The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment.

Current work on creativity is based on methodologies which either are psychometric in nature or were developed in response to perceived weaknesses of creativity measurement. However, psychometric perspectives on creativity are still a vibrant and vital area of study. Considerable evidence of validity (or lack thereof) has been gathered for a diverse set of instruments and assessment techniques, and the resulting improvement in measurement quality has opened the door to several exciting areas of research. We review some of the current issues, describe recent advances, and suggest future directions for psychometric approaches to creativity research.

The study of human creativity is currently receiving a great deal of attention from educators, researchers, and theorists. While much contemporary thought on creativity is moving away from psychometric perspectives toward more postmodern approaches (Feist & Runco, 1993; Runco, Nemiro, & Walberg, 1998), practically all current work on creativity is based upon methodologies which either are psychometric in nature or were developed in response to perceived weaknesses of creativity measurement (Plucker & Renzulli, in press). As such, psychometric studies of creativity conducted in the previous few decades form the foundation of current understandings of creativity. A review of psychometric creativity techniques benefits both individuals attempting to measure creativity and individuals studying creativity via other techniques.

The purpose of this article is to discuss a few of the current concerns about creativity measurement and possible future directions for research and practice in this area. Readers interested in comprehensive descriptions of psychometric approaches to creativity and divergent thinking are directed toward recent reviews of the topic (Davis, 1989; Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Plucker & Renzulli, in press; Runco, 1991, in press).

Current Issues

Fluency as a Contaminating Factor

Divergent thinking (DT) tests are among the most popular techniques for measuring creativity in educational settings (Hunsaker & Callahan, 1995; Runco, 1992a). These tests, also referred to as measures of ideational fluency, generally require students to provide as many responses as possible to prompts such as, "List things that make noise" or "List things that have wheels." Among the most popular DT tests are the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (Torrance, 1974) and the Wallach and Kogan (1965) tests. Responses are usually scored for originality (statistical infrequency) and fluency (number of responses).

Several researchers have noted that fluency can be a contaminating influence on originality scores -- if fluency is controlled, reliability evidence for originality scores is often very poor (Clark & Mirels, 1970; Hocevar, 1979c; Runco & Albert, 1985; Seddon, 1983). While several suggestions have been made regarding techniques for removing the influence of fluency on originality (e.g., Clark & Mirels, 1970, Hocevar, 1979a, 1979b; Hocevar & Michael, 1979), few studies have evaluated and compared the various suggestions with respect to the reliability and validity evidence for resulting originality scores.

For example, researchers have suggested that DT tests be administered so that every person provides the same number of answers, that originality scores be subjectively determined by external raters, that percentage scoring formulas be used, or that some combination of these techniques be employed (Clark & Mirels, 1970; Hocevar, 1979a; Hocevar & Michael, 1979; Runco & Mraz, 1992). Additionally, the possibility that individuals can subjectively rate the originality of their own responses has yet to be investigated in this context (cf. Runco & Smith, 1992).

Perhaps most importantly, the relative impact of these methods on concurrent validity has not been examined. Hocevar and Michael (1979) correctly observed that a majority of psychometric studies of DT test scores concentrated on obtaining evidence of reliability and convergent validity, while little evidence was gathered of discriminant validity. Consequently, subsequent research attempted to answer the discriminant validity questions but overlooked issues related to convergent validity (i.e., How do the various techniques for controlling for fluency impact correlations between DT originality scores and external criteria of creativity?) and more practical issues (i.e., How do each of the various techniques impact who is admitted to gifted and talented programs?). Although Runco and his colleagues (e.g., Runco, 1985; Runco & Mraz, 1992; Runco, Okuda, & Thurston, 1987) have conducted several studies to investigate the impact of various DT scoring techniques, similar studies explicitly comparing techniques for controlling fluency have yet to be completed. Issues of convergent validity need to be addressed in order for us to gain a comprehensive understanding of the impact of fluency on originality.

