CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 39Creativity in Education and NeurosciencePsychometric Methodologies and TestingPsychological Testing and Assessment

Factor Structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Verbal Form B in a Spanish‐speaking Population

Open access
Krumm, Gabriela, Aranguren, María, Arán Filippetti, Vanessa, Lemos, Viviana·2016·The Journal of Creative Behavior
DOI 10.1002/jocb.76
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare, through a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, two different theoretical models that explain the operationalized creativity construct with the Verbal Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking ( TTCT ), Form B. Model 1 is represented by six factors which correspond to each activity and its respective indicators while Model 2 is integrated by three factors which correspond to each TTCT ability (i.e., Fluency, Originality, and Flexibility) and the corresponding indicators for each variable. The study was carried out with a sample consisting of 432 Spanish‐speaking youngsters of both sexes aged 15–26. According to the research findings, the model which showed the most satisfactory fit identifies six correlated factors that correspond to each of the activities proposed ( χ 2 = 414.48; df = 116; χ 2 / df = 3.57; GFI = .90; NFI = .95; CFI = .96 and RMSEA = .077). These results are discussed according to its psychometric implications for the construct assessment in different fields.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A confirmatory factor analysis of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Verbal Form B in 432 Spanish-speaking Argentine youths found that a correlated six-factor model, one factor per test activity, fit best. The results support a multidimensional construct organized by activity/task rather than by separate fluency, originality, and flexibility latent factors.

Key findings

  • The six-factor model showed acceptable fit: χ² = 414.48, df = 116, χ²/df = 3.57, GFI = .90, NFI = .95, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .077.
  • The three-factor ability model fit poorly: χ² = 4492.02, df = 132, χ²/df = 34.03, GFI = .51, NFI = .44, CFI = .44, RMSEA = .277.
  • A one-factor unidimensional model did not improve over the six-factor model: χ² = 953.32, df = 131, χ²/df = 7.27, CFI = .90, IFI = .90, RMSEA = .12; Δχ² = 538.84, Δdf = 15, p < .001. A non-correlated-factor model could not be identified.
  • Correlations between originality and fluency were higher than those between originality and flexibility or flexibility and fluency; across activities, fluency and originality scores were higher than flexibility scores.

Methods

  • Non-probability intentional sample of 432 Spanish-speaking youngsters aged 15–26 (M = 19.19, SD = 2.43; 236 females, 54.6%; 196 males, 45.4%) from middle-class institutions and universities in Entre Ríos, Argentina.
  • TTCT Verbal Form B was administered collectively; it comprises six activities and scores fluency, flexibility, and originality.
  • Confirmatory factor analysis was conducted in AMOS Graphics 16.0 to compare a six-factor model (one per activity) with a three-factor model (fluency, originality, flexibility), then to compare the six-factor model with one-factor and non-correlated-factor models. Fit was assessed with χ², χ²/df, GFI, NFI, CFI, IFI, RMSEA, and AIC.

Limitations

  • The paper does not include a formal limitations section. Evident from the text: the sample is non-probability, intentional, drawn from middle-class institutions/universities in one Argentine province, and restricted to ages 15–26, limiting generalizability.
  • Evident from the text: the study examines only TTCT Verbal Form B, not Form A or the Figural tests, and reports no measurement invariance analyses across gender or age.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jocb.76

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

1 of 20 cited sources checked · 1 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    For every TTCT Verbal activity, fluency and originality scores were higher than flexibility scores.

    “Besides, for every activity, the fluency and originality scores were higher than those of flexibility.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In Spanish-speaking youngsters aged 15-26, the six-factor model of the TTCT Verbal Form B (Model 1, with factors corresponding to each activity and its indicators) shows a more satisfactory fit than the three-factor model (Model 2, with factors corresponding to Fluency, Originality, and Flexibility).

    “According to the research findings, the model which showed the most satisfactory fit identifies six correlated factors that correspond to each of the activities proposed (v 2 = 414.48;df = 116; v 2 /df = 3.57; GFI = .90;NFI = .95;CFI = .96and RMSEA = .077).”
    • Also stated in: § CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS · plain
      “As shown in Table 4, Model 1(i.e., six-factor model) fits better than Model 2 as the GFI, the NFI, and the CFI indices show values greater than .90and the RMSEA is lower than .08(See Table 4; Figure 2).”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · hedged
      “By means of CFA, it could be observed that out of the two compared models, Model 1: Creativity Construct integrated by six factors that correspond to each activity and its respective indicators fitted best to data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    In this study, high correlations were found among the different abilities assessed in each TTCT Verbal activity.

    “Accordingly, it is important to highlight that this study has also found high correlations among the different abilities assessed in each activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The model of non-correlated factors for the TTCT Verbal could not be identified.

    “Subsequently, a model of non-correlated factors was tested in which the correlations among the latent variables were set to 0. This model could not be identified.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The six-factor model showed acceptable fit to the data (CFI=.96, IFI=.96, RMSEA=.07).

