Creativity Research Journal Copyright 1997 by

1997. Vol. 10, NO.1,51-58 Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

RESEARCH NOTE

The Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised

V. K. Kumar, Debra Kemmler, and E. Riley Holman
West Chester University

ABSTRACT: This study describes the development of to occur during periods of relaxed, dispersed attention
the Creativity Styks Questionnaire-Revised (CSQ-R; than during periods of focused concentration. Others
Kumar & Holman, 1989). This questionnaire measures have talked about the importance of chance factors,
beliefs about and strategies for going about being crea- such as in the case of Roentgen who discovered X-rays
tive. Participants were 273 freshmen students in a when he forgot to remove a fluorescent screen from a
psychology course. Cronbach alphas for the 7 table (de Bono, 1968).
subscales of the CSQ-R ranged between .45 and .81, Still others (e.g., Osborne, 1957) have developed
with a median reliability o f .74. Students were divided techniques such as brainstorming to help people be-
into high- and low-creativity groups based on 3 self-re- come more creative. Although these techniques have
port measures of creativity capacity. Those in the high- been described time and again in both popular and
creativity group were more inclined than the other academic journals and books, it is not known to what
students to report (a)having a stronger belief in uncon- extent the general, particularly the student, population
scious processes, (b) using more techniques to be crea- have come to employ some of these techniques in
tive, and (c) being less concerned about developing a everyday life. Some behaviorists have emphasized the
final product. importance of environmental control in shaping behav-
ior. Ferster (1970, p. 4 9 , for instance, described how
The literature is filled with interesting anecdotes about he and Skinner brought their writing behavior under
particular things that people do to be creative or how control by self-management and organization of their
they go about solving pressing problems. Many of these environment. They did all their work in one room
accounts contribute to the mystique that surrounds the dedicated to writing and nothing else was done in the
creative process by emphasizing the significance of room. Phone calls were not taken and visitors were not
unconscious processes. For example, Rhoda Zwillin- met in the room. The time for writing was fixed between
ger, a New York artist, reported "there are times when 9:00 a.m. and lunchtime. No work was continued in the
I'm working and it is almost as though I'm a vessel and afternoon even though the temptation was strong. There
there is a force operating through me. It is the closest I were no warm-up or inactive periods in the writing
come to having a religious experience" (as cited in room. Writing was not done anywhere else. They did
Dormen & Edidin, 1989, p. 52). Crovitz (1970) sug- not converse about outside matters in the writing room.
gested that "the hidden work is done out of sight by the
mind's eye" (p. 79). We thank James Barksdale Jr. for his assistance in data analyses. We
Posner (1973) concluded from his studies on prob- also thank fouranonymousreviewers for their comments on an earlier
lem solving that long-term memory contents tend to be version of this article. Gratitude is also due to M. Annette Stoody for
reorganized unconsciously during the incubation pe- her editorial comments.
riod following an effort to solve a difficult problem. Manuscript received June 9, 1994; revision received July 20,
1995; accepted February 26,1996.
Thurstone (195011966) noted that creativity is facili- Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to V. K.
tated by areceptive,rather than acritical attitudetoward Kumar, Department of Psychology, West Chester University, West
novel ideas and that creative solutions are more likely Chester, PA 19383.

Creativity Research Journal 51

V. K. Kumar, D. K d e r , and E. R Holman

The emphasis on environmental control implies that The term "creative" is used in the sense of doing
one's level of inspiration is unimportant (or at least everyday things in new ways or solving the prob-
controlled by one's environment). lems of daily living as well as those of the world
Amabile (1985) stressed the significanceof intrinsic of work, andlor engaging in creative type work
motivation, which derives primarily from interest, en- (generating ideas for research, writing, painting,
joyment, and inherent challenge that is a property of musical compositions, etc.) People have their
work itself. Creativepeopledo not seem to bem~tivated own uniqw styles and we would like to know
by external pressures, meeting deadlines, or making yours. In answering these questions, please b e .
money. in mind that there are no right or wrong answers;
In an effort to empirically study what people do to we just want to know the way you typically go
be creative, Kumar and Holman (1989) developed the about doing creative work. (Kumar & Holman,
Creativity Styles Questionnaire (CSQ). The term style, 1989, p. 1)
as used here, refers to beliefs (e.g., that inspiration or
other unconscious processes are important) about how The emphasis on "doing evcryday things in new
to be creative, and the use of particular strategies (e.g., ways" in these imtmctions is in line with S ~ and ~ g
brainstorming, taking long walks, designing special L u W s (1992a) thinking that a braader d&nition of
environments) for facilitating creative work (Kumw, creativity is n& than tit& c m d y emphasized in
Holman, & Rudegeair, 1991). the literankFe, to include how people sac or solve eve-
The CSQ consisted of 72 items divided into seven ryday proMdm in new ways. Obviously, we cannot
subscales to be answered using a 3-point scale consist- expact children to p m b e ideas at the level of Picasso
ing of 3 (true), 1 (false), and 2 (unsure). The CSQ or Raget. A "studat who, askad to write a paper on
included statements identifying the various ways, pro- 'spring fever', tUJllGd in a Hank pap$, illustrates prob-
cedures, and environmental control manipulations a lem rdafinition of a creative sort" (Stemkg k Lubart,
person may use to be creative. The subscales were (a) 1992a, p. 292).
Belief in the Unconscious Processes (e.g., "I have had Using the CSQ, Kuma et al. (1991) found &at the
insights, the sources of which I am unable to explain or more cmtive students differvxl from the less creative
understand"); (b) Use of Techniques (e.g., "I typically ones in (a)using a g r e w numbet of kehsliqlits and (b)
create new ideas by combining existing ideas"); (c) Use being less motivated in their creative efforts by the goal
of Other People (e.g., 'When I get stuck, I consult or of developing a final product. Item analyses of the
talk with people about how to proceed"); (d) Final subscales showed a significmtly h i g h pawme;.eof
Product Orientation (e.g., "I enjoy the process of creat- more, vis-a-vis less, creative studmtsl at: (a)
ing new ideas whether they lead to a final product or new ideas possess them and guide com-
not"); (e) Superstition (e.g., "I have a favorite amulet or pletion almost wtomaticdly, (b) t b y work on m y
clothing that I wear when I am engaged in creative , thcy have a lot of idme-both
ideas s i m u l ~ w s l y(c)
work"); ( f ) Environmental Control (e.g., "I have set workable d unworkaMe, (d) they 8h6w th& creative
aside a particular place (or places) f a creative work"); products to o&x people, and (e) they enjoy the process
and (g) Use of the Senses was measured by one item ("I of creeSting new ideas whether those idtm 1 4 to a final
use all of my senses in my creative work") even though product or not.
the CSQ had included an item for each of the senses Kumaret al. (1991) n d thNdespiWthsconsisbency
(e.g., "I tend to use all of my visual sense a lot in my of reswlts with 6$rer stwdies, the muks should be inter-
creative work"). preted with wtkm bemuse the seven m W e s showed
Kumar et al. (1991) administered the CSQ to 182 rather low rcliabilities,ranging betwten .35 and .TO.
freshmen students in a preliminary test along with a This study was undfftalcen to m & y the CSQ with
two-item self-report Global Measure of Creativity Ca- the intention to impove the reli&Mfity of thiE s ~ ~ e s
pacity (GMCC) to assess the extent to which students and to glghrcsr f\lF.Eherdata to see if the subscah would
perceived themselves to be creative. The two GMCC difftw&a& between high- and
items were: (a) "Do you consider yourself to be acreative The i n s m a t was modified by re
person?" and (b) "Are you engaged in creative type work items to improve clarity, writing ad&ontd ikms, and
on a regular basis?'Students were informed that: using a 5-point Likert-type rating scale ranging from 1
 Creativity Styles Questionaire-Revised

(strongly agree) to 5 (strongly disagree). The modified requirement. Participation was voluntary in as much as
instrument, the CSQ-M, consisted of 80 items with the students could terminate their participation any time
same seven subscales as the original CSQ. and participate in any ongoing departmental project.
Three self-report measures of capacity for creativity
were used in addition to the CSQ-M. The GMCC was
primarily included because it was used in the previous Measures
study (Kumar et al., 1991). To compensate for the
weaknesses associated with using just two items to Three measures were administered, in addition to the
measure creativity capacity (see Morse & Khatena, CSQ-M.
1989) in the previous study, two other scales were
employed in this study: Holman and Kumar's (1990) 1. Kumar and Holman's (1989) two-item GMCC,
Creativity Characteristics Measure (CCM) and a stand- which was described earlier.
ardized creative personality scale. Including these three 2. Holman and Kumar's (1990) 17-item self-report
capacity measures made it possible to (a) compare the CCM contained some items adapted from Frost (1977)
present and previous results, (b) determine if the results and others that are commonly considered to be charac-
on styles (as measured by the CSQ-M) are consistent teristic of creative people. Some examples of items are
across the three measures of creativity capacity, and (c) "I typically give different responses than expected," "I
identify high- and low-creativity groups based on all typically see many sides to a problem," "I need tojustify
three capacity measures and then determine if these rules," "I typically don't like to take risks," and "I seek
groups differed on the styles. unusual approaches." Sternberg and Lubart (1992b)
It is necessary to comment on the use of the self-re- also observed that creative people tend to share certain
port measures of creativity capacity. The use of such attributes, such as tolerance of ambiguity, willingness
self-report instruments is not uncommon in the meas- to take risks, and courage of one's convictions @. 247).
urement of creativity (see Hocevar, 1981) and other 3. Gough and Heilbmn's (1980) Adjective Check
personality characteristics. The popularity of self-re- List. This contains 300 items from which the score on
port instruments to measure personality characteristics the Creative Personality Scale (CPS) was derived. Ac-
obviously stems from their ease of use. Additionally, cording to Cough and Heilbrun, the high scorer on the
however, they provide a phenomenologically based CPS is
approach to the study of personality (see Lubart &
Stemberg, 1988). Creativity assessed by such tests as venturesome, aesthetically reactive, clever, and quick to re-
spond. Intellectual characteristicssuch as breadth of interests,
the Torrance (1974) Test of Creative Thinking (?TCT), cognitive ability, and ideational fluency also are apparent.
according to Sternberg and Lubart (1992a), "is rather The low scorer is more subdued, less expressive, more con-
trivial, and is different in kind from the more domain- servative, and less inclined to take action in complex or
based, substantive forms of creativity required both ill-defined situations. (p. 18)
within and outside of it" (p. 290). Consequently, they
argued for alternative measures "to gain a broader per- The reported internal consistency reliabilities for the
spective on creativity" (p. 290). Thus, the use of self- CPS are .63 for both men and women, and the test-retest
report measures in this study must be seen in the spirit reliabilities are .68 for men and .70 for women. Gough
of Sternberg and Lubart's urging that a variety of ap- and Heilbmn reported that in cross-validational sam-
proaches are relevant to the study of creativity. ples the CPS correlated .35 with criterion ratings for
men and .40 with ratings for women. Their criteria of
creativity varied from sample to sample, and utilized
Method ratings by expert judges in the field of work, faculty
members, and life history interviewers.

Participants Procedure

Students (N = 273) from Introduction to Psychology Students first completed the GMCC, CCM, and
classes participated to fulfill a departmental research CSQ-M items. Then, they completed Cough and Heil-

Creativity Research Journal 53

V. K. %mar, D.Kemder, and E.R. Wdman

brun's Adjective Check List of 300 items from which

the CPS scores were derived by the method described
in the manual. Participants received the same instruc-
tions used by Kumar et al. (1991), quoted earlier.
The three capcity measures were significantly and
positively cmlrarted at p < .001 (two4kd). The CPS
Results correlated with GMCC and CCM .28, and .40respec-
tively; the 1-r two meawres c m W .32.
Table 2 shows that the CSQ-R subscales were mod-
R M t y Analyses erately comlattd with each other. TQk p Type 1error
low a = .01 was d. Only 6 of the 21 cumetatiom were
Based on item analyses and internal consistency not significant at this level. The Belief in Unooascious
reliabilities (Cronbach's a), 4 of the 80 style items of Processes and the Use of Senses were significantly
the CSQ-M were dropped to increase the reliability c o m b x l with the ather subsaim. The Use of T h -
values of the subscales. The resulting questionnaire niques was significadltlywmiated with six of the seven
with 76 items pertaining to the seven style subscales subscdes. The other subseales shawed four or fewer
was titled Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised significant correlations.
(CSQ-R). The GMCC, CCM, and CSQ-R subscale
reliabilities (Cronbach a), means, and standaTd devia- and CSQ-R
tions are reported in Table 1. Subscales

Table 3 presents cmlations among GMCC, CCM,

CPS, and the CSQ-R suhales. The W C was sig-
Table 1. Cronbachocs Scale Means&StandutdDeviations nifllcantly correlated ( p c .01) with 41w W e s except
the Use of Other People subscale. m e CCM was sig-
ScsklSubmde a Mttm SD nificantly -c with thtee sybdes: Belief in
Global Measure of Creativity Unconscious Processes, Use of Techniques, and Final
Capacity (2 items) Product Orientation. The CPS s a t e was only cmlated
Creativity Chanrcteristics with the Find Product Chientation subscale. The latter
Measure (17 items) style subscale was negatively correlated with the three
Belief in Unconscious Processes
(17 items)
creativity measures.
Use of Technrques (1 8 items)
Use of Otker People (9 items)
Final Product Orientation (7 items)
Superstition (2 items)
Environmentel Control (18 items)
Given the somewhatdiffemnt ptten? of correlations
Use of Senses (5 items)
between the CSQ-R subscales and the three capacity

Table 2. CorrelationsAmong the Creativity Styles Questionnaire-Revised Subscales

Subtale 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Belief in Unconscious Processes

Use of Techniques
Use of Other People
Final Product Orientation
Environmental Control
Superstition
Use of Senses
 Creativity Styles Questionaire-Revised

Table 3. Correlations of Creativity Capacity with Creativity Table 4. Means and Standard Deviations on the Creativity
Styles Questionnaire-Revised Subscales Styles Questionnaire-Revised Subscalesfor High- and Low-
Creative Students
Creativity Capacity
Hi@ Low
Subscale GMCC CCM CPS
Subscale M SD M SD
Belief in Unconscious Processes .34** .34** .10
Use of Techniques .47** .33** .12 Belief in Unconscious F'mxsses 3.58 .45 3.00 .51
Use of Other People -.04 .00 .05 Use of Techniques 3.58 .61 2.92 .49
Final Product Orientation -.33** -.34** -.19* Use of Other People 2.99 .72 2.87 SO
Environmental Control .17* .I4 .06 Final Product Orientation 2.40 .56 3.18 .47
Superstition .21** .09 .00 Environmental Control 2.53 .72 2.19 .36
Use of Senses .23** .12 .11 Superstition 2.18 99 1.57 .70
Use of Senses 3.29 .78 3.12 .77
Note: GMCC = Global Measure of Creative Capacity. CCM =
Creativity Characteristics Measure. CPS = Creative F'emnality
Scale.
values ranging between 11.62 and 18.37 ( p < .001 in all
*p s .01. **p s .m1.
cases). Highs averaged higher scores on the Beliefs and
Techniques subscales relative to the lows. The reverse
measures (GMCC, CCM, and CPS), we decided to form
was true on the Final Product Orientation subscale (see
an extreme group of high- and one of low-creative
Table 4). Marginal significance was obtained on Super-
students based on all three capacity measures, and then
stition F(l, 30) = 3.88, p < .06.
test if the two groups differed on the styles subscales of
the CSQ-R. We felt that this analysis would provide a
more general test of differences between the high and Differences Between High- and
low groups across the various aspects of creativity Low-Creative Students on CSQ-R
capacity tapped by the GMCC,CCM,and CPS scales. Items
Frequency distributionsfor each of the three capac-
ity measures were examined to identify cutoff scores One final analysis was computed to see which indi-
that corresponded, as closely as possible, to the top and vidual items discriminated between the high- and low-
bottom 25% of scores to select the high- and low-crea- creative students. Univariate analysis of variances were
tive students on each measure. Then two groups were done on each of the items. Again, because of small
formed using the cutoff scores for all three measures. sample sizes, the a of .05 was chosen.
Thus, the lows were identified using the cutoff scores On the Belief in Unconscious Processes subscale, 9
of 5 (23rd percentile) on the GMCC, 49 (25th percen- out of the 17 items significantly discriminated between
tile) on the CCM, and 41 (25th percentile) on the CPS. the high and low groups. On each of the following items
The highs were identified using the cutoff scores of 9 the highs expressed stronger belief in the unconscious
(76th percentile), 59 (75th percentile), and 51 respec- aspect of the creative process: "Creative ideas occur to
tively (76th percentile). Because using all three capacity me without even thinking about them," "I would de-
measures to form the high and low groups resulted in scribe my style of creativity as erratic or non-system-
rather small sizes (15 students for the low group and 17 atic," "I have had insights, the sources of which I am
to 18 students for the high group in different analyses), unable to explain or understand," "I believe in uncon-
an a of .05 was chosen to establish significance in both scious processes that facilitate my creative work," "I
multivariate and univariate analyses. have been able to use many ideas for creative work that
The high- and low-creative students were then com- have occurred in my dreams," 'When I get a new idea,
pared on the seven CSQ-R subscales using both multi- I get completely absorbed by it until I have pursued it
variate and univariate analyses. The multivariate analy- completely," "I feel that new ideas possess me and
sis revealed a significant difference, F(7,24) = 3.47, p guide me through to completion almost automatically,"
= .01. Univariate tests revealed significant differences "I attribute my creativity to divine inspiration," and "I
on Beliefs in Unconscious Process, Use of Techniques, tend to lose my sense of time when I am engaged in
and Final Product Orientation subscales with F(l, 30) creative work."

Creativity Research Journal 55

 On the Use of Techniques subscale, 7 out of the 18 2.5. Only one item on the Use of Senses subseale
items discriminated between the two groups. The highs differentiated the two groups; this i&m was "I tr:Mf to
expressed greater use of the techniques than the lows use my sense of touch a lot in my creative work"; the
on the following items: "I often let my mind wander to more, relative to the less, creative students scored
come up with new ideas." "Itypically create new ideas hi- on the item. Examining the means for the &her
by combining existing ideas," "I am always thinking items, both groups indicated high use of visual and
(fantasizing) about how to do everyday things differ- auditory senses (ratings > 3.5) and mlittively low use of
ently," "I deliberately reject or ignore conventional or taste and smell (ratings < 3.0).
already accepted ideas to come up with new ideas," "I
often look for new ideas outside of my own field, and
try to apply them to my own," "1 tend to work on many
ideas simultaneously," and "I have maintained a note-
bookldiary of new ideas that I would like to pursue some
day." (The ratings were quite low, < 3.0, for both groups
on the "deliberate rejection of old ideas" and "maintain-
ing a notebook of ideas" items.) The CSQ-R style subscales showed impmved reli-
On the Use of Other People subscale, only 1 out of abilities over the previous CSQ instrument (Kumar et
the 9 items was significant. This item was "Iam at my al., 1991).Irr the previous study the i n d consistency
creative best when I work alone." The highs disagreed reliabilities for six subales (no raliaWty was com-
with this item more than the lows. puted for the Use of !Senses s u M e because it was
On the Final Product Orientation subscale, 5 out of mertrsuted by one item) betwen .35and .70 with
the 7 items were significant. The highs, compared to the a median reliability of .48, whereas in this study, reli-
lows, expressed a lower final product orientation on the abilities for the seven subscalesr m g d between .45 and
following items: "1 usually have lot of both workable .8 1 with a median mii&ility of .74 (see Table 1).
and unworkable ideas," "If I do not have a concrete
(visible) creative product to show (e.g., written compo-
sition, work of art or music, etc.), then I think I have
failed," "I enjoy the process of creating new ideas
whether they lead to a final product or not," "When I
have completed a creative product, I am unable to start The three creativity capacity measuFes (GMCC,
a new project for a long time," and "I think a final CCM, and CFS) were significantly (p < .W1)comlated
product that is not readily observablethrough the senses with each other sugpsting some of convergent
can emerge in a creative act." validity among them. However, given the low to mod-
On the Environmental Control subscale, 3 out of the erate values of the comiation d c i e n t s , it appears
18 items were significant with higher mean scores for that the three mcmures tapped somewhat different as-
the highs. These items were "I ordinarily smoke after I pects of the creative personality.
have worked on my creative ideals) for a designated
period of time," "I typically have background music
when I am engaged in creative work," and "I typically
meditate before I begin my creative work." (The means
were quite low, with average ratings < 3.0, for both
high- and low-creative students. The mean ratings on Considering the correlations of the thme capacity
most items of the Environmental Control subscale were measures with the style (CSQ-R) subcales, it appears
lower than 3.0, suggesting that students in general do that the GMCC is tapping creativity styles most
little about their environment to facilitate their creative broadly, as it was ccorrelstted signifiwtly ( p < .01) with
work.) six of the style subscttk. The CCM scak was si&-
The two items on the Superstition subscale did not candy correlated with three style subscabs: M b f in
significantly differentiate between the high and the low Unconscious Processes, Use of Teohniques, and Final
groups.On both items, the mean ratings were lower than Product Orientation. The CPS measure was correfated
 Creativity Styles Questionairc+Revised

