viewing. J Next Generation Info Technol2014; 5: 118–125.
56.
AhmadG. Eye fixation curves along analogical thinking in scene viewing. Int J Eng Ind2015; 6: 54–62.
57.
KapoulaZAdenisMSLêTTet al.Pictorial depth increases body sway. Psychol Aesthet Creat Arts2011; 5: 186–193.
58.
PärnametsPJohanssonPHallLet al.Biasing moral decisions by exploiting the dynamics of eye gaze. Psychol Cogn Sci2015; 112: 4170–4175.
59.
StinsJFBeekPJ. Effects of affective picture viewing on postural control. BMC Neurosci2007; 8: 83–83.
60.
Kim KH. Can we trust creativity tests? A review of CQ: the Torrance tests of creative climates, attitudes, & thinking skills with eye-tracking. Under review.
