臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

摘 要
自Guilford於1950年呼籲研究者重視創造力以來，此後五十年創造力研究即開始蓬勃發展。然由於許多研究者皆從不同角度來研究創造力，因此至今對於創造力仍未有一共識之定義。
至今最常為人所使用之創造力測量工具為擴散性思考測驗。然而有許多研究者對擴散性思考作業提出質疑，尤其是在測量方式以及獨創性計分方式上。再加上國內之擴散性思考作業常模樣本多已年代久遠，且多為「概念流暢力」的測量，而尚無「聯想流暢力」的擴散性思考工具，因此於本研究即試圖結合遠距聯想概念與擴散性思考模式，發展「詞彙聯想策略測驗」，建立流暢性、變通性與獨創性分數。在測驗中，主要有包含兩個作業，分別為「海洋」與「玫瑰」之聯想作業，要求參與者根據「海洋」或「玫瑰」進行直接聯想，並寫出所聯想的詞彙與「海洋」或「玫瑰」之間的關係為何。透過參與者所填寫的關連說明，可以排除掉不適切的反應，以有效考量想法的適切性。因此流暢性分數即以「有效聯想反應的個數」來代表；另外，研究者透過參與者所回答之關連說明，建立了十一種詞彙聯想策略，作為變通性分數的類別。而在獨創性計分上，研究者進一步去比較傳統常模分數、加權平均數與加權中位數的三種獨創性計分方式，以找出最能代表獨創性指標之計分。
在信度分析上，一共進行了內部作業信度、極端組比較與評分者間信度。研究結果顯示，流暢性與變通性與傳統常模分數、加權平均數與加權中位數皆具有良好之信度。然而，傳統常模分數與流暢性分數相關高 (r = 0.542)，顯示容易受到流暢性分數之影響；而加權平均數與加權中位數則不會受到流暢性分數之影響，較能有效測量獨創性之指標。
而效度資料上，分別進行了四種建構效度 (同時性效度、同儕評定效度、前半與後半之比較、聯想策略) 與兩種區辨效度 (與頓悟性問題及新編中文遠距聯想量表之關係)。結果顯示，流暢性與變通性分數在所有效度資料上，皆具有良好之結果，雖然兩者之間的相關很高 (r = .621)，顯示變通性容易受到流暢性分數之影響。然而其與同時性效度的新編創造思考測驗仍具有顯著之相關 (r= .314)，顯示詞彙聯想策略測驗的變通性分數仍能有效測得「產生不同聯想反應」的能力。
進一步比較三種獨創性不同計分方式，結果顯示，傳統常模分數與新編創造思考測驗的同時性效度不高 (r = .254)；而加權平均數，除了與新編創造思考測驗之同時性效度結果不佳 (r = .153) 外，聯想策略團體差異的建構效度也不好；然而加權中位數在各個效度分析上，皆具有良好之結果，且不會受到流暢性分數的影響，能有效代表獨創性之指標，因此建議應以加權中位數來取代傳統常模分數，作為獨創性分數的指標。
整體而言，詞彙聯想策略測驗具有良好之信度與效度，能有效測量擴散性思考以及遠距聯想能力，可作為創造潛能之有效測量工具。

Abstract
The researches on creativity have been prospering for around 50 years since Guilford mentioned its importance in 1950. However, due to different research paradigms, there is no one definition of creativity that is accepted by all researchers.
Since the divergent thinking test, the most commonly used measuring tool nowadays, has been criticized for its measuring and scoring procedures, and since the domestic divergent thinking task focuses largely on measuring fluency with its norm being out of date, this research aimed to develop a Word Association Strategy Test by combining the concepts of remote association and divergent thinking. The test is composed of two association subtests, “the ocean” and “the rose”. Participants were asked to associate “the ocean” or “the rose” with something in thinking and describe their relations, through examining which the researcher set up three parts of scoring. The fluency score is represented by the number of valid associations excluding the inappropriate responses. The flexibility score is represented by the number of strategies used in producing word associations. And the originality score is set up by comparing three scoring procedures, including the traditional norm score, mean and median of the weights.
In reliability analysis, the researcher conducted intertask reliability, extreme groups comparing, and inter-raters reliability. It is demonstrated that the fluency and flexibility and three kinds of originality scores are fairly reliable. And mean and median of the weights are more effective measuring index for originality than the traditional norm score which is easily influenced by the fluency score.
In validity analysis, the researcher conducted four kinds of construct validity, and two kinds of discriminative validity. It is demonstrated that the fluency and flexibility scores are fairly valid. Though the high correlation between the two scores shows that the flexibility score is easily influenced by the originality score, the high correlation between the flexibility score and the revised creative thinking test also shows that the flexibility score is still valid on measuring different association responses. By comparing the three scoring procedures for setting up the originality score, the researcher found that with fair reliability and validity, the median of weights is the most representative score for originality.
Totally speaking, the Word Association Strategy Test can effectively measure individuals’ divergent thinking and remote association ability with fair reliability and validity.

摘要 ……………………………………………………………………… Ⅰ
目錄 ………………………………………………………………………… Ⅴ
附錄目次 …………………………………………………………………… Ⅶ
附表目次 …………………………………………………………………… Ⅷ
附圖目次 …………………………………………………………………… Ⅸ

第一章 序論
第一節 研究動機 ………………………………………… 1
第二節 名詞釋義 ………………………………………… 3
第二章 文獻探討
第一節 創造力之涵義 …………………………………………… 5
第二節 創造力之理論 …………………………………………… 6
第三節 以認知歷程為主的創造力測量工具 …………………… 29
第四節 詞彙聯想與創造力 ……………………………………… 52
第五節 研究目的 ………………………………………………… 58
第三章 研究方法與結果
第一節 詞彙聯想策略測驗之編製 ……………………………… 59
第二節 詞彙聯想反應常模的建立 ……………………………… 73
第三節 詞彙聯想策略測驗之信度分析 ………………………… 75
第四節 詞彙聯想策略測驗之建構效度 ………………………… 79
第五節 詞彙聯想策略測驗之區辨效度 ………………………… 87
第六節 獨創性計分方式之比較與詞彙聯想策略測驗之整體評估 ………………………………………………………… 95
第四章 綜合討論
第一節 研究結果討論 …………………………………………… 98
第二節 對創造力教育之建議 …………………………………… 101
第三節 研究限制 ………………………………………………… 102
第四節 未來研究方向 …………………………………………… 103
參考文獻 105


附 錄
附錄一 海洋與玫瑰之聯想策略分佈 121
附錄二 海洋聯想常模反應 123
附錄三 玫瑰聯想常模反應 136
附錄四 詞彙聯想策略測驗 150
附錄五 詞彙聯想策略測驗之評分標準 155
附錄六 詞彙聯想策略測驗計分表 158
附錄七 同儕提名問卷 160
附錄八 「新編創造思考測驗」使用同意書 161
附錄九 「頓悟性問題」使用同意書 162

