Elena TUNIK,
candidate of psychological sciences,
Associate Professor of the Department of Psychology
University of Pedagogical Excellence,
Saint Petersburg

PSYCHODAGNOSTICS OF CREATIVE THINKING

Creative tests

Fundamental research has been carried out in our country and abroad on the psychology of creativity, general and special abilities. The genetic background of individual differences has been studied.
At the same time, there are still no methods for a comprehensive diagnosis of general and specific giftedness. Divergent (creative) thinking also remains insufficiently studied.
Scientists have concluded that creativity is not the same as learning ability and is rarely reflected in tests aimed at determining IQ. At this stage, the interest of researchers is not so much the personality of the scientist (a careful, precise and critically thinking person), but rather the personality of the inventor (a non-standard, original and witty person).
The objectives of this work are:

- studying the nature of creative, divergent thinking;
- development of methods for diagnosing children's creative abilities.

SHORT REVIEW

As a result of experimental studies, a special kind of ability was identified among the individual’s abilities - to generate unusual ideas, deviate in thinking from traditional patterns, and quickly resolve problem situations. This ability was called creativity.
Creativity covers a certain set of mental and personal qualities that determine the ability to be creative. One of the components of creativity is the individual’s ability to think divergently.

The article was published with the support of the A. Smirnov School of Practical Osteopathy. A site about teaching osteopathy - a gentle and safe form of manual therapy. The School of Practical Osteopathy "Osteopractic Project" trains both doctors and massage therapists, yoga instructors, fitness trainers and people without medical education. Osteopathy is a modern method of helping the spine, joints, and internal organs, based on the synthesis of knowledge about human anatomy, physiology and special techniques for working with muscles, joints, blood vessels and peripheral nerves. Issuing a diploma of professional retraining and a specialist certificate. Detailed information about the school and training, contacts and training programs can be found at the link: http://osteopract.ru/reestr.htm.

It is necessary to distinguish a creative product from a creative process. The product of creative thinking can be assessed by its originality and its significance, the creative process - by sensitivity to the problem, the ability to synthesize, the ability to recreate missing details, by divergent thinking (not following the beaten path), by fluency of thought, etc. These attributes of creativity are common to both science and art.
Problems of creativity have been widely developed in Russian psychology. Currently, researchers are searching for an integral indicator that characterizes a creative personality. This indicator can be defined as some combination of intellectual and motivational factors or be considered as a continuous unity of procedural and personal components of thinking and creative thinking (A.V. Brushlinsky).
Psychologists such as B.M. made a great contribution to the development of problems of abilities, giftedness, and creative thinking. Teplov, S.L. Rubinstein, B.G. Ananyev,
N.S. Leites, V.A. Krutetsky, A.G. Kovalev, K.K. Platonov, A.M. Matyushkin, V.D. Shadrikov, Yu.D. Babaeva, V.N. Druzhinin, I.I. Ilyasov, V.I. Panov, I.V. Kalish, M.A. Kholodnaya, N.B. Shumakova, V.S. Yurkevich et al.
Foreign scientists have also deeply studied creative thinking. Some people, according to Bruner, have certain abilities for encoding information in new and unusual ways. Gallach and Kogan (3) found that creative children scored higher on tests of categorization breadth. The cognitive sphere of creative individuals is characterized by the presence of broad categories, synthetic perception of the surrounding world and a high level of cognitive flexibility.
When working using the Barron-Welsh test (4), it was found that creative individuals choose more complex complex and asymmetrical figures when performing the test.
Jackson and Messick (5) identified criteria for evaluating creative products. One of the criteria they consider is “condensation”: creative products exhibit stability over time, revealing more and more of their sides, and also combine simplicity and complexity. It is believed that the person who creates such products must have a diverse and even contradictory combination of cognitive and emotional qualities.
Guilford proposed considering three main characteristics of a creative personality - originality (the ability to offer one’s own, unusual way of thinking), sensitivity and integration. The latter is interpreted as the ability to simultaneously take into account and/or combine several opposing conditions, premises or principles.
According to McConnen, three more personality characteristics are associated with originality - dominance, responsiveness to emotions, and the manifestation of femininity in men. Ruskin discovered a connection between creativity and the personality trait of narcissism. Della believes that creative people often identify with other personalities and easily change roles.
Torrance (9) conducted a study of creative thinking and obtained the following results: creativity peaks between the ages of 3.5 and 4.5 years, and also increases in the first three years of school, decreases in the next few years and then picks up development .
Creativity is ambiguously dependent on education. Most children lose their spontaneous fearlessness if they become "cultured." As Wadsworth wrote (6): “Customs (rules) weigh upon children—strong as frost, and almost as deep as life.”
In the first three grades of school, teachers are more spontaneous and child-centric. In high school, teachers become more critical of children.
Getzels and Jackson developed a battery of tests that can be used to differentiate between highly creative (creative thinkers) and highly intelligent children. The authors found that highly intelligent children looked up to the achievements, standards, and norms of adults. Highly creative children preferred special achievements that differed from the generally accepted ones - these are non-conforming, rebellious, rebellious children. Getzels and Jackson found that teachers prefer children with high general intelligence and low creativity. Creative children are dreamers, love humor, show it in their responses when exploring an unstructured situation, and love to go in new directions. Teachers and classmates often describe creative children this way: “They come up with wild and stupid ideas and behave aggressively.”
Divergent thinking tests are part of a general system of tests aimed at revealing the creative potential of an individual, and are mainly associated with the name
J. Guilford. Guilford (7) distinguishes between divergent and convergent thinking:

Divergent products - search and generation of new information objects;
- convergent products - the search for very specific answers to very specific questions.

Convergent products require an analytical type of thinking, which is necessary when the problem is defined. Divergent products require a more open mind.
According to most psychologists, creativity is not synonymous with learning ability and is rarely reflected in intelligence tests measured by IQ. Creativity tests abroad were developed mainly by J. Guilford, and modified tests for children developed by Torrance were also used.

BATTERY OF TESTS FOR STUDYING CREATIVE THINKING

Most modern tests are modifications of the Guilford and Torrance tests.
In our study, we rely on the following factors identified in the Guildford studies.

1) Fluency (ease, productivity) - this factor characterizes the fluency of creative thinking and is determined by the total number of answers.

2) Flexibility - the factor characterizes the flexibility of creative thinking, the ability to quickly switch and is determined by the number of classes (groups) of these answers.

3) Originality - the factor characterizes originality, originality of creative thinking, unusual approach to the problem and is determined by the number of rarely given answers, unusual use of elements, originality of the structure of the answer.

4) Accuracy - a factor that characterizes the harmony, logicality of creative thinking, the choice of an adequate solution that corresponds to the goal.

Each test score reflects two or three of the factors mentioned. Moreover, if the reliability indicators of creative thinking tests are quite high and equal to 0.8-0.9, and the reliability coefficient determined by the method of interchangeable forms is equal to 0.7-0.9 (8), then with factor analysis the situation is more complicated.
Factor analysis of Torrance test performance does not support the interpretation of these indicators on the basis of single constructs. The intercorrelations of different measures of a single test were higher than the intercorrelations of a similar measure (for example, fluency) across different tests. The two originality scores from the Imaginative Creative Thinking Battery (9) show correlations of 0.30 and 0.40 with each other and even lower with the originality scores of the Verbal and Imaginative Thinking Batteries. Hence, according to A. Anastasi, it is inappropriate to consider the same indicator from different tests as a measure of the same personality trait.
In our opinion, this issue has not been clearly resolved and requires further study.
Let us note several points related to the test procedure. Tests can be carried out either individually or in a group. In order to avoid anxiety among test takers and create a favorable psychological atmosphere, work with tests is called classes. Often these classes are conducted in a playful way.
In the preliminary instructions, which are given in free form, we ask subjects to offer as many different answers to our questions as possible, to show their humor and imagination, and to try to come up with answers that no one else can come up with.
This battery of tests was proposed by the author of this work. Most tests are modifications of the Guilford or Torrance tests.
The procedure takes about 40 minutes.
The tests are intended for the age group from 5 to 15 years. For children aged 5 to 8 years, the procedure is carried out individually. With the age group from 9 to 15 years, work with tests is carried out in a group form (it is also possible to conduct it in an individual form).
It should be noted that subtest 3 (words or expression) has two modifications, one modification - words - is intended for children from 5 to 8 years old, the second modification - expression - is intended for children 9-15 years old.

Task

List as many unusual ways to use the item as possible.

Instructions for the test subject

The newspaper is used for reading. You can come up with other ways to use it. What can be made from it? How else can it be used?
The instructions are read out orally. Subtest execution time - 3 minutes. In the individual form, all answers are recorded verbatim by a psychologist. In the group form, the answers are written down by the subjects themselves. The time is recorded after reading the instructions.

Assessment

The test results were assessed in points.
There are three indicators.

1) Fluency (fluency in reproducing ideas) - total number of answers. For each answer 1 point is given, all points are summed up.

B - fluency,
n is the number of relevant answers.

Particular attention should be paid to the term “appropriate responses.” It is necessary to exclude from those taken into account those answers that were mentioned in the instructions - obvious ways to use newspapers: read a newspaper, find out the news, etc.

2) Flexibility - number of classes (categories) of answers.

1. Use for notes (write down phone number, solve examples, draw).
2. Use for repair and construction work (glue up windows, stick under wallpaper).
3. Use as a bedding (lay on a dirty bench, put under shoes, lay on the floor when painting the ceiling).
4. Use as a wrapper (wrap a purchase, wrap books, wrap flowers).
5. Use for animals (bedding for a cat, hamster, tie a bow from a newspaper on a thread and play with the cat).
6. Use as a means for wiping (wipe the table, wipe windows, wash dishes, as toilet paper).
7. Use as a weapon of aggression (hitting flies, punishing a dog, spitting newspaper balls).
8. Recycling.
9. Obtaining information (watch advertising, make announcements, make clippings, check the lottery ticket number, see the date, watch a TV program, etc.).
10. Use as a covering (shelter from rain, sun, cover something from dust).
11. Burning (for kindling, for making a fire, making a torch).
12. Creating crafts and toys (make a ship, a hat, papier-mâché).

