#117 from R&D Innovator Volume 3, Number 9         September 1994

Can You Test for Creativity?
by William J. Riffe, Ph.D.

Dr. Riffe is professor of Manufacturing Systems Engineering at GMI Engineering & Management Institute in Flint, Michigan.  He is a Charter Member of the American Creativity Association, and has written on his unique approach to creativity in the classroom.

There is much interest in the subject of creativity today, both in industry and in education.  Many people are offering their services as teachers of creativity. 

I don’t believe that one can “teach” creativity in the sense of “teaching” math, science or humanities classes.  But I do believe one can guide people to get in touch with their inherent creativity, which is what I do in an “Engineering Creativity” college course. 

My philosophy is that creativity is a process, not a product.  To understand how that process works, the course includes discussion of neural physiology (the brain and its operation), information and how we absorb and modify it (sometimes unwittingly), the roles we take in pursuing a creative opportunity, and the joys and obligations associated with intellectual property. 

How can I know whether the course actually stimulates my students’ creativity?  I can’t test the students as I would for their knowledge of math or science.\

Let’s Compare Scores

Dr. Robert Weber of Marquette University and I decided to compare creativity evaluations between our students.  We administered three popular and well-regarded evaluations—the Herrmann Brain Dominance Instrument (HBDI), the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI), and the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT).  Each of these evaluations presents a score on a continuum; they are not absolute statements about individuals.   

HBDI is a 120-question, self-completed questionnaire designed to evaluate thinking style.  Responses are scored against a standardized response listing to determine thinking and activity strengths.  One person may be strong in logical thinking and another in expressing emotions.  Or someone may be very organized, and someone else highly innovative.

At the beginning of each term, I routinely administer the HBDI to help students understand their individual approaches to problems, and to increase appreciation for the variety of problem-solving styles which different people manifest.

MBTI is directed at evaluating behavior and attitudes.  Unlike problem-solving tests like the HBDI, it is more applicable to social and moral issues.  This test defines people as extroverts or introverts; users of sensing versus intuition; thinkers versus feelers; and judges versus perceivers.

TTCT evaluates one’s ability to expand thinking beyond traditional forms.  Students are asked to complete graphic problems—such as incorporating a triangle into as many picture ideas as possible—in a limited time.  Scoring evaluates the number of responses (fluency), uniqueness (originality), extension of the basic images (elaboration), and other factors such as closure, creative strengths, and titles of the drawings.

With the assistance of Dr. Anne Fishkin at West Virginia Graduate College, our students’ scores were compared.  If the tests actually indicate some innate level of creativity, then the scores of our classes should be similar since both engineering schools (GMI and Marquette) have similar entrance requirements and student academic levels.

While there was scattered correlation in the HBDI and MBTI values, significant differences appeared in the TTCT scores.  Marquette students scored very high in the “titles” portion, typical of an engineering proclivity to name things in the quest for good organization.  GMI students scored equally high in “elaboration” but low in “titles.”  The GMI students had more elements to their sketches, more figures for each image. 

What caused the difference?  One variable we could not control was the timing of the evaluations.  At GMI, the HBDI is given on the first day of class and the other two tests later in the term.  At Marquette, all three were given very early.

Could the difference be in the course material?  GMI students were pursuing a normal mechanical engineering curriculum, but they had also received special instruction and had already spent class time doing exercises similar to the TTCT (not by intent but by happenstance). 

Had I really taught creativity?  I doubt it; I still believe one cannot teach creativity.  Perhaps I had given permission—allowed students the freedom to express themselves without instructor or class criticism.  By establishing the proper environment and offering encouragement, one can certainly facilitate the expression of creative ideas. 

What was dramatically apparent was that the conditioning of the students at GMI seemed to affect the results of the TTCT.  Unfortunately,  I didn’t follow up with the students to ask if they feel more creative in their daily lives.  Also, it would have been interesting to give the same test to both groups months or years later—to determine the length such conditioning might last.  While many tests presume to measure one’s creativity level or strength, it’s not clear that scores predict anyone's creative potential. 

What do you think?  Can creativity be taught, or is it an inherent human trait that appears when the person is properly encouraged and stimulated?  If the former, how do we design the syllabus, deliver the material, and evaluate the learning by students?  If the latter, we may need new ways to approach students about creativity.

This experience points out a weakness of creativity tests.  Pigeonholing individuals based on such tests doesn’t seem to be appropriate. 

One further conclusion:  the environment is of great importance in stimulating creativity.  So what can you do to change the workplace environment to increase your own, and your staff’s creativity?