Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests.

Abstract

I want to thank Division 10, and especially Kyung Hee Kim, for making this debate possible. It has been interesting and illuminating, and I look forward to future Division 10 debates. I have space here to counter only a few of Kim’s arguments (this issue), most of which I’ve already addressed (Baer, this issue). In this short response, I’d like to focus on four ideas: (a) the use of multiple measures of giftedness, (b) interpretation of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) subscale scores, (c) what polymaths mean for domain specificity theory, and (d) the need for TTCT proponents to be consistent in their standards. (a) Like Kim, I strongly endorse the use of multiple measures of ability, and especially ones that tap creativity—but not ones that lack validity, which is the problem with TTCT scores. I agree with the many authors Kim cited (in her Is Using the TTCT Inappropriate? section) who have argued for more diverse and inclusive measures of ability. But it’s important to note that none of these experts has endorsed the use of the TTCT, and some of them are actively working on measures of creativity that can be used instead of the TTCT. This certainly isn’t due to lack of familiarity—no one would argue that the TTCT lacks a substantial track record—and one can only conclude that, although all of these authors endorse and encourage the use of multiple measures of ability, none of them has found the TTCT a sufficiently valid or useful tool. They all seem to agree with Simonton’s (2003) summary of the current state of creativity assessment: