Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Sep 19;17(9):e0274921.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274921. eCollection 2022.

Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

Russell T Warne  1 , Sam Golightly  1 , Makai Black  1
Affiliations

Factor structure of intelligence and divergent thinking subtests: A registered report

Russell T Warne et al. PLoS One. .

Abstract

Psychologists have investigated creativity for 70 years, and it is now seen as being an important construct, both scientifically and because of its practical value to society. However, several fundamental unresolved problems persist, including a suitable definition of creativity and the ability of psychometric tests to measure divergent thinking-an important component of creativity-in a way that aligns with theory. It is this latter point that this registered report is designed to address. We administered two divergent thinking tests (the verbal and figural versions of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking; TTCT) with an intelligence test (the International Cognitive Ability Resource test; ICAR). We then subjected the subscores from these tests to confirmatory factor analysis to examine which of nine theoretically plausible models best fits the data. Results show that none of the pre-registered models fit the data well, an ambiguous result that leaves unanswered the question of whether intelligence and divergent thinking tests measure the same construct. Exploratory (i.e., not pre-registered) measurement models of each test separately shows that the TTCT-F may not measure a coherent, unitary construct-leading to model misspecification when TTCT-F subtests were included in larger models. This study was conducted in accordance with all open science practices, including pre-registration, open data and syntax, and open materials (with the exception of copyrighted and confidential test stimuli). Materials are available at https://osf.io/8rpfz/.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Subject flow diagram for the study.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 1a.
Fig 3
Fig 3. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 2a.
Fig 4
Fig 4. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 3a.
Fig 5
Fig 5. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 4a.
Fig 6
Fig 6. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 5.
Fig 7
Fig 7. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 1b.
Fig 8
Fig 8. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 2b.
Fig 9
Fig 9. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 3b.
Fig 10
Fig 10. Confirmatory factor analysis diagram for model 4b.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Update of

References

    1. Guilford JP. Creativity. Am Psychol. 1950;5: 444–54. - PubMed
    1. Kell HJ, Lubinski D, Benbow CP, Steiger JH. Creativity and technical innovation: Spatial ability’s unique role. Psychol Sci. 2013;24: 1831–6. doi: 10.1177/0956797613478615 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Sternberg RJ, Grigorenko EL. Guilford’s structure of intellect model and model of creativity: Contributions and limitations. Creat Res J. 2001;13: 302–16.
    1. Guilford JP. Some changes in the structure-of-intellect model. Educ Psychol Meas. 1988;48: 1–4.
    1. Silvia P. Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan (1965). Creat Res J. 2008;20:34–39.

Publication types

Substances