    “1. Six-factor | 414.48 116 3.57 .96 .96 524.48 | .07”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 6
  • May combine two claims. 9

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Krumm and Lemos (2007, 2010), using EFA, found that every activity defined a separate factor, loading on each the dimensions fluency, flexibility, and originality.

    “By means of EFA, Krumm andLemos (2007, 2010) found similar results to those of Almeida et al. (2008), that is, every activity defined a separate factor, loading on each of the former the dimensions fluency, flexibility and originality.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Krumm andLemos (2007, 2010)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Almeida et al. (2008) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In all cases, correlations between originality and fluency are higher than those between originality and flexibility or between flexibility and fluency.

    “In all cases, correlations between the originality and the fluency abilities are higher than those found among originality and flexibility or flexibility and fluency.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    A correlated six-factor model best explains the Creativity Construct assessed from the TTCT Verbal, compared with a unidimensional model and a non-correlated factor model.

    “After analyzing which model best explains the Creativity Construct (i.e., Model 1), different models were compared to determine whether the TTCT Verbal structure is better explained by a unidimensional construct or by a non-correlated factor construct.”
    • Also stated in: § CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS · plain
      “As there was no significant improvement of fit of the unidimensional model over the six-factor model, the latter was retained as the best fit.”
    • Also stated in: § CONFIRMATORY FACTOR ANALYSIS · hedged
      “These data suggest that a correlated six-factor model best explains the Creativity Construct assessed from the TTCT Verbal (See Table 5).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The study's findings do not support the existence of a general factor for the TTCT Verbal and contradict previous studies suggesting a unidimensional structure.

    “Our findings do not support the existence of a general factor and contradict the results of previous studies that suggest a TTCT unidimensional structure (Hocevar, 1979;Hocevar & Michael, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Hocevar, 1979

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hocevar & Michael, 1979 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the Spanish-speaking sample, the TTCT Verbal Form B is best represented by a six-factor model, with each activity as a separate factor, rather than by a three-factor or one-factor model.

    “provided that every activity represents a separated factor”
    • Also stated in: § DISCUSSION · plain
      “Model 1 (six-factor model) 414.48*** 116 3.57 .90.95.96.077Model 2 (three-factor model) 4492.02***132 34.03 .51.44 .44 .277”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Evidence about the accuracy and validity of the TTCT has been a controversial issue among researchers.

    “Although the Torrance tests is one of the most widely used instruments to assess creativity, the evidence about its accuracy and validity has been a current controversial issue among different researchers (Baer, 2011a,b;Kim, 2011a,b).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Baer, 2011a,b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kim, 2011a,b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Most validity studies have focused on the TTCT Figural, while studies on the TTCT Verbal are scarce.

    “In general, most validity studies have focused on the TTCT Figural (Heausler & Thompson, 1988;Kim, 2006a,b;Kim et al., 2006;Krumm & Lemos, 2011;Krumm et al., 2014;Prieto S anchez, L opez Mart ınez, Ferr andiz Garc ıa & Bermejo Garc ıa, 2003) being scarce those studies regarding the TTCT Verbal.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Heausler & Thompson, 1988 source
    • cites Kim, 2006a,b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Kim et al., 2006 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Each TTCT Verbal Form B activity evaluates fluency, flexibility, and originality with differences according to the demand and specificity of each task.

    “Seemingly, each activity would evaluate the dimensions of the TTCT Verbal (e.g., fluency, flexibility, and originality) with differences according to the demand and the specificity of each task.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    It is possible to use each TTCT Verbal Form B activity separately because each offers a measure for fluency, flexibility, and originality, but using all six activities is necessary to obtain an integral vision of every process.

    “These data suggest that it would be possible to use each activity of the TTCT Verbal separately given that they offer a measure for the three traits (e.g., fluency, flexibility, and originality); however, it would be also necessary to use the six activities to obtain an integral vision of every process.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is the most internationally used instrument for the assessment of creativity.

    “The Torrance (1974) Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is the most internationally used instrument for the assessment of creativity (e.g., Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos & Zuo, 2005;Ferrando et al., 2007;Kaufman, Plucker & Baer, 2008;Kim, Cramond & Bandalos, 2006;Krumm & Lemos, 2010, 2011;Krumm, Lemos & Ar an Filippetti, 2014;Oliveira et al., 2009;Prieto et al., 2006;Wechsler, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos & Zuo, 2005 source
    • cites Ferrando et al., 2007
    • cites Kaufman, Plucker & Baer, 2008

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    Each TTCT Verbal Form B test activity represents a separate but correlated factor, and each factor groups the three abilities proposed by Torrance for the TTCT Verbal assessment.

    “Findings from this study note that each test activity would represent a separate but correlated factor and each factor would group the three abilities proposed by Torrance for the TTCT Verbal assessment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Plass, Michael and Michael (1974) concluded that the factors found in an EFA with both TTCT tests described the tasks rather than the proposed skill.