You should assign each answer a category number from the list above, then, if several answers belong to the same category, then count only the first answer from this category, that is, count each category only once.
Then you should count the number of categories the child used. In principle, the number of categories can vary from 0 to 12 (unless there are responses assigned to a new category that is not on the list).
For answers that do not fit into any of the listed categories, 3 points are added for each new category. There may be several such answers. But before assigning a new category, you should very carefully relate the answer to the list above.
3 points are awarded for one category.

G = 3 m.

G - flexibility indicator,
m is the number of categories used.

3) Originality - the number of unusual, original answers. An answer is considered original if it occurs once in a sample of 30-40 people.

One original answer - 5 points.
All points for original answers are summed up.

0р = 5 k.

The calculation of the total indicator for each subtest should be carried out after the standardization procedure, that is, the conversion of raw scores into standard ones. In this case, we propose summing up scores for various factors, realizing that such a procedure is not sufficiently correct, and therefore, the total scores can only be used as approximate and estimated.

T 1 = B 1 + G 1 + Or 1 = n + 3 m + 5 k.

T 1 - total indicator of the first subtest,
B 1 - fluency in 1 subtest,
G 1 - flexibility for 1 subtest,
OR 1 - originality in 1 subtest,
n is the total number of relevant answers,
m - number of categories,
k - number of original answers.

Task

List the various consequences of the hypothetical situation.

Instructions for the test subject

Imagine what would happen if animals and birds could speak human language.

Assessment

The results of the subtest were assessed in points.
There are two indicators.

1) Fluency (fluency of reproducing ideas) - the total number of consequences given.
1 answer (1 consequence) - 1 point.

2) Originality - number of original answers, number of remote consequences. Here, an answer given only once (on a sample) is considered original.
30-40 people).
1 original answer - 5 points.

0р - indicator of originality,
k - number of original answers.

T 2 = n + 5 k.

T 2 - total indicator of the second subtest.

As in the first subtest, attention should be paid to eliminating inappropriate (inadequate) answers, namely: repeated answers and answers that are not relevant to the task.

Subtest 3a. Words

Modification for children 5-8 years old.
The subtest is administered individually.

Task

Come up with words that begin or end with a certain syllable.

Instructions for the test subject

1 part. Think of words that begin with the syllable “po”, for example “shelf”.
You have 2 minutes to answer.
Part 2. Think of words that end with the syllable “ka”, for example “bag”.
You have 2 minutes to answer.
The entire subtest takes 4 minutes to complete.

Assessment

The results of the subtest are assessed in points.
There are two indicators.

1) Fluency - the total number of words given.
1 word - 1 point.

B - fluency indicator,
n is the total number of words.

As before, you should cross out repeated words and also ignore inappropriate words.

2) Originality - the number of original words given once for a sample of 30-40 people.
1 original word - 5 points.

0р = 5 k.

k is the number of original words.

T 3 = n + 5 k.

T 3 - total indicator of the third subtest (for children 5-8 years old).

Subtest 3b. Expression

Modification for children 9-15 years old

Task

Come up with sentences consisting of four words, each of which begins with the indicated letter.

Instructions for the test subject

Come up with as many four-word sentences as possible. Each word in a sentence must begin with the specified letter. These letters are: B, M, S, K (subjects are presented with printed letters).
Please use the letters only in this order, do not change their places. Here is an example sentence: “A cheerful boy is watching a movie.”
Now come up with as many of your own sentences as possible using these letters.
The subtest takes 5 minutes to complete.

Assessment

The results of the subtest are assessed according to three indicators.

1) Fluency - number of invented proposals (n).
1 sentence - 1 point.

2) Flexibility- number of words used by the subject. Each word is taken into account only once, that is, in each subsequent sentence only those words are taken into account that have not been used by the subject before or do not repeat the words in the example. Words of the same root belonging to different parts of speech are considered the same, for example: “cheerful, fun.”
1 word - 0.1 point.

G - flexibility indicator,
m is the number of words used once.

3) Originality

The number of sentences that are original in semantic content is counted. A sentence that appears once in a sample of 30-40 people is considered original.
One original proposal - 5 points.

Or is an indicator of originality,
k is the number of original proposals.

T 3 = n + 0.1 m + 5 k.

T 3 - total indicator of the third subtest (for children 9-15 years old).

Task

Give as many definitions for common words as possible.

Instructions for the test subject

Find as many definitions for the word “book” as you can. For example: a beautiful book. What other book is there?
The subtest execution time is 3 minutes.

Assessment

The results of the subtest are assessed in points according to three indicators.

1) Fluency - the total number of definitions given (n).
One definition - 1 point.

B - fluency indicator.

2) Flexibility - number of response categories.

G = 3 m.

G - flexibility indicator,
m is the number of response categories.

1. Time of publication (old, new, modern, ancient).
2. Actions with a book of any type (abandoned, forgotten, stolen, transferred).
3. Material and method of production (cardboard, parchment, papyrus, handwritten, printed).
4. Purpose, genre (medical, military, reference, fiction, fiction).
5. Belonging (mine, yours, Petina, library, general).
6. Sizes, shape (large, heavy, long, thin, round, square).
7. Prevalence, fame (known, popular, famous, rare).
8. Degree of preservation and cleanliness (torn, whole, dirty, wet, shabby, dusty).
9. Value (expensive, cheap, valuable).
10. Color (red, blue, purple).
11. Emotional-evaluative perception (good, cheerful, sad, scary, sad, interesting, smart, useful).
12. Language, place of publication (English, foreign, German, Indian, domestic).

All answers belonging to the same category are counted only once. The maximum score is 12 x 3 = 36 points (if the answers contain all twelve categories, which in practice is extremely rare, and there are also no answers that are assigned a new category). As in subtest 1, answers that do not fit into any category are assigned a new category and, accordingly, 3 points are added for each new category. In this case, the maximum score may increase.

G = 3 m.

G - flexibility indicator,
m - number of categories.

3) Originality - number of original definitions.

A definition is considered original if it is given only once in a sample of 30-40 people.
One original definition - 5 points.

0р = 5 k.

Or is an indicator of originality,
k is the number of original definitions.

T 4 = n + 3 m + 5 k.

T 4 - total indicator of the fourth subtest.

Task

Draw specified objects using a specific set of shapes.

Instructions for the test subject

Draw certain objects using the following set of shapes: circle, rectangle, triangle, semicircle. Each shape can be used several times, its size and position in space can be changed, but other shapes or lines cannot be added.
In the first square draw a face, in the second - a house, in the third - a clown, and in the fourth - what you want. Label the fourth drawing.
The subject is presented with a set of figures shown in Fig. 1 and a sample task - a lamp (Fig. 2).
A sample of a blank test form is shown in Fig. 3.
The execution time for all drawings is 8 minutes.
The length of the side of the square is 8 cm (for the test form).

Assessment

Evaluation is carried out according to two indicators.

1) Fluency - flexibility. This indicator takes into account:

n 1 - number of depicted elements (details);
n 2 - the number of shape categories used (out of 4 given), n 2 varies from 0 to 4.
One detail - 0.1 points.
One class of figures - 1 point.
n 3 - number of errors (an error is the use of an unspecified figure or line in a drawing).
One mistake - 0.1 points.

B 4 i=1 = (0.1n 1i + n 2i - 0.1 n 3i)

B - fluency,

Points B are summed up across four drawings.

2) Originality

k 1 - the number of original elements of the picture.
An original element means an element of an unusual shape, an unusual arrangement of an element, an unusual use of an element, an original arrangement of elements relative to each other.
One original element - 3 points.
One drawing may contain several original elements.
k 2 - originality of the fourth drawing (by topic, by content). May meet once for a sample of 30-40 people.
k 2 can take values ​​0 or 1.
For an original plot, 5 points are awarded (this applies only to the fourth picture)

0r 4 i=1 = 5 k + k 1i .

Or - originality,
i - figure number (from 1 to 4).

T 5 = B + 0r.

T 5 - total indicator of the fifth subtest,
B - fluency,
0r - originality.

Subtest 6. Sketches

Task

Transform identical figures (circles) shown in squares into different images.

Instructions for the test subject

Add any details or lines to the main image to create a variety of interesting designs. You can draw both inside and outside the circle. Write a title for each drawing.
The task completion time is 10 minutes.
The test form is a sheet of standard paper (A4 format), which shows 20 squares with a circle in the middle. The square measures 5 x 5 cm, the diameter of each circle is 1.5 cm.
In Fig. 5 shows a sample test form for this subtest.
As an example, a drawn man is presented for the subtest (Fig. 6).

Assessment

It is carried out according to three indicators:

1) Fluency - the number of drawings adequate to the task.
One drawing - 1 point.

n - number of pictures (varies from 0 to 20).

Drawings that exactly repeat each other (duplicates), as well as drawings that do not use stimulus material - a circle, are excluded.

2) Flexibility - the number of depicted classes (categories) of drawings. For example, images of different faces belong to one category, images of different animals also belong to one category.
One category - 3 points.

1. War (military equipment, soldiers, explosions).
2. Geographical objects (lake, pond, mountains, sun, moon).
3. Animals. Birds. Fish. Insects.
4. Signs (letters, numbers, musical notes, symbols).
5. Toys, games (any).
6. Space (rocket, satellite, astronaut).
7. Face (any human face).
8. People (person).
9. Cars. Mechanisms.
10. Dishes.
11. Household items.
12. Natural phenomena (rain, snow, hail, rainbows, northern lights).
13. Plants (any - trees, herbs, flowers).
14. Sports equipment.
15. Edibles (food).
16. Patterns, ornaments.
17. Jewelry (beads, earrings, bracelet).

If a drawing does not fit into any category, it is assigned a new category.

3) Originality

A drawing whose plot is used once (on a sample of 30-40 people) is considered original.
One original drawing - 5 points.

Or = 5 k.

Or is an indicator of originality,
k is the number of original drawings.

T 6 = n + 3 m + 5 k.