Content Generality-Specificity

Creativity has lately been considered to be content specific (Baer, 1993). That is, creative activity within one content area is independent of creativity in other content areas. Both theoretical and empirical evidence have appeared to support the notion that creativity is content specific (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Gardner, 1993; Runco, 1989b; Stemberg & Lubart, 1995). Indeed, Baer (1994a, 1994b, 1994c) argues that creativity is also task specific within content areas.

However, the issue of creative content generality-specificity is not without controversy. For example, Plucker (in press-c) questioned the conclusions drawn from content specificity research, suggesting that results appearing to support task specific views of creativity were merely providing evidence of a method effect: Specificity research generally uses alternative assessments of creativity, which is problematic due to the bias of alternative assessments in favor of task specificity.

In a recent debate, arguments were made in support of content specificity (Baer, in press) and content generality (Plucker, in press-a). In general, the participants agreed that the compelling issue is determining the conditions under which creativity is task and content specific and the conditions under which creativity is content general. Taking that logic a step further, researchers should try to identify those aspects of creative production that are task specific and those that are generally applied (i.e., perhaps creative self-efficacy, certain cognitive skills) during each creative moment.

Recent Advances

Predictive Validity 

More than any other factor, the perceived lack of predictive validity for DT tests (Baer, 1993; Gardner, 1993; Kogan & Pankove, 1974; Weisberg, 1993) has led researchers and educators to avoid the use of these tests (Plucker & Renzulli, in press). The definitive critique of DT tests' validity was supplied by Wallach (1976), who observed that "subjects vary widely and systematically in their attainments - yet little if any of that systematic variation is captured by individual differences on ideational fluency tests" (p. 60).

Many possible reasons for weak predictive validity coefficients represent weaknesses in methodology more than weaknesses in psychometric approaches to creativity research. For example, studies may be too short in duration, and inadequate statistical procedures may be employed in the presence of nonnormally distributed data (Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989; Plucker & Renzulli, in press; Torrance, 1979). Indeed, researchers who have addressed at least a few of these weaknesses (e.g., Hong, Milgram, & Gorsky, 1995; Milgram & Hong, 1993; Okuda, Runco, & Berger, 1991; Plucker, in press-b; Sawyers & Canestaro, 1989) have collected positive evidence of predictive validity.

Another methodological factor that may have a negative impact on the predictive validity of DT test scores is the reliance on ineffective outcome criteria in longitudinal studies. For example, Runco (1986) stressed that both quantity and quality of creative achievement should be included as outcome variables, in contrast to a traditional reliance on quantity. Again, studies including both types of outcome variables provide considerably improved support for the predictive validity of DT tests (e.g., Plucker, in press-b). Runco (in press) has developed a criterion measure that is directly related to ideation, which is what DT should predict - rather than, for example, achievement in crafts or some verbal domain. Plucker and Runco (in preparation) are developing a similar ideation checklist. Many of the remaining critics of DT tests' predictive validity are individuals who are primarily critical of psychometric methodologies in general and not specifically of DT tests (e.g., Gardner, 1988, 1993; see Plucker & Renzulli, in press).

Implicit Theories

Perhaps the most exciting development in recent years, both in creativity measurement and the social sciences in general, is related to implicit or folk theories of psychological constructs. In contrast to traditional studies that rely on experts' definitions and theories of creativity (i.e., explicit theories), these researchers assess individuals' personal definitions of creativity (i.e., implicit theories). From a practical standpoint, when people engage in creative activity, they do not have explicit theories in mind. Their thoughts and actions are guided by personal definitions of creativity and beliefs about how to foster and evaluate creativity that may be very different from the theories developed by creativity experts. An understanding of implicit theories provides both researchers and practitioners with insight into creativity.