參 考 文 獻
中文文獻
丁興祥、邱皓政、蔡啟通與林逸媛 (1992)，國中學生拖弄思創造思考測驗評分常模修訂。測驗年刊，39，105-116。
毛連塭、郭有遹、陳龍安、林幸台 (2000)，創造力研究。台北：心理出版社。
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初 (2001)，中文遠距聯想量表的編製：新策略的嘗試。國科會大專生研究計畫。
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲 (2004)，創造力測量的輔助工具：中文遠距聯想量表的編製。應用心理研究，21，195-218。
李秀瓊 (1999)，高低創造力者在詞彙連結型態上有否差異？──檢驗Mednick的「連結層級」假說。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
何偉雲 (2004)，發散性思考測驗的同質性分析—以國小物理問題測驗為例，科學教育學刊，12(2)，219-239。
何偉雲、葉錦燈 (2003)，RAT-like測驗中的發散性思考分析，科學教育學刊，11(2)，195-210。
杜明城譯，Ｍihaly Csiksentmihalyi著 (1999)，創造力。台北：時報出版社。
余民寧 (1999)，有意義的學習—概念構圖之研究。台北：商鼎文化出版社。
林正昌、陳學志 (2005)，問題解決與創造力，未出版之手稿。
林幸台、王木榮 (1987)，威廉斯創造力測驗，台北：心理出版社。
林清山 (1999)，心理與教育統計學。台北，東華書局。
林清山譯，Mayer, R. E.著 (1997)，教育心理學—認知取向。台北：遠流出版社。
林緯倫、連韻文與任純慧 (2005)，發散性思考是創意問題解決的的前提嗎？中華心理學刊，付印中。
吳靜吉 (1976)，分歧式和聯鎖式的聯想訓練對創造思考的影響。國立政治大學學報，33，45-71。
吳靜吉 (1981a)，創造思考測驗評分手冊。台北：遠流出版社。
吳靜吉 (1981b)，語文創造思考測驗評分手冊。台北：遠流出版社。
吳靜吉 (1983)，創造性人格量表，頁34-35。
吳靜吉 (1998)，新編創造思考測驗研究。教育部輔導工作六年計畫研究報告。
吳靜吉 (2002)，創新教育何為先華人學生創造力的發掘與培育，應用心理研究，15，17~42。
吳靜吉、高泉豐、丁興祥、葉玉珠 (1993)，拖弄思圖形創造思考測驗(甲式)指導手冊及研究手冊評分手冊。
吳靜吉、陳嘉成、林偉文 (1999)，創造力量表簡介，國科會研究結案報告。
邱皓政 (2002a)，學校組織創新氣氛的內涵與教師創造力的實踐：另一件國王的新衣？應用心理研究，15，191-224。
邱皓政 (2002b)，量化研究與統計分析：SPSS中文視窗版資料分析範例解析。台北：五南出版社。
邱發忠 (2005)，創造力認知運作機制之探究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。
洪蘭譯，Sternberg, R.J & Lubart, T.I. 著 (1999)，不同凡想。台北：遠流出版公司。
許禕芳、陳學志 (2005)，牛頓被蘋果砸到之前─以遠距聯想測驗之答題直覺探討創造思考醞釀階段的認知歷程。國科會大專生研究計畫。
郭有遹 (2001)，創造心理學。台北，正中書局。
陳怡潔、陳學志、劉浩敏 (2002)，中文遠距聯想量表之修訂︰如何避免知識與策略因素之介入。國科會大專生研究計畫。
陳昭儀 (1995)，增強創造力的方法，資優教育季刊，54，18-20。
陳昭儀 (1996)，二十位傑出發明家的生涯路。台北：心理出版社。
陳學志 (1999)，認知及認知的自我監控--中文詞聯想常模的建立。國科會專題研究計畫成果報告。
陳龍安、朱湘吉 (1999)，創造與生活。台北：五南出版社。
黃博聖、陳學志 (2003)，新版中文遠距聯想測驗(CRAT)之效度研究與作答認知歷程之分析。國科會大專生研究計畫。
葉玉珠、張瑋倫、徐悅淇、鄭芳宜 (2004)，年級、地區與國小學童創造力發展之動態關係，2004第二屆創新與創造力研討會。
葉明正 (2002)，創造力的意涵—四P概述，生活科技教育，35(9)，7-14。
楊雅惠 (1980)，國中聽覺障礙學生創造力評量方式之研究。彰化師院特殊教育研究所碩士論文。
鄭昭明 (1997)，認知心理學：理論與實踐。台北：桂冠圖書股份有限公司。
蔡啟通 (1998)，組織氣氛、組織成員整體創造性與組織創新之關係。國立台灣大學商學研究所博士論文。
蔡啟通、劉曉雯 (1998)，創造力工作環境特質資訊科技特徵對組織創新之影響—本國數位文化產業之實證研究。第七屆產業管理研討會論文集。
蔡智明 (2004)，擴散性思考測驗—以「想一想活動」為研究工具，屏東師範學院數理教育研究所碩士論文。


英文文獻
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 221-233.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Amabile, T. M. & Gryskiewicz, N. (1989). The Creative Environment Scales: The Work Environment Inventory. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 231-254.
Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
Baer, J. (1992). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: a multi-domain training experiment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association. Washington, D. C
Baer, J. (1993a). Creativity and Divergent Thinking: A Task-Specific Approach. Hillsdale. N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Baer, J. (1993b, December/January). Why you shouldn't trust creativity tests. Educational Leadership, 80-83.
Barron, F. (1988). Putting creativity to work. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 76-88). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Basadur, M. S. & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985). Measuring preference for ideation in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21(1), 37-49.
Basemer, S. P. & O’Quin, K. (1993). Assessing creative products: Progress and potentials. In S. G. Isaksen, M. C. Murdock, R. L. Firestien, & D. F. Treffinger (Eds.), Nurturing and developing creativity: The emergence of a discipline (pp. 331-349). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1231-1241.

Ben-Zur, H. (1989). Automatic and directed search processes in solbing simple semantic-memory problems. Memory and cognition, 17, 617-626.
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9, 435-440.
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (2003a). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35(4), 634-639.
Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. J. (2003b). Aha！Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 730-737.
Bowers, K. S., Regehr, G., Balthezard, C. G., & Parker, K. (1990). Intuition in the context of discovery. Cognitive Psychology, 22, 72-110.
Buros, O. K. (Ed.). (1972). The seventh mental measurements yearbook (Vol. 1). Highland Park, NJ: Gryphon Press.
Cattel, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the Sixteen Personality Questionaire (16PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.
Chaffin, R. (1997). Associations to unfamiliar words: Learning the meanings of new words. Memory and Cognition, 25(2), 203-226.
Chronicle, E. P., MacGregor, J. N. & Ormerod, T. C. (2004). What makes an insight problem? The roles of Heuristics, Goal conception, and solution in knowledge-lean problems. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, memory, and cognition, 30, 14-27.