T 6 - total indicator of the sixth subtest.

When calculating scores for the sixth subtest, all drawings should be taken into account, regardless of the quality of the image. The plot and theme must be judged not only by the drawing, but also the signature must be taken into account (see, for example, Fig. 7).
After finishing work, young children who do not know how to write should be asked what is shown in the pictures and sign the names of the pictures. This mainly applies to the age group of 5-7 years.

Subtest 7. Hidden form

Task

Find various shapes hidden in a complex, low-structured image.

Instructions for the test subject

Find as many images in this picture as possible. What is shown in this picture?
The subtest execution time is 3 minutes.
Test stimulus materials (images) are shown in Figures 8(1), 8(2), 8(3), 8(4): a total of four different patterns. Only one drawing should be submitted. The rest are given so that re-testing can be done at another time.

Assessment

The results of the subtest are assessed in points according to two indicators:

1) Fluency - total number of answers (n).
One answer - 1 point.

2) Originality - number of original, rare answers. In this case, an answer given once in a sample of 30-40 people will be considered original.
One original answer - 5 points.

0р = 5 k.

Or - originality,
k is the number of original, rare answers.

T 7 = n + 5 k.

T 7 - total indicator of the seventh subtest.

It should be noted that in the first edition of this test (13) only one figure was provided. Unfortunately, parts of the above brochure were copied in a number of publications, and the stimulus image - Figure 6 - became widely known. Therefore, I created five additional drawings for the seventh subtest. I would like to express my deep gratitude to the student of the art and graphic department of the Russian State Pedagogical University of St. Petersburg, Dmitry Dmitriev, for his help in the compositional construction of these drawings.

QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTION OF THE DATA OBTAINED

The tests we used were administered to children as fun activities. They had a relaxed atmosphere. Children were warned in advance that all their answers would be correct; the more answers they came up with, the better, even if these were unusual answers. Participants were encouraged to imagine, all answers were encouraged.
Most of the children responded with great enthusiasm and with a desire to continue their studies.
We will discuss data from the combined sample - 100 people, age - 7 years.

Subtest 1. Use of objects (use options)

For this test, subjects gave an average of six answers per person (in 3 minutes), the spread in the number of answers is large - from 1 to 14.
The most common answers: “You can make an airplane, a hat, a ship out of a newspaper. Recycle. Underlay. Find out news from it. Find out the TV program."
Rare, original answers: “Soak the newspaper and translate the words. Fan yourself if it's hot. Punish a dog with a newspaper (slap the dog). Use it as a calendar. Find out the lottery ticket number. Let the cat play. Create anonymous letters."

Subtest 2. Consequences of the situation

This test was difficult for some children. On average, four responses were given (in 3 minutes). The range of answers by number is from 0 to 11.
Approximately 80 types of answers were given. Frequently repeated answers: “People and animals will talk and understand each other. They will be friends. People and animals will help each other. It will be fun. There will be confusion."
Rare, original answers: “Animals will learn foreign languages. They will learn to sing songs. They will appear on television. The dove will fly and convey the letter in words. The animals will go to the dacha. The animals will lose their hair and tail.”

Subtest 3a. Words

This test has great discriminating power.
The average number of invented words (of each type) is 5. The range of words is from 0 to 20.
Examples of frequently cited words: in the first part - “floor, went, field, train”; in the second - “cat, mouse”.
Examples of original words: in the first part - “plantain, congratulations, wake, flogging”; in the second - “shrimp, line”.

Subtest 3b. Expression

The subtest has great discriminating power. The average number of proposals invented is 4. The range of proposals is from 0 to 9.
Examples of frequently cited sentences: “There is a cinema in Moscow”, “There is a cat sitting in the car”.
Examples of original, grammatically correct sentences: “On Maslenitsa, starlings scream,” “You can always salt potatoes,” “A sparrow prevented a magpie from screaming,” “The sea water is salty, watch,” “Vitya knocked down a mosquito with a fly swatter.”

Subtest 4. Word association

The average number of answers given - definitions for the word “book” - was 11. The range of answers by number was from 1 to 30 (in 3 minutes). 180 responses were given.
Frequently occurring answers: “interesting, beautiful, big, small, fabulous, good.”
Rare answers: “amazing, strange, forgotten, true, shitty, bought, documentary, forbidden, wet.”

Subtest 5. Composing images

A rather complex scoring system has been proposed for this subtest. When calculating, the total number of depicted elements, the number of categories of figures used (out of four given), and the originality of the drawing and its elements are taken into account. The use of figures and lines other than those specified was considered an error.

Subtest 6. Sketches

The proposed scoring system for this test is also quite labor-intensive.

When calculating the indicators of this subtest, the total number of categories of drawings and the number of depicted objects are taken into account: for example, images of six different faces belong to one category, images of several different letters also belong to one category. It is considered a mistake if the subject did not use a circle to construct his drawing; the originality and rarity of the image is taken into account. The originality of the approach is also taken into account, namely: an unusual design, successful use of a circle, an unusual composition, etc.

Subtest 7. Hidden form

Children love to take this subtest. Average number of answers according to Fig. 8(1) - 12, range of answers - from 5 to 25. A total of 190 different answers were given, that is, the largest number of answers was received for this subtest.
Frequent answers: “umbrella, fish, jug, bucket, bird, hat, man, sun, lamp, boat, cloud.”
Rare, original answers: “basketball basket, explosion, cactus, banana, anchor, mine, Uncle Styopa, cockroach, chestnut, swimming circle, old man Hottabych’s jug, sausage, fence.”

COMPARISON OF PRIMARY STATISTICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF SUB-TESTS

A comprehensive study using the proposed methodology was carried out on the basis of a high school-gymnasium (experimental class), a high school with in-depth study of a foreign language (regular class) and a chess club at the city Palace of Youth Creativity in St. Petersburg. A total of 150 people aged 7 years were examined.
The following tasks were solved:

1. Develop a battery of techniques that allow you to assess various parameters of creative thinking:

Verbal - creative thinking;
- imaginative - creative thinking.

2. To study mutual correlations between indicators such as fluency and originality of thinking.

3. Study cross correlations:

Between the indicators of individual subtests;
- between indicators of individual areas: verbal and figurative creative thinking;
- between the indicators of individual subtests and areas and the integral indicator characterizing creative thinking.

4. Select in this battery of tests those that are the most informative and well differentiate differences in the level of creative thinking.

The results obtained were analyzed quantitatively and qualitatively. Their statistical processing was carried out: average values, standard deviations were calculated, and a correlation analysis of the data was carried out.
Primary indicators of creativity were calculated: mean, standard deviation and coefficient of variation. Spearman correlation coefficients were also calculated between the indicators of individual subtests and the indicators of individual subtests and integral characteristics.
Integral indicators of fluency, originality, flexibility were introduced, as well as an integral verbal indicator (1-4 subtests), an integral figurative indicator (5-7 subtests) and a general integral indicator.

CONCLUSIONS

A battery of creative thinking tests (consisting of seven subtests) has been developed. Using these subtests we studied:

Verbal creative thinking (4 subtests);
- imaginative creative thinking (3 subtests).

The connection between two factors (flexibility and originality) with integral indicators of creative thinking was studied.
When analyzing the indicators of fluency (total number of answers) and originality (number of unusual, original answers) of thinking, it was shown that the largest number of answers and the largest number of original answers were given by the subjects in subtests 4 and 7.
Subtests 2, 3, 4, 7 have the greatest discriminative ability: they best differentiate subjects.
In general, it can be noted that verbal subtests have greater discriminative power than figurative ones; and the originality score has greater discriminative power than the fluency score.
The correlation of subtests between themselves and integral indicators of creativity was studied.
Verbal subtests (1, 2, 3, 4) significantly correlate with each other and with all integral indicators and with figurative subtest 7.
Imagery subtests (5, 6, 7) do not correlate with each other; subtests 5, 6 do not correlate with verbal subtests, but significantly correlate with integral indicators.
Particular attention should be paid to subtest 6, which correlates only with integral figurative indicators.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SCHOOL SUCCESS AND CREATIVITY

To examine the correlation between academic success and creativity, Spearman correlation coefficients were calculated between grade point average obtained at the end of 1st grade and creativity scores. All obtained coefficients are insignificant.
It was not possible to obtain any obvious functional relationship (graphically), which also indicates the absence of a functional relationship between creativity and academic success. There was a large scatter of data throughout the entire definition area, that is, the same indicator of creativity could correspond to both a low (3.0) and a high school score (4.8).
True, one can note the presence of a certain pattern. A child with great creative potential will most likely study well, that is, a sufficient condition is met. The reverse statement is false (the necessary condition is not met). It is not only creative children who have good academic performance: creative potential is not necessary to achieve academic success.
Our findings about the absence of a clear connection between academic success and creativity are consistent with numerous data from foreign authors.

CONCLUSION

The data obtained in our study can be used by psychologists and teachers to study the nature of creative thinking, as well as in psychodiagnostics when studying the creative abilities of individuals and in the selection of gifted and talented people.
Since the above tests are conducted in a playful manner (as fun activities), they can be used by teachers to develop children's creative thinking. I would like to warn teachers against making negative assessments based on test results. When conducting such classes, it is only permissible to encourage children
and when discussing the results, only the best answers are given.
Failing tests should not be discussed, and children should simply be told, “Well, that’s okay.” When discussing the best answers, the teacher tries to expand the children's mental horizons, develop in them the ability to look at things and phenomena from different sides, and see the unusual in the ordinary. This is how independence of thinking, fantasy, that is, a creative approach to life are formed.