The study of implicit theories has yielded considerable benefits in three areas related to creativity assessment: straightforward analyses of implicit theories, socially valid techniques for instrument design, and improved strategies for evaluating creative products. In the first area, researchers have found that adjectives such as adventurous, artistic, and curious are generally included in adults' implicit theories of children's creativity (Runco, 1984, 1989b; Runco & Bahleda, 1986; Runco, Johnson, & Bear, 1993); teachers and parents hold similar implicit definitions of creativity, although teachers emphasize social characteristics (e.g., friendly, easy-going) to a greater extent than parents (Runco et al., 1993); and college students' implicit definitions of creativity, intelligence, and wisdom are quite different, with each set of definitions similar - but not identical -- to the corresponding set of explicit definitions (Stemberg, 1985, 1990). Cross-cultural and discipline-specific comparisons of implicit creativity theories have yet to be conducted comprehensively and will have important implications for practitioners.

The use of social validation techniques to develop and validate creativity tests and rating scales has also become increasingly common. In these techniques, a target group's implicit theories are used to create creativity rating scales for use with other members of that group. For example, in creating a scale for teachers to use to rate students' creativity, Runco (1984) first conducted a study to identify characteristics that teachers generally included in their implicit theories of children's creativity. The characteristics were used to create the Teachers' Evaluation of Students' Creativity (TESC), which was further modified to increase ease of use and reliability (Runco, 1984). This process produces a socially valid instrument (i.e., one which corresponds well with the implicit theories of the person completing it). Furthermore, the social validation process, which has also been used in the development of parent and student scales, aids in the production of instruments that can be used as criterion in concurrent validity studies of DT tests and other creativity measures (Miller & Sawyers, 1989; Runco, 1984, 1987, 1989b).

A third area in which the impact of implicit creativity theory research can be felt is the evaluation of creative products. While external evaluation of creative products has been popular for many years (Amabile, 1982; Besemer & O'Quin, 1993; Besemer & Treffinger, 1981; Reis & Renzulli, 1991), implicit theory research has led to some recommendations for new procedures.

First, providing explicit guidelines for evaluating the creativity of a product may not be necessary or desirable (Amabile, 1990, 1996; Runco, 1989a). Amabile's (1996) development of and work with the Consensual Assessment Technique provides evidence that people can reliably evaluate the creativity of a product with relatively little training when an amorphous definition of creativity is used as the basis for evaluation. This training technique (or lack thereof), capitalizes on the general convergence in people's implicit theories of creativity (i.e., people know creativity when they see it).

Second, Amabile's technique generally calls for the use of expert judges during product assessment (e.g., expert judges of an artistic product should be professional artists). However, recent research has illustrated that intrapersonal and interpersonal evaluative skills are not highly correlated when applied to the evaluation of creative products (Runco & Chand, 1994; Runco, 1992b, Runco & Smith, 1992; Simonton, 1988). Choosing judges is not as easy as it appears at first glance.

Future Directions

While recent developments have been significant, they have illuminated the need for additional theoretical and empirical efforts. Given the current issues and recent developments in creativity assessment, in what directions can and should researchers focus their efforts?

Broadened Application of Psychometric Methods

For the past few decades, psychometric creativity research focused rather narrowly on the analysis of DT test scores and personality checklists. Fortunately, the focus of the field has widened to include other aspects of creativity, including systems of creative activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Rubenson & Runco, 1992; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), everyday or "little c" creativity (Richards, 1990), social, affective, and motivational aspects of creativity (Amabile, 1996; Simonton, 1988), and expanded views of cognitive aspects of creativity (Smith, Ward, & Finke, 1995; Ward, Smith, & Vaid, 1997), such as problem-finding and evaluation (Runco, 1993, 1994).

The challenge for researchers is to include these new and expanded perspectives of creativity in psychometric investigations of creativity. At the same time, a great deal of information on aspects of DT, especially the interaction of originality, fluency, and flexibility, remains to be uncovered. For example, questions surrounding the impact of technology use (e.g., access to the Internet) on originality and flexibility have yet to be investigated comprehensively. Also, the study of the impact of time on creativity can now be expanded to include variables representing evaluation, problem finding, ideation, and motivation. By expanding conceptions of creativity and assessment, more realistic models and theories can be tested and evaluated.