only with the Final Product Orientation subscale of the differences between high- and low-creative students in
CSQ-R. The Final Product Orientation subscale was this investigation were largely consistent with the re-
negatively correlated with all three capacity measures sults of the previous study (Kumar et al., 1991). This is
suggesting its generality across the three methods of despite the fact that this study used more stringent
measuring creativity capacity. criteria for identifying the high- and low-creative stu-
dents. However, given the wide range of ways in which
Differences between high- and low-creative creativity has been conceptualized, these results need
students on CSQ-R subscales. The results of this to be replicated with other techniques (especially some-
study areconsistent withthose from Kumar etal. (1991) thing nonphenomenological, such as the 'ITCT) of
in that the high, relative to the low, creative students measuring creativity capacity. Furthermore, given that
were more inclined to report (a) using a larger number creativity is a desirable trait, a measure of acquiescence
of techniques to be creative and (b) being less motivated response bias would need to be included in future
by the need to produce a final product. The latter result studies in which self-report measures of creativity ca-
is also consistent with Amabile's (1985) observation pacity are used.
that creative students tend to be intrinsically motivated. Thurstone (195011966) observed that identifying
Additionally, this study suggests that the more creative ways to train and encourage creative talent is an impor-
students were more prone to believe in a variety of tant educational problem. He further observed that such
unconscious processes that somehow help them in their training needs to focus not only on techniques of pro-
creative endeavors. This finding may not be surprising ducing new ideas but also on developing attitudes con-
given the number of anecdotal accounts in literature of ducive to developing novel ideas. In this regard, the
how various creative products came into being (e.g., CSQ-R can be used to make people aware of their
Crovitz, 1970; Klimo, 1987). beliefs, strategies, techniques, or approaches as to how
Item-by-item analysis on the CSQ-R revealed 25 to go about being creative. Such awareness can then
items that discriminated between high- and low-crea- become the basis for helping them to modify their
tive students in this study. In the previous study differ- creativity hampering attitudes, for example, one has to
ences were obtained on only 5 items. The results on 4 be in the "right mood" to be creative, or creative ideas
out of these 5 items were replicated in this study. That will simply occur "without even thinking about them."
is, the highs, more than lows, reported that new ideas People may be encouraged to see creativity as a process
possess them and guide them through completion al- involving hard work, persistence, and the use of variety
most automatically, they work on many ideas simulta- of techniques including designing of a conducive envi-
neously, they have many of both workable and unwork- ronment.
able ideas, and they enjoy the process of creating new
ideas whether these ideas lead to a final product or not.
The difference on the item related to showing the crea- References
tive product to other people was not significant. As
Amabile, T. M. (1985). Motivation and creativity: Effects of motiva-
found in the previous study, students (both highs and tional orientation on cmtive writers. Journal of Personality and
lows) reported making little effort in designing a special Social Psychology, 48,393-399.
environment to facilitate creative work in the manner Crovitz, H. F. (1970). Galton's walk. New York: Harper & Row.
described by Skinner and Ferster (Ferster, 1970). de Bono, E. (1968). New think: The use of lateral thinking in the
Although there was no overall significance in the generation of new ideas. New York: Basic Books.
Dormen, L., & Edidin, P. (1989, July/August). Original spin. Psy-
Use of Senses subscale, item analysis showed that more chology Today. 4-52.
creative students in this study reported higher use of the Ferster, C. B. (1970). Schedules of reinforcement with Skinner. In P.
"sense of touch." Participants in both groups reported B. Dews (Ed.), Festschrifr for B. F. Skinner (pp. 37-46). New
relatively high use of the visual sense (ratings of 3.90 York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
and 4.33 for low and high groups, respectively). Ratings Frost, D. (1977). Some ideas for identification. Celebration of crea-
tivity catalogue (Federal Project A6007604827). Lincoln: Ne-
on the use of taste and smell were very low, reflecting
braska State Department of Education.
infrequent use of these senses by both groups (< 3.0). Gough, H. G., & Heilbrun, A. B. (1980). The Adjective Check List
Although the CSQ-R did show improved internal manual (2nd ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists
consistency reliabilities over the previous version, the Press.