LITERATURE

1. Rubinshtein S.L. The problem of abilities and issues of psychological theory in the book. "Problems of general psychology." M., Pedagogy, 1973.
2. Dunchev V.N. Cand. diss. "The study of cognitive styles in connection with the problem of creativity." L.: Leningrad State University, 1985.
3. Gallach M., Kogan N. J. of Person. 1965. V. 33. p. 348-369.
4. Barron F., Welsh G.S. J. of Psychol. 1952. V. 33 p. 199-203.
5. Messick S., Jackson P. N. Creativity and Learning, Boston, 1967.
6. The Gifted child. New-York-Burlin-ganaime, Mazcourte Brace, 1962.
7. Guilford J., Hoepfher R. The analysis of intelligence. New York, 1971.
8. Anastasi A. Psychological testing. M., Pedagogy, 1982, vol. 2.
9. Torrance E.P. Education and creative potential. Minneapolis, 1963.
10. Problems of abilities in domestic psychology. Sat. scientific Proceedings, M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, 1984.
11. Luk A.N. Theoretical foundations for identifying creative abilities.
12. Gifted children. /Ed. M. Carne. M.: Progress, 1991.
13. Tunik E.E. Psychodiagnostics of creative thinking. Creative tests. St. Petersburg: SPbUPM, 1997.
14. Rice. 8(2). Stimulus material for subtest 7

Rice. 8(3). Stimulus material for subtest 7

Rice. 8(4). Stimulus material for subtest 7

"E. E. Tunik MODIFIED CREATIVE WILLIAMS TESTS SPEECH St. Petersburg PUBLISHING HOUSE BBK 88.8+88.3 T 84 Reviewer: L. A. Regush - doctor...”

E. E. Tunik

MODIFIED

CREATIVE

WILLIAMS TESTS

SPEECH St. Petersburg

PUBLISHING HOUSE

BBK 88.8+88.3

Reviewer:

L. A. Regush - Doctor of Psychology,

professor of the Russian State

pedagogical university

TUNIK E. E.

T 84 Modified Williams creative tests. - S P b:

Speech, 2003.- 96 p.

I S B N 5-9268-0164-8 The tool presents a modified version of the tests by F. Williams, prev. Appointed for complex diagnostics and creativity in children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old.

Set of three parts:

Test of divergent (creative) thinking;

Test of personal creative characteristics (questionnaire for children);

Williams scales (questionnaire for parents and teachers).

The tests are standardized, the work contains Russian regulatory data. The book is intended for a wide range of specialists.

I. Yu. Avidon. Head Edited by T.V. Tuyaupev.

Editor-in-chief M. S. Ruzina. Artistic editor P.V. Borozenets.

Leading editor Director L. V. Yankovsky.

O O O PUBLISHING HOUSE “RECH”, t. (8 1 2) 323-76-70, (8 1 2) 323-90-63.

Email: [email protected] 199004, St. Petersburg, 3 line, 6 (lit. “A”).

L icense L P No. 000364 dated 12/29/99.

Signed for publication on December 24, 2002. Format 60x90"/16.

P e h l. 6.0. Circulation 5000 copies. Order No. 4 Ch ff.

Printed in the printing house O O O "S Z P D".

188350, Leningrad region, Gatchina, st. S o l o d u h i n a, 2.

© E. E. Tunik, 2003 © Rech Publishing House, 2003 I S B N 5-9268-0164-8 © P. V. Borozenets (cover design), 2003 Contents Introduction 5 Chapter 1. Description of a set of creative tests (C A R) 7

1.1. What is SAR? 7

1.2. Who is the ATS for? 8

1.3. What does SAP measure? 9

1.4. Williams model. Creative factors 11 Chapter 2. Guidelines for conducting

–  –  –

This paper presents an adapted version of F. Williams’ set of creative tests. Currently, to assess the level of creativity in our country, the Torrance tests of creative thinking are most widely used - an adapted version made by the author of this brochure, a battery of creative tests created on the basis of the Guilford and Torrance tests and an adapted version of the Johnson Creativity Questionnaire, aimed at assessing and self-assessment of the characteristics of a creative personality.

The Guilford Divergent Thinking Test is intended mainly for the adult population, the Creative Test Battery consists of express tests, and the Torrance Creative Thinking Tests are very labor-intensive to administer and process data.

Therefore, there was a need to develop creative tests designed for a wide age range of children and adolescents. They should be tests in the strict sense of the word, that is, they should be a reliable, valid instrument with certain national standards and should not require a lot of time and effort to conduct and process data. I would like to note one more important aspect.

As is known, the term “creativity” refers to a special kind of ability - the ability to generate unusual ideas, deviate in thinking from traditional patterns, and quickly resolve problem situations. Creativity covers a certain set of mental and personal qualities that contribute to creative manifestation. It would be desirable for a psychodiagnostic tool to contain the ability to assess both cognitive and personal creative characteristics.

All of the above requirements are met by F. Williams' Creativity Assessment Packet - C A P.

A modified and adapted version of the Williams creative test set (C A T) is intended for children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old. It consists of three parts. The first part is the Divergent Thinking Test, completion of twelve proposed drawings, requires 20-25 minutes to complete. Method of conducting group (this test is aimed at measuring the cognitive component associated with creativity).

The second part of the CAP test battery is the Personality Creativity Questionnaire. The questionnaire consists of 50 statements; its tasks are closed type tasks with multiple choice of answers. The questionnaire is aimed at self-assessment of those personality traits that are closely related to creativity. Children fill it out on their own. (We recommend conducting this part of the test starting from the 5th grade of school.) And finally, there is a third part of the test set. This is a Williams rating scale for teachers and parents, aimed at finding out expert opinion (experts - teachers and parents) about the creative manifestations of a given child (creative factors are the same as in the first and second parts of the test, which are filled out by the child himself ). This allows for a comparative analysis of the results of all three parts of the ATS test suite.

The test set is designed in such a way that it does not require a lot of time and effort to conduct it and process the data.

We adapted the tests over three and a half years on a large sample of subjects. Normative data were obtained for individual ages ranging from 5 to 17 years. It should be noted that in F. Williams’ version, normative data for all factors are given for a combined sample from 8 to 17 years old.

The C A R F. Williams test set is well-known and widespread in various countries of the world.

We hope that in our country it will be recognized and in demand when measuring and assessing the creative characteristics of children and adolescents.

SET DESCRIPTION

This set of psychodiagnostic materials was conceived and developed to meet this need; it is a system for measuring eight factors of divergent thinking and personality characteristics according to the Williams model. The Williams model has been widely used in schools in the United States in recent years to explore and develop creativity. Now, using the techniques from this set, it is possible not only to identify and diagnose the creative characteristics of students, but also to familiarize teachers and parents with those factors of divergent thinking and those personality manifestations that are most important for the creative process.

1.1. WHAT IS SAR?

SAR is a set of tests consisting of two methods for children: the Test of Divergent (Creative) Thinking and the Test of Creative Personality Characteristics. The third technique, the Williams Scale, is intended for assessment by parents and teachers in response to open-ended questions, which can be analyzed and classified according to frequency of occurrence among a group of parents and teachers for a given group of children.

This scale demonstrates at what level, according to parents and teachers, the creative characteristics of the observed child are located.

HOW SHOULD I TAKE SAR?

The first two tests, intended for children, can be administered by psychologists, as well as by teachers who have studied the test manual and received consultation from a psychologist. The time allotted for completing the Divergent Thinking Test is limited so that the child’s results can be compared with the standards - 25 minutes for children in the senior groups of kindergarten and junior school and 20 minutes for senior school (starting from 5th grade).

The time required to fill out the creative personality characteristics questionnaire ranges from 20 to 30 minutes, depending on the age level of the sample of children in which it is administered.

In the USA, Williams suggests that primary school teachers read the questionnaire statements aloud to children, who must select the appropriate answers.

In our adapted version, we consider it advisable to use this self-assessment questionnaire starting only from the 5th grade of school (from 10-11 years old).

Scoring can be done after reading the manual. Processing data for both tests for a class of 25 children will take approximately an hour or less.

The Williams Scale for Parents and Teachers should be given to parents at home in an envelope with a request to take part in studying the level of their child’s creative abilities. Or instructions may be explained at designated teacher-parent meeting times. Teachers can complete the Scale at school. For each child, the results should be calculated both according to the teacher and according to the parents; The results obtained from teachers and parents can be compared with the results of tests of creative thinking and personal creative characteristics. All results related to the eight divergent factors can be recorded in an individual profile sheet, which is attached later in the Guide.

WHAT DO YOU NEED A SAR FOR?

Currently, using these tests, we have the opportunity to assess the entire range of various cognitive and personal qualities of a child. A new opportunity is emerging for teachers at school and parents at home to assess children’s creative abilities and skills based on an integrated approach.

To date, assessment has been limited primarily to cognitive-convergent abilities.

These tests make it possible to assess the cognitive and affective-personal divergent qualities of children for:

Selecting children whose talents and creativity could not be assessed using previously existing methods;

Selecting children for education using the gifted program in order to develop creative abilities;

Identification and inclusion in special groups for special or individualized programs or regular classes of those children who were previously considered incapable due to low academic performance or low IQ scores.

Using these tests allows us to look at other facets of children's abilities and how they relate to standard measures used in the past. Thanks to such diagnosis and assessment of various abilities, the development of a holistic and versatile person becomes more realistic. h

1.4. MODEL VILLI MSA. CREATIVE FACTORS

C A R makes available an objective assessment of most of the studied factors related to human creative abilities, according to the Williams Model.

This test battery is designed to provide an effective, practical, and cost-effective method for assessing the four cognitive-divergent and four personality-divergent factors of this model.

They are shown and described in general terms below:

MODEL OF CREATIVE BEHAVIOR OF A CHILD

–  –  –

The Williams model presented here was developed from a number of scientific studies of creativity.

It offers schools and teachers a complete system including teaching strategies - Dimension (Dimension) 2 through core content - Dimension (Dimension) 1 to develop children's creativity - Dimension (Dimension) 3, closely related to the creative process and creative personality .

Using the tests included in the CAP set, it is possible to assess creativity according to the eight factors of parameter 3, and you can also evaluate the changes that have occurred after conducting classes that develop creative abilities.

Thus, the presented system now exists together with valid procedures for assessing and measuring creative factors and has the goal of stimulating the creative potential of all schoolchildren.

In addition to the first two tests in this set of tests, which can be used to measure the level values ​​of a child’s creative cognitive-personal characteristics, there is a third tool. This is a rating scale that allows parents and teachers to evaluate a child's creativity through observation using the same eight factors used in the first and second tests.