Clark, P. M., & Mirels, H. L. (1970). Fluency as pervasive element in the measurement of creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7(2), 83-86.
Collins, A. M. & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82, 407-428.
Coney, J. & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: a new approach to Mednick’s theory of associative hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29(2), 109-132.
Cox, C. & Brandt, J. (1990). Word-association responses and severity of dementia in Alzheimer Disease. Psychological Reports, 66, 1315-1322.
Crockenberg, S. B. (1972). Creativity Tests: A Boon or Boondoggle for Education? Review of Educational Research, 42, 27-45.
Cropley, A. J. (1996). Recognizing creative potential: An evaluation of the usefulness of creativity tests. High Ability Studies, 7(2), 203-219.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. New York: HarperCollins.
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed). Handbook of Creativity (pp. 313-335). Cambridge University Press.
Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Getzels, J. W. (1971). Discovery-oriented behavior and the originality of creative products: A study with artists. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 19, 47-52.
Dacey, J. S. (1989). Fundamentals of creative thinking. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257-274.
Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity ifs forever (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.
Dallob, P. I. & Dominowski, R. L. (1993). Erroneous solutions to verbal insight problems: Effects of highlighting critical material. Paper presented at the 73rd annual meeting of the Western Psychological Association. Portland, OR.
Dominowski, R. L. & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 33-62). The MIT Press.
Duncker, K. (1945). On problem solving. Psychological Monographs, 68(5), whole no. 270.
Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B., & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creativity cognition: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cambridge, MA:MIT Press.
Freud, S. (1959). Creative writers and day-dreaming. In J. Strachey (Ed.), Standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (pp. 143-153). London: Hogarth Press.
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Foster, J. ＆ Werth, L.(2003)Attentional Priming Effects on Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2), 277-286.
Gardner, H. (1989). To Open Minds. New York: Basic Books.
Getzels, J. & Csikszentmihaly, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem-finding in art. New York: Wiley.
Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.
Ghiselin, B. (1952). The creative process. Berkeley: Univer. California Press.
Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61(3), 348-353.
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398-1405.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
Guilford, J. P. (1963). Potentiality for creativity and its measurement. In Gardner, Eric F. (Ed). Proceedings of the 1962 Invitational Conference on Testing Problems. (p. 31-39).
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGrae-Hill.
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, Intelligence, and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
Guilford, J. P. (1970). Creativity: Retrospect and prospect. Journal of Creative Behavior, 5, 77-87.
Guilford, J. P. (1975). Creativity: A quarter century of progress. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 37-59). Chicago: Aldine.
Guilford, J. P. (1988). Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(1), 1-4.
Guilford, J. P. & Hoepfner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGrae-Hill.
Heausler, N. L. & Thompson, B. (1988). Structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 463-468.


Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In Sternberg (ed): The Nature of Creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge Univer.
Hocevar, D. (1979a). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196.
Hocevar, D. (1979b). The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth grade children. Child Study Journal, 9(4), 273-278.
Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450-464.
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, & R. R. Ronning (Ed), et al. Handbook of creativity. Perspectives on individual differences. (pp. 53-75). New York, NY, USA: Plenum Press.
Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917-921.
Holley, C. D. & Dansereau, D. F. (1984). Spatial learning strategies. New York: Academic Press.
Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1967). The person, the product, and the response: Conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. In J. Kagan(Ed.), Creativity and Learning (pp. 1-19). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Kaufmann, D. (2003). What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 235-251.
Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt Psychology. New York: Liveright.
Kris. E. (1952). Psychoanalytic exploration in art. New York: International Universities Press.
Kubie, L. S. (1958). Neurotic distortion of the creative process. Lawrence: University of of Kansas Press.
Lubart, T. I. (1994). Creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Thinking and Problem Solving (pp. 289-332). Academic Press.
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation.
Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp.249-268). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
Maslow, A. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand.
Mayer, R. E. (1995). The search for insight: Grappling with Gestalt Psychology’s unanswered questions. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson (Eds.). The nature of insight (pp. 3-32). The MIT Press.
Mednick, M. T., Mednick, S. A., ＆ Jung, C. C. (1964). Continual association as a function of level of creativity and type of verbal stimulus. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 69(5), p.511-515.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44(2), p.220-232.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior , 2(3), 213-214.

Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner’s manual, Remote Associates Test. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.
Mehdi, B. (1974). Creativity, intelligence and achievement: some findings of recent research. Indian Educational Review, 9(1), 1-10.
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 623-634.
Meyer, R. E. (1983). Thinking, problem solving, cognition. San Francisco, CA: Freeman.
Michael, W. B., & Wright, C. R. (1989). Psychometric issues in the assessment of creativity. In J. A. Glover & R. R. Ronning (Eds.), Handbook of creativity: Perspectives on individual differences (pp. 33-52). New York: Plenum Press.
Milgram, R. M. & Rabkin, L. (1980). Developmental test of Mednick’s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology, 16(2), 157-158.
Mooney, R. L. (1963). A conceptual model for integrating four approaches to the identification of creative talent. In C. W. Taylor & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: its recognition and development (pp. 331-340). New York: Wiley.
Moore, M. (1951). The monkey puzzle. In Collected poems of Marianne Moore. New York: Macmillan.
Moran, J. D., Milgram, R. M., Sawyers, J. K. & Fu, V. R. (1983). Original thinking in preschool children. Child Development, 54, 921-926.


Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart T. (2001). Children's original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. The Journal of Genetic Psychology, 162(4), 382-401.
Mouchiroud C., & Lubart T. (2002). Social creativity: A cross-sectional study of 6- to 11-year-old children. International Journal of Behavioral Develop, 26(1), 60-69.
Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: A summary and critique of the gestalt theory of problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 67-78.
Palermo, D. & Jenkins, J. J. (1964). Word association norms, grade school through college. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Plucker, J. A. & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, (ed), Handbook of Creativity. Cambridge University Press. 35-61.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305-310.
Rogers, C. R. (1954). Toward a theory of creativity. ETC: A Review of General Semantics, 11, 249-260.
Rosen, W. G. (1980). Verbal fluency in aging and dementia. Journal of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2, 135-146
Rothenberg, A. (1973). Word association and creativity. Psychological Reports, 33, 3-12.
Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1075-1081.

Runco, M. A. (1986a). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375-384.
Runco, M. A. (1986b). Flexibility and originality in children’s divergent thinking. Journal of Psychology, 120, 345-352.
Runco, M. A. (1986c). Maximal performance on divergent thinking tests by gifted, talented, and nongifted children. Psychology in the Schools, 23, 308-315.
Runco, M. A. (1991a). The evaluative, valuative, and divergent thinking of children. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 311-319.
Runco, M. A. (1991b). Divergent Thinking. Norwood: New Jersey.
Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 577-582). New York: Academic 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., & Okuda, S. M. (1988). Problem finding, divergent thinking, and the creative process. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 211-220.
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., 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.
Schooler, J. W. & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249-268). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S. & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166-183.
Segal, E. (2004). Incubation in insight problem solving. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 141-148.
Shallcross, D. (1981). Teaching creative behavior, New Jersey: Prentice Hall Inc.
Siegel, S. M. & Kaemmerer, W. F. (1978). Measuring the perceived support for innovation in organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 63, 553-562.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1988). The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (Ed.). (1999). Handbook of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Davidson, J. E. (1995). The nature of insight. The MIT Press.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human Development, 34, 1-31.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1992). Buy low and sell high: An investment approach to creativity. Current Directions in Psychological Sciences, 1, 1-5.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.
Sternberg, R. J., ＆ Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist. 51(7), p677-688.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospect and Paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.3- 15). Cambridge Press.
Sternberg R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L.(2000)，Guilford’s Structure of Intellect Model and Model of Creativity: Contributions and Limitations. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3 & 4), 309-316.
Thurston, L. L. (1938). Primary mental abilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Torrance, E.P. (1962). Guiding creative talent. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Torrance, E.P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Princeton, N. J.: Personnel Press, Inc.
Torrance, E.P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
Torrance, E.P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (Eds.) The nature of creativity. Cambridge University Press.
Torrance, E. P. & Khatena, J. (1970). What kind of person are you? Gifted Child Quarterly, 14, 71-75.
Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem-Solving Skills and the Art Orientation. Norwood, New Jersey.
Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York :Harcourt, Brace.
Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity and intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
Ward, W. C. (1969). Rate and uniqueness in children’s creative responding. Child Development, 40, 869-878.
Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet. Buffalo, NY: DOK Publishers.
Yamamoto, K. (1964a). Threshold of intelligence in academic achievement of highly creative students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 32, 401-405.
Yamamoto, K. (1964b). Role of creative thinking and intelligence in high school achievement. Psychological Reports, 14, 783-789.
Zarnegar, Z., Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. B. (1988). Components of original thinking in gifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(1), 5-16.