Creativity Research Journal 57

V. K. Kumar, D. KemmIer, a d E. R. Holman

Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review andcritique. Morse, D. T.,& Khatena,J. (1989). Rdatiwabtipof d v i t y and life
Journal of Personality Assessment, 45,450-464. accompliahmcnt,Jo& of Cre&vc lkkavior, 23.59-65.
Holman, E. R., & Kumar, V. K. (1990). Creativity characteristics Osbome, A. (1957). Appficd hagidm New Y e .W W s .
measure. Unpublished psychological test, West ChcsterUniver- Posner, M.I. (1973). Cognition: An innaducrion.Glemiew, b Scott
sity, West Chester, PA. Foresman.
Klimo, J. (1987). Channeling: fnvestiguuingor receivingi~ornation Stemberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. 1. (199%). The d v e mind. Neder-
fromparanormal sources. Los Angcles: J m m y P. Tawher. lands Tijhchrifl Vow de Psychdogie, 47,288-300.
Kumar, V. K., & Holman, E. R. (1989). Creativity styles qwstion- Stemberg, R. J., & Lu;bsrt, T. I. (1992b). Creativity: Its nature and
mire. U n p u b W psycho lo^ test, Departmurt dPsychol- asmment. S c h l Psyebhgy Intem&m& 13,243-253.
ogy,West Chester University, West Chester, PA. Thitrstm, L. L. (1966). Creative W.In A. AnasW (Bd.), Testing
Kumar, V. K., Holman, E. R., & Rudegdr, P. (1991). Creativity problems in perspective: Twentp#B~ affnivcrsary vdwne of
styles of freshmen students. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, topical readings from the invit&onal c@rence on testing
320-323 probkm (pp. 414428). Wa&im@n DC:Amcricnur Council of
Lubart, T. I., & Stemberg, R. J. (1988). Creativity: The individual, Education. (Ocigid work p a r b i W 1950)
the systems, the approach. Creativity Research Jouml, 1, T m ,E. P.(1974). The T o m w e t c s t s o f c ~ d v think&:
e Technr-
63-67 cal-norm rmuuu11. f3emu1vflfe, IL.ScholaPtic Testing M c e s .

58 Creativity