GUIDELINES FOR CONDUCTING TESTS.

TEST TASKS

For kindergarten children, testing should be carried out in small groups of 5-10 people.

The test book consists of three separate sheets, standard A-4 format, each sheet of paper depicts four squares, inside of which there are stimulus figures.

Under the squares there is a figure number and a place for a signature.

Working with each of the three techniques is discussed separately below.

–  –  –

Conducted in a group, limited in time:

20 minutes for senior grades (grades 4-11), 25 minutes for junior grades (grades 1 - 3 and kindergarten children). In elementary grades, children can verbally name captions for pictures. And teachers or assistants can write them down.

Instructions Before starting the test, you need to read the instructions for the Divergent Thinking Test: “This task will help you find out how capable you are of creative self-expression through drawings. There are 12 designs available. Work quickly. Try to draw such an unusual picture that no one else can come up with. You will be given 20 (25) minutes to draw your designs. Work in the squares in order, do not jump randomly from one square to another. When creating a picture, use a line or shape inside each square to make it part of your picture. You can draw anywhere inside the square, depending on what you want to represent. You can use different colors to make the drawings interesting and unusual. After completing each picture, think of an interesting title and write the title in the line below the picture. Don't worry about the correct spelling. Creating an original title is more important than handwriting and spelling. Your title should tell what is depicted in the picture and reveal its meaning.”

2.2. TEST OF PERSONAL CREATIVITY CHARACTERISTICS

in the "Mostly False" column. Those statements about which you cannot come to a decision should be marked with an “X” in the “Can’t Decide” column.

Make notes on each sentence and don’t overthink it. There are no right or wrong answers here. Mark the first thing that comes to your mind when reading the sentence. This task has no time limit, but work as quickly as possible. Remember that as you answer each sentence, you must note how you truly feel about yourself. Place an "X" sign

in the column that suits you best. Choose only one answer for each question.

You are given a test book that contains all the statements and an answer sheet. Please mark your answers only on the answer sheet, do not write anything in your test book. The numbers in the test book correspond to the numbers on the answer sheet.

Method of implementation As already noted, we recommend conducting this stage of testing for children starting from the 5th grade of school. In this case, this method of carrying out is possible. The child is given a test book containing instructions and questionnaire questions. An answer sheet is also provided on which the child marks his answers. Children should be warned that they can only write their answers on the answer sheet. You cannot write anything in the test book. Moreover, it is optimal when the psychologist reads the statements of the questionnaire out loud, and the child reads them to himself and independently notes his answer.

The form of testing is group. There is no time limit for filling out the questionnaire. It takes about 20-30 minutes, depending on the age of the children.

2.2.2. O P O S N I K “Self-assessment of creative personality characteristics”

1. If I don’t know the correct answer, then I try to guess it.

2. I like to look at an object carefully and in detail to discover details that I have not seen before.

3. I usually ask questions if I don’t know something.

4. I don't like planning things in advance.

5. Before I play a new game, I need to make sure I can win.

6. I like to imagine what I will need to learn or do.

7. If I don’t succeed in something the first time, I will work until I do it.

8. I will never choose a game that others are not familiar with.

9. I would rather do everything as usual than look for new ways.

10. I like to find out if everything is really so.

11. I like to do something new.

12. I love making new friends.

13. I like to think about what has never happened to me.

14. I usually don’t waste time dreaming that someday I will become a famous artist, musician or poet.

15. Some of my ideas captivate me so much that I forget about everything in the world.

16. I would rather live and work on a space station than here on Earth.

17. I get nervous if I don't know what will happen next.

18. I love what is unusual.

19. I often try to imagine what other people are thinking.

20. I like stories or television programs about events that happened in the past.

21. I like to discuss my ideas with friends.

22. I usually remain calm when I do something wrong or make a mistake.

23. When I grow up, I would like to do or accomplish something that no one has managed before me.

24. I choose friends who always do things the usual way.

25. Many existing rules usually do not suit me.

26. I like to solve even a problem that does not have a correct answer.

27. There are many things that I would like to experiment with.

28. If I once found the answer to a question, I will stick to it rather than look for other answers.

29. I don't like speaking in front of the class.

30. When I read or watch TV, I imagine myself as one of the characters.

31. I like to imagine how people lived 200 years ago.

32. I don't like it when my friends are indecisive.

33. I love exploring old suitcases and boxes just to see what they might contain.

34. I would like my parents and teachers to do everything as usual and not change.

35. I trust my feelings and premonitions.

36. It’s interesting to guess something and check if I’m right.

37. It is interesting to take on puzzles and games in which you need to calculate your next moves.

38. I am interested in mechanisms, I am curious to see what is inside them and how they work.

39. My best friends don't like stupid ideas.

40. I like to invent something new, even if it cannot be applied in practice.

41. I like it when everything is in its place.

42. I would be interested in looking for answers to questions that will arise in the future.

43. I like to try new things to see what happens.

44. It’s more interesting for me to play my favorite games just for fun, rather than for the sake of winning.

45. I like to think about something interesting, something that has never occurred to anyone.

46. ​​When I see a picture of someone I don’t know, I’m interested in finding out who it is.

47. I love leafing through books and magazines just to see what’s in them.

48. I think that there is one correct answer to most questions.

49. I like to ask questions about things that other people don’t think about.

50. I have a lot of interesting things to do at school and at home.

2.2.3. Answer sheet of the questionnaire “Self-assessment of creative personality characteristics”

–  –  –

2.3. SH K A L A V I L I M S A.

QUESTIONNAIRE FOR PARENTS AND TEACHERS

Distributed by school teachers at home for the parents of those children who were tested using one or two previous methods.

Parents usually complete the scale within 30 minutes or less. Teachers can fill out the scale at their convenience. To obtain a more objective assessment, we consider it advisable for two or three teachers to fill out the scale (if possible). In this case, the average rating of several teachers is then taken.

This scale consists of eight subsections - indicators characterizing the behavior of creative children. For each indicator, there are six statements by which the teacher and parents should evaluate the child in such a way as to best characterize him. When choosing between the answers “often”, “sometimes” and “rarely”, you should mark with an X the answer that most accurately characterizes the type of behavior that the child most often demonstrates.

At the end of the Scale there are four questions that must be answered to obtain additional information about the child. After completing the Scale, it must be returned to the person who requested this information for further calculation of the results.

2.3.2. Answer sheet

WILLIAMS SCALE

–  –  –

Full name of the person filling out the questionnaire Who is the person filling out the questionnaire in relation to the child How long has the person completing the questionnaire known the child

Instructions for filling out the questionnaire:

Circle one of the letters on your answer sheet to the right of the number that corresponds to the statement. The meaning of the selected letter should best describe the child's behavior.

In this case, the letters have the following meanings:

H - often I - sometimes R - rarely Please do not write anything on the questionnaire, mark your answers only on this answer sheet.

–  –  –

Section I. FLUENCY

1. The child gives several answers when asked a question.

2. A child draws several pictures when asked to draw one.

3. The child has several thoughts (ideas) about something instead of just one.

4. The child asks a lot of questions.

5. The child uses a large number of words to express his thoughts.

6. The child works quickly and productively.

Section II. FLEXIBILITY

1. The child suggests several ways to use the object that differ from the usual way.

2. The child expresses many thoughts, ideas about the picture, story, poem or problem.

3. The child can transfer the semantic meaning of one object to another object.

4. A child can easily change one focus of vision (under a move) to possibly another.

5. The child comes up with many ideas and explores them.

6. The child thinks about different ways to solve the problem.

Section III. ORIGINALITY

1. The child likes that objects in the room are not located in the central part; he also prefers asymmetrical drawings and images.

2. The child is not satisfied with one correct answer and looks for other possible answers.

3. The child thinks unusually and originally (outside the box).

4. The child enjoys unusual ways of doing things and does not like the usual ways.

5. After the child has read or heard about a problem, he begins to come up with unusual solutions.

6. The child explores generally accepted methods and comes up with new methods to solve a problem.

Section IV. DEVELOPMENT

1. The child adds lines, different colors and details to his drawing.

2. The child understands what the deep, hidden meaning of answers or decisions is and offers the deepest meaning.

3. The child refuses someone else's idea and changes it in some way.

4. The child wants to embellish or complement other people's work or ideas.

5. The child shows little interest in ordinary objects; he adds details to improve them.

6. The child changes the rules of the game.

Section V. CURIOSITY

1. The child asks everyone and everything.

2. The child likes to study the structure of mechanical things.

3. The child is constantly looking for new ways (ways) of thinking.

4. The child loves to explore new things and ideas.

5. The child looks for different possibilities to solve the problem.

6. The child studies books, games, maps, paintings, etc. to learn as much as possible.

Section VI. IMAGINATION

1. The child comes up with stories about places he has never seen.

2. The child imagines how others will solve a problem that he solves himself.

3. The child dreams of different places and things.

4. The child likes to think about phenomena that he did not bother with.

5. The child sees what is depicted in paintings and drawings in an unusual way, not like others.

6. The child often experiences surprise at various ideas and events.

Section VII. COMPLEXITY

1. The child shows interest in complex things and ideas.

2. The child loves to set himself difficult tasks.

3. The child loves to study something without outside help.

4. The child likes challenging tasks.

5. The child shows persistence to achieve his goal.

6. The child offers solutions to the problem that are too complex than what seems necessary.

Section VIII. RISK TAKENESS

1. The child will defend his ideas, not paying attention to the reactions of others.

2. The child sets very high goals for himself and will try to achieve them.

3. The child allows himself the possibility of mistakes and failures.

4. The child loves to explore new things or ideas and is not influenced by others.

5. The child is not too concerned when classmates, teachers or parents express their disapproval of him.

6. The child will not miss the chance to take risks to find out what will come of it.

The following four questions will give you the opportunity to express your opinion about the child and about the program at the school for creative children.

Answer briefly but clearly.

–  –  –

2. Do you think that the child is creative or will he be able to become creative?

YES NO Note: if “YES” - please briefly describe how his creativity is manifested; if “N E T” - why?