Reliance on Batteries of Assessments

Research and debate on predictive validity, content specificity-generality, and implicit theories provide concrete reasons for the use of multiple indicators of creativity. This recommendation entails both the use of several measures of creativity and the use of several different types of measures (e.g., DT tests, product assessments, personality measures, activity checklists, teacher, parent, peer, and self ratings).

While implicit theory and social validation research has led to improved teacher, parent, student, peer, and product rating scales, the scales can still be improved to produce more reliable and valid results than those presently attainable. In the same vein, the controversy over content specificity has called attention to the paucity of reliable and valid measures of creativity within specific areas, such as musical creativity (Baltzer, 1988), and predictive validity controversies highlighted the need for the development of more appropriate outcome measures.

Implicit in our discussion is the need for additional reliability and validity studies of instruments and techniques for measuring creativity. After all, much of the research cited in this article occurred after or at approximately the same time as published pronouncements of the futility of measuring creativity. Continued validity studies can only have a positive impact on the work of researchers and educators.

Translation into Practice

Creativity researchers face one particular problem that is not always shared with other investigators of psychological phenomenon: The need to translate our work into practice. With the renewed emphasis in creativity as an educational outcome, which can only grow given the popularity of creativity in business circles, nearly all creativity assessment efforts can have an immediate impact on school and classroom practice. Researchers should consider this impact when disseminating results. For example, when evaluating student creative products, researchers are generally cautioned to use different groups of evaluators due to differences in evaluative ability and implicit theories of creativity. However, this recommendation is quite problematic for teachers, who are limited in terms of the time and effort that they can devote to product evaluation. A better solution for teachers may be to develop techniques that allow a student's teacher and peers to help evaluate products in a manner that is less time-intensive.

Conclusions

The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated. Indeed, advances in assessment and statistical methodology have created an environment in which many of the compelling issues regarding creativity can be examined psychometrically. If researchers continue to broaden their conceptions of creativity and assessment, psychometric approaches to creativity will not only rise from their rumored sickbed but will also begin to thrive.

In 1988, Hennessey and Amabile made the following comment about the many roles that creativity assessment is called on to play in psychology and education.

Clearly, rather than relying on

one method to fulfill all these criteria,

it is more reasonable to assume

that some techniques will be more

appropriate to certain assessment

needs, such as the identification of

unusually gifted children within a

large national sample, and different

techniques will be better suited to

other needs....(p. 235)

Their thoughts certainly remain applicable, especially given the expanding role of assessment in our schools. But the past decade of creativity research should also encourage researchers and educators to utilize multiple indicators of creativity for each "assessment need," determining which combination of assessments to employ based on the purpose of the creativity assessment.

Author Note: A preliminary version of this article was presented at the Henry B. & Jocelyn Wallace National Research Symposium on Talent Development, Iowa City, Iowa, on May 20, 1998.

REFERENCES

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

Amabile, T. M. (1990). Within you, without you: A social psychology of creativity and beyond. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity (pp. 61-91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Baer, J. (1993, December/January). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 80-83.

Baer, J. (1994a). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35-36.

Baer, J. (1994b). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 17, 7-11.

Baer, J. (1994c, October). Why you still shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 72-73.

Baltzer, S. (1988). A validation study of a measure of musical creativity. Journal of Research in Music Education, 36, 232-249.

Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1993). Assessing creative products: Progress and potentials. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. J. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 331-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Company.

Besemer, S. P., & Treffinger, D. J. (1981). Analysis of creative products: Review and synthesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 15, 158-178.

Clark, P. M., & Mirels, H. L. (1970). Fluency as a pervasive element in the measurement of creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 83-86.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325-339). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257-274.

Feist, G. J., & Runco, M. A. (1993). Trends in the creativity research: An analysis of research in the Journal of Creative Behavior (1967-1989). Creativity Research Journal, 6, 271-286.

Gardner, H. (1988). Creativity: An interdisciplinary perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 1, 8-26.

Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1988). Storytelling: A method for assessing children's creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 22, 235-246.

Hocevar, D. (1979a). A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 297-299.

Hocevar, D. (1979b). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196.

Hocevar, D. (1979c). The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth grade children. Child Study Journal, 9, 273-278.

Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53-75). New York: Plenum Press.

Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917-921.

Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Gorsky, H. (1995). Original thinking as a predictor of creative performance in young children. Roeper Review, 18, 147-149.

Hunsaker, S. L., & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 110-114.

Kogan, N., & Pankove, E. (1974). Long-term predictive validity of divergent-thinking tests: Some negative evidence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 66, 802-810.

Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. Roeper Review, 15, 135-139.

Miller, H. B., & Sawyers, J. K. (1989). A comparison of self and teachers' ratings of creativity in fifth-grade children. The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 14, 179-185, 229, 238.

Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving or real-world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45-53.

Plucker, J. A. (in press-a). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal.

Plucker, J. A. (in press-b). Is the proof is in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance's (1958 - present) longitudinal study data. Creativity Research Journal.

Plucker, J. A. (in press-c). Student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior.

Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (in press). Psychometric approaches to the study of creativity. In R. J. Stemberg (Ed.), Handbook of human creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. A. (in preparation). Development and psychometric properties of an ideation checklist.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128-134.

Richards, R. (1990). Everyday creativity, eminent creativity, and health: Afterview for CRJ issues on creativity and health. Creativity Research Journal, 3, 300-326.

Rubenson, D. L., & Runco, M. A. (1992). The psychoeconomic approach to creativity. New Ideas in Psychology, 10, 131-147.

Runco, M. A. (1984). Teachers' judgments of creativity and social validation of divergent thinking tests. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 59, 711-717.

Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1075-1081.

Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375-384.

Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students' creativity. Psychological Reports, 61, 1009-1010.

Runco, M. A. (1989a). The creativity of children's art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177-189.

Runco, M. A. (1989b). Parents' and teachers' ratings of the creativity of children. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 73-83.

Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (1992a). Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation. Developmental Review, 12, 233-264.

Runco, M. A. (1992b). The evaluative, valuative, and divergent thinking of children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 311-319.

Runco, M. A. (1993). Divergent thinking, creativity, and giftedness. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 16-22.

Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (1994). Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (in press). Divergent and creative thinking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483-501.

Runco, M. A., & Bahleda, M. D. (1986). Implicit theories of artistic, scientific, and everyday creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 20, 93-98.

Runco, M. A., & Chand, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40-76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.

Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. J., & Bear, P. K. (1993). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.

Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213-221.

Runco, M. A., Nemiro, J., & Walberg, H. J. (1998). Personal explicit theories of creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 32, 1-17.

Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 149-156.

Runco, M. A., & Smith, W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295-302.

Sawyers, J. K., & Canestaro, N. C. (1989). Creativity and achievement in design coursework. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 126-133.

Seddon, G. M. (1983). The measurement and properties of divergent thinking ability as a single compound entity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 20, 393-402.

Simonton, D. K. (1988). Scientific genius: A psychology of science. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.). (1995). The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Sternberg, R. J. (1985). Implicit theories of intelligence, creativity, and wisdom. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 49, 607-627.

Sternberg, R. J. (1990). Wisdom and its relation to intelligence and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Wisdom (pp. 142-159). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.

Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn and Company.

Torrance, E. P. (1979). Unique needs of the creative child and adult. In A. H. Passow (Ed.), The gifted and talented: Their education and development. 78th NSSE Yearbook (pp. 352-371). Chicago: The National Society for the Study of Education.

Wallach, M. A. (1976, January-February). Tests tell us little about talent. American Scientist, 57-63.

Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M., & Vaid, J. (Eds.). (1997). Creative thought: An investigation of conceptual structures and processes. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Jonathan A. Plucker is an assistant professor of learning, cognition, and instruction at Indiana University, Bloomington and a Contributing Editor of the Roeper Review. His interests include creativity, intelligence, and affective aspects of talent development.

Mark A. Runco is a professor of child development at California State University, Fullerton and a Contributing Editor of the Roeper Review. He is the immediate past president of the American Psychological Association's Division 10 (Psychology and the Arts).

Manuscript submitted July, 1998. Revision accepted August, 1998.