3. What do you expect from the school program for creative children?

4. What changes would you like to see in your child as a result of participating in the program for creative children?

PROCESSING OF EXPERIMENTAL DATA

3.1. DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) TEST

THINKING. DATA PROCESSING

Fluency (B) - flexibility (G) - originality (O) - elaboration (P) - name (N)

1. Fluency - productivity, is determined by counting the number of drawings made by the child, regardless of their content.

Rationale: creative individuals work productively, which is associated with more developed fluency of thinking. The range of possible points is from 1 to 12 (one point for each drawing).

2. Flexibility - the number of changes in the category of a drawing, counting from the first drawing.

Living (L) - a person, a person, a flower, a tree, any plant, fruit, animal, insect, fish, bird, etc.

Mechanical, object (M) - boat, spaceship, bicycle, car, tool, toy, equipment, furniture, household items, dishes, etc.

Symbolic (C) - letter, number, name, coat of arms, flag, symbolic designation, etc.

View, genre (B) - city, highway, house, yard, park, city, mountains, etc.

(see illustrations on next page).

Rationale: Creative people often prefer to change something, rather than inertly stick to one path or one category. Their thinking is not fixed, but mobile.

The range of possible points is from 1 to I, depending on how many times the category of the picture will change, not counting the first.

Examples. Flexibility. Various categories.

–  –  –

Symbolic A World of figures King

3. Originality - the location (inside-outside of the relatively stimulus figure) where the drawing is made.

Each square contains a stimulus line or shape that will serve as a constraint for less creative people. The most original are those who draw inside and outside a given stimulus figure.

Rationale: Less creative individuals usually ignore the closed stimulus figure and draw outside it, i.e. the drawing will only be from the outside. More creative people will work inside the three closed parts. Highly creative people will synthesize, unite, and will not be restrained by any closed circuit, that is, the drawing will be both outside and inside the stimulus figure.

1 point - draw only on the outside (see sample 1).

2 points - draw only inside (see sample 2).

3 points - draw both outside and inside (synthesis - see sample 3).

The total raw score for originality (O) is equal to the sum of the scores for this factor for all drawings.

–  –  –

12. Libra 6. Buoy at sea

4. Elaboration - symmetry-asymmetry, where the details are located that make the drawing asymmetrical.

0 points - symmetrical internal and external space (sample 1) 1 point - asymmetrically outside the closed contour (sample 2).

2 points - asymmetrically inside a closed contour (sample 3).

3 points - completely asymmetrical: the external details on both sides of the contour are different and the image inside the contour is asymmetrical (sample 4).

The overall raw score for elaboration (P) is the sum of points for the elaboration factor for all drawings.

–  –  –

5. Title - rich vocabulary (number of words used in the title) and the ability to figuratively convey the essence of what is depicted in the pictures (direct description or hidden meaning, subtext).

0 points - the name is not given 1 point - a name consisting of one word without a definition (see example 2 of the completed test notebook: pictures 2, 4, 8, 10, 12) 2 points - a phrase, several words that reflect that what is drawn in the picture (see example 1 of the completed test notebook: Figures 5, 9, 11) 3 points - a figurative name that expresses more than is shown in the picture, i.e., a hidden meaning (see example 1 of the completed test notebook notebooks: drawings 1, 3, 6, 7) The total raw score for the title (N) will be equal to the sum of the points for this factor received for each drawing.

3.2. TOTAL COUNT

ACCORDING TO THE DIVERGENT THINKING TEST

–  –  –

3.3. EXAMPLES OF FILLING

AND PROCESSED TEST BOOK

–  –  –

The result of the calculation for the main parameters of the divergent thinking test Fluency - the student works quickly, with great productivity. 12 pictures were drawn. Scoring - one point for each picture. The maximum possible raw score is 12.

Flexibility - the student is able to come up with different ideas, change his position and look at things in a new way. One point for each category change, starting from the first change (there are four possible categories). The maximum possible total raw score is 11.

Originality - the student is not constrained by closed contours, he moves outside and inside the contour to make the stimulus figure part of the whole picture. Three points for each original picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

Elaboration - the student adds details to a closed contour, prefers asymmetry and complexity in the image. Three points for each picture that is asymmetrical inside and out. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

Title - the student uses language and vocabulary skillfully and wittily. Three points for each meaningful, witty caption that expresses the hidden meaning of the picture. The maximum possible total raw score is 36.

The maximum possible total score (in raw points) for the entire test is 131.

Brief explanation of processing this example 1.

Fluency. - The maximum possible number of drawings is 12.

One point per drawing. There are 12 designs available. Score - 12 points.

Flexibility. - The maximum possible number of changes is 11, counting from the first change in the category - one point for each change. The category of the first picture - live (F) is stored in the second picture without changes. In the third picture - mechanical (M), change 1, in the fourth picture - type (B), change 2. There are no changes until the sixth picture, in which - symbol (C) is change 3. Then the change in the eighth picture - view (B), change 4. Change again to the symbol (C) in picture nine - change 5. The last change in picture ten to the live category (F) gives change 6. This category is preserved in pictures 11-12. The total score for flexibility is six points.

Originality - where the student draws. The highest number of points (three points) for drawing inside and outside the stimulus figure. Nine drawings with images inside and outside the stimulus line (No. 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11) receive three points each. Drawings three and seven receive only one point each - a drawing only outside the stimulus figure. Figure 12 gets two points - drawing only inside a closed contour. The total score for originality is 31 points.

Elaboration - where parts are placed to obtain an asymmetrical image (asymmetry - the absence of specularity relative to any imaginary axes).

The highest number of points (three) is awarded for the asymmetry of the pattern both inside and outside the stimulus line or shape. Only one figure 8 is asymmetrical both inside and outside and gets three points. Figures 3, 9, 11, 12 are symmetrical inside and out and receive zero points for elaboration. Figures 1, 2 and 5 are asymmetrical within a closed contour and are worth two points each. Figures 4, 6, 7 and 10 have asymmetry on the outside of a closed contour and receive one point each for elaboration. The total score for development is 13 points.

Name. - Vocabulary is assessed here: the number of words used, the complexity and imagery of the name. The highest number of points (three) for a figurative name that expresses something non-obvious in the drawing. Figures 1, 3, 6 and 7 have a figurative title and receive three points each. Figures 2,4, 8, 10 and 12 have a one-word title and receive one point each. The titles of all other figures (5, 9 and 11) are descriptive phrases and receive two points each. The total score of names for all drawings is 23 points.

The total total raw result of 85 was obtained by summing up the points for all factors B + G + O + P + N = 12+6+31+13+23 = 85.

3.3.2. Example 2 Shkut Maxim, 3rd grade, 9 years old B=12 Total score=B+G+O+R+N=12+8+30+20+22=92 G=8 O=30 R=20 N=22

3.4. ABOUT CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS

PERSONALITY. DATA PROCESSING

They include: Curiosity (L), Imagination (V), Complexity (C) and Risk-Taking (R). We get four raw scores for each factor, as well as an overall summary score.

When processing data, a template is used that can be superimposed on the test answer sheet. The holes in the template show answers corresponding to a score of two (2) points, and the codes for the four factors assessed on the test are not marked on the template. All answers located on squares that do not fall into the holes receive one (1) point, except for the last column “I don’t know.” Answers in this column receive a minus one (-1) point in the raw score and are read from the overall score. The use of this column gives the right to “punish” an insufficiently creative, indecisive person.

The factor code in the fourth column of the template is used to indicate which of the four factors applies to each individual question. This questionnaire is designed to assess the extent to which subjects consider themselves to be risk-taking (R), inquisitive (L), imaginative (C), and liking complex ideas (C). Of the 50 items, 12 statements relate to curiosity, 12 to imagination, 13 to risk-taking, and 13 statements to the complexity factor.

If all answers match the holes of the template key, then the total raw score can be equal to 100 points, unless the “I don’t know” items are checked. If a student gives all answers that are not visible through the template holes, then his raw score can be 50 points if not a single item is marked “Don't know.” The higher the raw score of a person who has positive feelings about himself, the more creative, inquisitive, imaginative, and able to take risks and understand complex problems he is; All of the above described personal factors are closely related to creative abilities.

Scores can be obtained for each test factor (risk taking, imagination, etc.) individually, as well as a total score. Factor scores and the total raw score better demonstrate the strengths (high raw score) and weaknesses (low raw score) of the child. The individual factor score and total raw score can then be converted into standard scores and noted on the student's individual profile.

3.5. SCH K A L A V I L Y M S A Data processing

All eight factors - divergent thinking (4) and personal creative characteristics (4) of the Williams model are included in this scale for assessment by parents and teachers. For each factor, 6 statements are presented, for each statement a choice is given from 3 possible types of behavior: “often”, “sometimes” and “rarely”.

1. Following the 48-item scale is an additional page of open-ended questions to be completed by parents and/or teachers. Calculation of the score consists of the following procedures:

2. Count the number of answers marked in the “frequency” column and multiply this number by two (2). These are double weighted answers that are worth two (2) points each.

3. Count the number of answers marked in the “sometimes” column. These answers will receive one (1) point each.

4. Count the number of responses in the “rarely” column. These answers will each receive zero (0) points.

The four open-ended questions at the end of the scale will receive one (1) point each if the answer is “yes” and is accompanied by arguments or comments. * This is a quantitative calculation of the available data. Evaluating notes and comments can help those writing programs for creative students by ranking the frequency of occurrence of the same or similar comments. For example, if the largest number of experts give the following comment: “the child is creatively gifted because he is artistic,” then this trait (artistic talent) will have the highest rank for this group of children.

Similar ranks for a number of creative manifestations of personality will characterize the presence and qualitative features of the creative traits of various children.

Number of answers in the “Often” Column x 2 = Number of answers in the “Sometimes” Column x 1 = Number of answers in the “Rarely” Column x 0 = Number of answers in “open” questions, with yeses and comments x 1 = Number answers in “open” answers, with answer ^ “no” x 0 = Total score = sum of points in higher lines.

The total scores of students can be ranked from high to low ^ starting with the highest score of 100, since 100 points is the maximum possible total raw score.

fishing - Glave 4

REGULATORY DATA.

RELIABILITY. VALIDITY

4.1. REGULATORY DATA.

DATA INTERPRETATION

–  –  –

This table was compiled by Williams - as a single, general table for the age range 8-17 years.

By comparing the child’s data with the data in the table, one can construct a structural profile of his creative indicators.

A detailed example of data analysis will be given below, using examples of indicators of Russian children.

4.2. RELIABILITY AND VALIDITY (Williams) Test-retest reliability was determined for a mixed sample of students from grades 3 to 12 (N = 256 people). A Pearson correlation coefficient of r = 0.60 was calculated; it is statistically significant and characterizes a correlation of average strength.

The correlation between the divergent thinking test and the creativity questionnaire was ~0.71 (statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level).

The correlation between the divergent thinking test data and parent ratings was ~0.59, and between the test data and teacher ratings was 0.67 (both coefficients were statistically significant at the 0.05 significance level).

The combined score on the first two tests correlates with the combined parent/teacher score at ~0.74, providing evidence that parents and teachers can reliably assess children's creativity.

NORMATIVE DATA AND THEIR ANALYSIS

5.1. DESCRIPTION OF THE SAMPLE

Children aged 5 to 17 years living in St. Petersburg, Naryan-Mar, Ryazan and the Leningrad region took part in the survey.

The survey was conducted in 1997-99.

St. Petersburg and Leningrad region - 2071 children, Naryan-Mar - 326 children, Ryazan - 321 children.

–  –  –

The combined sample is 2628 children.

5.2. REGULATORY DATA FOR TEST

DIVERGENT (CREATIVE) THINKING

We decided to make age distinctions and give age gradations.

Normative data were obtained for the following age groups:

5-7 years old, 8-12 years old, 13-17 years old

–  –  –

5.3. AGE DYNAMICS OF INDICATORS

CREATIVE THINKING

Considering the data obtained, it can be noted that for the Fluency and Flexibility factors there is a slight drop, and for the Originality factor there is a slight increase in indicators with increasing age of the children. But this change can only be considered qualitative; with a strict analysis, the differences between the indicators are unreliable. That is, we can conclude that as the age of children increases from 5 to 17 years, data on the factors Fluency, Flexibility and Originality have approximately the same level, which indicates that there is no Graph of average values ​​for various indicators on the creative thinking test SAR

–  –  –

age-related changes in the number of ideas, the variety of categories and the depiction of a picture in different places within a given space, i.e., there is no increase in these indicators with age.

These data, which seem paradoxical at first glance, are in good agreement with the data obtained using the imaginative battery of Torrance Creative Thinking tests, where a similar pattern is observed - indicators on the factors of imaginative creative thinking have approximately the same level characteristics in the age range from 5 to 17 years (there is no growth with age). It should be noted that some factors for assessing creativity in Torrance and Williams coincide, and some differ.

In terms of development, with increasing age the average value for this factor increases (Student's t-test, differences are significant at the 0.01 significance level).

This indicates that with increasing age, the asymmetry and complexity of children’s drawings increases, which is associated with the level of creativity.

By name: the average raw score increases with age, which may indicate the development of the verbal component with age, the development of speech, an increase in vocabulary, the ability to figuratively express the hidden meaning of a picture using words (the differences are statistically significant at the 0.01 level ).

According to the general summary indicator of creative thinking, there is also an increase with age (the differences are statistically significant), i.e., there is an increase in the total indicator as the age changes from .5 to 17 years (this increase occurs due to development-asymmetry and name).

5.4. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS

RUSSIAN AND AMERICAN DATA

That is, our children are somewhat superior to American children in the number of drawings, their diversity (change of different categories from drawing to drawing) and in the use of different parts of the space provided for drawings (both inside and outside the stimulus figure). American schoolchildren are significantly superior to ours in the asymmetry of drawings and the creative use of language - a verbal means for displaying the essence of a figurative task.

5.5. NORMATIVE DATA FOR THE QUESTIONNAIRE

PERSONAL CHARACTERISTICS (I I)

–  –  –

Let's look at the data in Table 4. As noted earlier, we recommend conducting a questionnaire of personal creative characteristics (I I) from approximately the 5th grade of school, i.e. from 10-11 years old.

The Williams scale (I I I) can be filled out by parents and teachers for a wider age range - for children from 5-17 years old.

The data in Table 4 for the personality characteristics questionnaire were obtained on a sample of children aged 11 to 16 years (N=356 people).

As a rule, the scale was filled out by both parents and two or three teachers or educators.

Williams provides generalized data for parents and teachers (on the Williams scale). We present data for parents and teachers separately, since it was previously hypothesized that these indicators differ from each other, which was confirmed (see Table 4).

Comparing Russian and American data on the Personality Characteristics Questionnaire, it can be noted that for all factors:

Curiosity, Complexity, Risk-Taking and Total Score Russian averages are higher than American averages, with the exception of Imagination scores, where American averages are higher (differences are statistically significant, Student's t-test).

Although the differences are significant, in our opinion, taking into account various types of errors, we can assume that the differences are not so significant in absolute value, and, in general, the self-assessment data of Russian and American children are close. However, it should be noted that according to the table, Russian children rate their creative personal characteristics higher than American children (except for Imagination).

Standard deviations for all factors are higher for the American sample, which characterizes a greater range of opinions among children in this sample.

WILLIAMS SCALE

Table 4 shows the means and standard deviations.

When comparing the opinions of teachers and parents, it should be noted that the average indicators of parents are significantly higher than those of teachers, and the standard deviation of parents is lower than the standard deviation of teachers. This means that parents generally rate the creative capabilities of their children higher than teachers do, and in their assessment they are more homogeneous, i.e. their opinions are less differentiated.

From the data in table. Figure 4 shows that the indicators of our teachers almost coincide with the American ones, combined for parents and teachers (both M and a).

5.6. ABOUT B E D I N N O R M A T I O N S

MATRITS OF CREATIVE CHARACTERISTICS.

–  –  –

Let's analyze the examples given. In our case, for clarity, the data of two examples are depicted in one diagram.

The diagram shows scales for some types of standard scores: z-scores (M = 0, a = 1), T-scores (M = 5 0, a = 10) and percentile ranks. If necessary, the researcher can add to the scheme the other types of standard scores he needs. The chart below shows the weighted raw scores for all factors and the total scores of the creative tests. The scheme was compiled in accordance with normative data obtained for the combined sample of subjects.

As is known, the norm is usually taken to be the interval of test indicators from M - 1o to M + 1a, the norm is highlighted in the diagram, in z-scores this interval ranges from -1 to + 1, on the percentile rank scale this interval ranges from 16 to 84 .

To analyze the individual data of each child, you should place his indicators on a chart (each child’s data on a separate chart - a separate sheet), then connect the dots using segments, as a result we get an individual structural profile of creative characteristics.

Let's look at the two examples above.

ssо. sss

Example 1. - Shkud S.

(in the diagram the data is indicated - ).

The structural profile is moderately heterogeneous - there are indicators both within the norm and well above the norm.

Indicators of creative thinking:

Fluency is moderately high, the indicator is above average.

Flexibility - moderately high, above average.

Originality is a high standard, above average.

Elaboration is much higher than the norm; this indicator corresponds to the 98th percentile rank, that is, the child’s indicator is higher than the indicators of 98 percent of children in the standardization sample.

Title - above normal, corresponding z-score - 1.25, percentile rank - 89.

The overall total score for the creative thinking test is above the norm, the corresponding z-score is 1.5, the percentile rank is 93, i.e., the child’s score is higher than the general scores of 93% and lower than 7% of children in the standardization sample.

In general, according to the creative thinking test, it can be noted that all indicators are either above the norm or meet the high norm. The highest value is associated with Elaboration, i.e.

asymmetry - the complexity of the pattern, the overall indicator is also very high.

Personality Characteristics Questionnaire (self-assessment).

The questionnaire is aimed at assessing the level of personality characteristics associated with creative abilities.

Curiosity is a moderately high norm, above average.

Imagination - above normal - 91st percentile rank.

Difficulty - above normal - 89th percentile rank.

Riskiness is higher than normal - 93 percentile rank.

The overall total indicator on the questionnaire is 87, the data above the norm correspond to z ~ 1.25, percentile rank = 88, that is, the child’s indicator is higher than 88% of the indicators of children in the standardization sample.

Williams scale Parents rate their child's creative abilities very highly - the indicator is much higher than the norm, corresponds to a z score = + 2, or 98 percentile rank.

The teachers’ expert assessment corresponds to the upper limit of the norm, above average, corresponds to a z-score + 1, percentile rank = 84.

Summarizing the above, it can be noted that all creative indicators of Shkud S. are either above the norm, or within the high norm, all above average. The overall indicator on the creative thinking test is approximately the same order as the overall indicator on the personality characteristics questionnaire, i.e. they correspond to each other, both the indicators of creative thinking and the child’s personal manifestations indicate his high creative potential. The parents' opinion about him is also higher than the norm, and the parents' expert assessment exceeds the indicators of the first two tests, i.e. it can be noted that, although in general parents fairly objectively assess the child's high capabilities, their assessment is somewhat overestimated.

The expert assessment of teachers is generally objective - the upper end of the norm, but, nevertheless, it is somewhat underestimated, the child has higher creative potential.

Example 2. Ivanova Yulia (see.

Fig.7) Creative thinking: all factors except Name correspond to a low standard, below average; factor indicator Name - below the norm, percentile rank - 11.

All indicators obtained from the questionnaire of personal creative characteristics correspond to the low norm (23 percentile rank), below average. These indicators closely correlate with the indicators of the test of creative thinking and indicate an adequate assessment of their creative capabilities on the part of Ivanova Yu.

The expert assessment on the Williams scale by teachers has a 31 percentile rank, corresponds to a low norm and is in excellent agreement with the data of the two previous tests, which also indicates an adequate assessment of the girl’s creative manifestations by teachers. The expert assessment of the girl’s creative manifestations by her parents is in the middle of the norm (50 percentile rank).

In this case, the indicators of all three tests do not correspond to a high standard (except for the Name indicator, which is below the norm), and are in good agreement with each other, with the exception of the parents’ assessment, which is somewhat overestimated; parents overestimate the capabilities of their child. The structural profile of Yu. Ivanova’s creative characteristics is homogeneous.

I would like to make a few comments in connection with the analysis of raw data.

It would be more correct to convert the raw scores into standard scores for each factor, and only then proceed to obtain an overall standard indicator.

In this case, we use the calculation algorithm proposed by the author of the test so that we can compare the data of children from different countries.

Those who wish can independently make the transition from raw to standard scores for individual and general factors, using the data for M and a given in tables No. 2,3,4.

RELIABILITY. VALIDITY

The correlation between the data of various expert psychologists assessing the test results is ~0.81-0.91.

VALIDITY Let us consider the correlations obtained on various samples for all three tests included in the set of Williams creative tests. We will examine both the correlations between various factors within each test, and the cross-correlations between different tests.

CREATIVE THINKING TEST (I)

Most often, we calculated the Spearman rank correlation coefficients (sometimes the coefficients of the product of Pearson r moments).

The correlation coefficients between various factors and the total test indicator had the following values: (samples: N = 65 people (12-13 years old); N = 90 people (13-15 years old);

N =33 people (15-16 years old); N=100 people (5-7 years old)).

Fluency and total (X) score 0.30-0.70 Flexibility and I 0.31-0.81 Originality and. X 0.57-0.90 Elaboration and E 0.58-0.91 Title and X 0.33-0.80 From the data obtained we can conclude that a strong correlation is observed between the total indicator and Originality, between X and Elaboration . The lowest is between Fluency and the total indicator (which can be explained by the low discriminativeness of children’s indicators on this factor, since most children manage to draw from 9-11 drawings - the spread of data on this factor is too small) . Overall, all correlations are significant, ranging from moderate to strong.

Correlations of various factors (B, G, O, R, N) with each other in pairs range from 0.25 to 0.75.

–  –  –

WILLIAMS SCALE (I I I) Using this scale, parents and various teachers assessed the creative manifestations of children.

The correlation between expert assessments of three different teachers, in pairs: (Spearman's rank correlation N = 8 5 people, 15-16 years old) was 0.65-0.74.

The correlation between the expert assessments of parents and teachers is 0.41.

Now let's compare the data from three different tests.

The correlation between various factors of test I (creative thinking) and test II (personality questionnaire) ranges from 0.40-0.58 (i.e., average).

The correlation between the total indicator of the I test (creative thinking) and the expert assessment of parents (Williams a - Sh scale) is 0.41, and with the expert assessment of teachers (V ilyams a - Sh scale) is 0.53. i.e., the correlation is medium in strength.

The correlation between the total indicator of the II test (children’s self-assessment of their creative personal qualities and the indicator of the III test - an expert assessment of their creative capabilities by parents - is 0.44, and with the expert assessment of teachers is 0.55 (moderate positive correlation).

Possible connections between creative indicators and other characteristics were studied.

Correlation between the total score of Test I (creative thinking) with some personality traits of children, namely:

anxiety, impulsiveness and aggressiveness was not significant (100 people, 5-7 years old).

The correlation between the level of creativity (I test), self-assessment of creativity (I test) and indicators of intellectual lability (Kozlova’s method) is insignificant (65 people, 12-13 years old).

A hypothesis was put forward about a higher level of creativity in individuals with a pronounced “right-hemisphere profile.”

Using the example of a sample of gymnasium students aged 12-13 years (65 people), a connection was obtained between creativity indicators - the creative thinking test (I) and self-assessment of creative personal characteristics (I I) with the type of functional interhemispheric asymmetry-correlation turned out to be insignificant. It is possible that the pair work of both hemispheres of the brain plays a leading role in the formation of creativity and creative activity.

The correlation between the total score of the creative thinking test (I) and school success (average school score) is insignificant.

The correlation between the total indicator of the creative thinking test CAR and expert assessments of children’s creative personality traits made by teachers (three teachers) using the Renzulli questionnaire is in the range of 0.41-0.64.

A correlation analysis was also carried out to study possible connections between the factors of the creative thinking test S A R (I) and the data of the Cattell personality questionnaire (12 factors).

Significant but weak correlations of all creative factors with only three factors of the Cattell test were obtained.

The correlation coefficients were equal:

Creative factors and factor B (high-low intelligence) 0.35;

Creative factors and factor F (cheerfulness, carelessness, concern) 0.30;

Creative factors and factor H (courage-timidity) 0.25;

Correlations with other factors of the Cattell test are insignificant.

CONCLUSION After the adaptation, we came to the conclusion that the Williams creative test set is a reliable and valid psychodiagnostic tool aimed at studying various creative characteristics of children and adolescents from 5 to 17 years old.

The tests are intended for psychologists, as well as teachers and social workers, who can use the test after appropriate training.

Tests do not require a long time to conduct them and process the results. They make it possible to compare indicators of creative thinking with children’s self-assessment of their personality traits associated with creativity, as well as with expert assessment by parents and teachers of children’s creative manifestations.

I would like to express my gratitude to those who participated in the adaptation of these tests: their conscientious and creative approach greatly helped in the work. A huge contribution to the work was made by: Golovchanskaya V.V., Schoenberg L.S., Beshkareva O.T., Bokiy T.A., Timofeeva Yu.A., Sklyarova T.V., Sizova O.B., Tsvetova S. A., Sorokina N.V., Sokolova I.N., Mironova I.V., Orlova E.V.

(Ryazan).

APPLICATION

Williams creativity tests can undoubtedly be used to assess the creative abilities of adults.

Obtaining appropriate normative data is a matter of the near future. Currently, I offer you the opportunity to watch and feel how accomplished creative individuals perform tests. The four test notebooks presented below are filled with famous St. Petersburg artists, whose works are presented in various art galleries in our country and abroad: Yu. I. Galetsky, T. A. Zakharova, E. M. Gerasimov. Many works by these artists are exhibited in the G. Mikhailov Gallery on Liteiny Prospekt in St. Petersburg. G. Mikhailov is a well-known person in Russia, a subtle connoisseur of painting, philanthropist, founder of art galleries in our country and in Germany. For many years he discovered new artists and helped them realize their creative potential.

The next test notebook was filled out by V.N. Gruzdev, a famous artist and writer, an art theorist who studies the psychology of visual perception and color theory.

The application concludes with tests performed by the well-known artist Alexander Florensky, a member of the Mitki artists' association.

I express my deep and sincere gratitude to everyone who took part in the creation of this original and undoubtedly necessary application.

8L; BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. Williams F. E. Creativity Assessment Packet (CAP).

D.O.K. Publishers. Inc. Buffalo. New York 14214, 1980.

2. Williams F. E. Classrooms ideas for encouraging thinking and feeling ing. D.O.K. Publishers. Buffalo. N.Y., 1969.

3. Williams F. E. Teachers without fear. D.O.K. Publishers. Buffalo.

4. Williams F. E. Performance levels of a school program survey.

D.O.K. Publishers. Buffalo. N.Y., 1979.

5. Tunick E. E. Johnson Creativity Questionnaire. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg U P M, 1997.

6. Tunik E. E. Psychodiagnostics of creative thinking. Creative tests. St. Petersburg: St. Petersburg U P M, 1997.

Based on membership, a scientific creative public organization consisting of...”

“which block the realization of maternal potential. The study considers infertility as a crisis situation in a woman’s life, her...”

“Protection of the rights of orphans and children left without parental care. Guardianship and trusteeship of minors. As part of the implementation of comprehensive measures to improve the demographic situation in Russia by the Government of the Russian Federation, executive authorities of the constituent entities of Russia..."

Pedagogy and psychology 8. Napalkov S.V. On the humanitarian significance of Web-quest technology in teaching mathematics // Humanitarian traditions of mathematical education in Russia: collection. Art. participants of the Sun...”

“General Pedagogy 43 children’s self-assessment of their own results, recording the adequacy of assessing their abilities in the field of choreographic art. To do this, the teacher-choreographer can use personality questionnaires, achievement tests, drawing tests, and sociometry. How..."

"MINISTRY OF AGRICULTURE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "KUBAN STATE AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY" LECTURE NOTES on the discipline (module) Innovative technologies in animal husbandry Code and direction under..."

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State Pedagogical University" Institute of Pedagogy and Childhood Psychology MATERIALS FOR..."

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State Pedagogical University" Institute of Psychology Department of Social Psychology, Conflict Management..."

“EDUCATIONAL SCIENCES UDC 37: 372.8; 37: 01: 001.8 Livshits Rudolf Lvovich Livshits Rudolf Lvovich Doctor of Philosophy, D.Phil., Professor, Professor, Head of the Department of Philosophy Head of the Philosophy and Social and Socio-Political Disciplines and Political Stu...”

"Ministry of Education and Science of the Russian Federation Federal State Budgetary Educational Institution of Higher Professional Education "Ural State Pedagogical University" E.V. Pryamikova, N.V. Ershova Theory and practice of studying social studies at school Educational and methodological manual Ekaterinburg UDC 372.83 B..."

“UDC 796.425 Fatyanov Igor Aleksandrovich Fatyanov Igor Aleksandrovich Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, PhD in Education Science, Assistant Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Theory and Methodology of Athletics...”

“MINISTRY OF EDUCATION AND SCIENCE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION MOSCOW STATE PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL UNIVERSITY FEDERAL RESOURCE CENTER FOR ORGANIZING COMPREHENSIVE SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN WITH AUTISTIC DISORDERS...” 2003.3. Zimnyaya I. A. Pedagogical psychology / I. A. Zimnyaya. Rostov-on-Don: Phoenix, 1997.4. Pedagogy of vocational education: a textbook for students...” Kokshetau State University named after. Sh. Ualikhanov, Republic...” a manual for general education. organizations / S. M. Sahakyan, V. F. Butuzov. - M.: Education, 2015. - 240 p. : ill. - (..."