    “For instance, Plass, Michael and Michael (1974), when working with both TTCT tests (Verbal and Figural) in an Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), concluded that the factors found described the tasks rather than the proposed skill.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Plass, Michael and Michael (1974) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The TTCT Verbal Form B measures the dimensions proposed by Torrance (fluency, flexibility, and originality), but these abilities do not form a latent factor by themselves.

    “In this sense, the instrument would seem to measure the dimensions proposed by Torrance (1990a,b), though these abilities would not form a latent factor by themselves.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Torrance, 1990a,b

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Some studies have shown that the TTCT Verbal could be assessing a single construct rather than multiple abilities.

    “Some studies have shown that the TTCT Verbal could be assessing a single construct rather than multiple abilities (Dixon, 1979;Hocevar, 1979;Hocevar & Michael, 1979).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Dixon, 1979
    • cites Hocevar, 1979

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Hocevar & Michael, 1979 source

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The TTCT Verbal evaluates three skills: fluency, flexibility, and originality.

    “In this way, considering that the TTCT Verbal evaluates three skills, namely fluency, flexibility, and originality (Torrance, 1990a), and based on the results obtained by Krumm andLemos (2007, 2010) in terms of EFA, two models were proposed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Torrance, 1990a

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

15 of 15

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The non-probability sample of 432 Spanish-speaking youngsters from middle-class institutions and universities in Entre Ríos, Argentina, is representative of the Spanish-speaking population to which the study generalizes.

    “A non-probability intentional sampling consisting of 432 youngsters between the ages of 15 and 26 (M = 19.19;SD = 2.43) was used, being 236 (54.6%) females and 196 (45.4%) males.The youngsters belonged to different middle-class institutions and universities from Entre R ıos, Argentina.”
    “Due to the scarcity of studies on the construct validity of the TTCT Verbal, Form B, this work aimed at testing two theoretical models by means of CFA in order to explain the creativity construct in Spanish-speaking youngsters.”
1 of 1

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Activity 1 originality mean is below flexibility mean

    Minor

    The discussion says originality scores were higher than flexibility scores for every activity, but Table 2 reports a lower originality mean (5.06) than flexibility mean (5.30) for ACT-1.

  • Six-factor RMSEA differs between fit tables

    Minor

    Table 4 reports .077 for the six-factor model, whereas Table 5 reports .07 for that same model. The former would round to .08, not .07, at two decimal places.

2 of 2

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 19

  1. Abernathy Tannehill R.L, 1998, An analysis of selected creativity tests administered to students affiliated with the Cherokee tribe, Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 2526
  2. Antunes A.P., 2007, Avaliar a criatividade: contributos para validade de alguns subtestes do TPCT (Testes de Pensamento Criativo de Torrance), Revista Psicologia e Educacao, 6, 37
  3. Arbuckle J.L., 2007, Amos 16.0 User's Guide
  4. Chase C.I., 1985, The Creative Person, 237
  5. Ferrando M., 2007, Estructura interna y baremación del Test de Pensamiento Creativo de Torrance, Psicothema, 19, 489
  6. Garaigordobil M, 2006, Explicaciones teóricas contemporáneas del origen y desarrollo de la creatividad humana, Revista Electrónica Recrearte, 5, 1
  7. Garaigordobil M., 2004, Evaluación de un programa de juego creativo: implicancias en la estabilidad emocional, las estrategias de interacción social y el autoconcepto en niños de 10 a 11 años, Nueva Época, 8, 65
  8. Gorsuch R.L., 1983, Factor Analysis
  9. Krumm G., 2010, Análisis preliminar de la validez de constructo del Test de Pensamiento Creativo de Torrance (TTCT), verbal Forma B, Acta Psiquiátrica y Psicológica de América Latina, 56, 168
  10. Krumm G., 2011, Psicología y otras ciencias del comportamiento. Compendio de investigaciones actuales, 731
  11. Montañés P., 2009, Neuropsicología y creatividad, Avances en Psiquiatría Biológica, 10, 10
  12. Oliveira E., 2009, Test de pensamiento creativo de Torrance (TTCT): elementos para la validez de constructo en adolescentes portugueses, Psicothema, 21, 562
  13. Prieto Sánchez M. D., 2003, Adaptación de la prueba figurative del test de pensamiento creativo de Torrance en una muestra de alumnos de los primeros niveles educativos, Revista de Investigación Educativa, 21, 201
  14. Richards R., 2009, Everyday Creativity and New Views of Human Nature
  15. Schmid T., 2005, Promoting Health Through Creativity
  16. Torrance E.P., 1966, The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking‐Norms‐Technical Manual Research Edition‐Verbal Tests, Forms A and B – Figural Tests, Forms A and B
  17. Torrance E.P, 1974, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking: Norms‐Technical Manual
  18. Torrance E.P., 1981, Empirical validation of criterion‐referenced indicators of creative ability through a longitudinal study, Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 6, 136
  19. Torrance E.P., 1990, Torrance Test of Creative Thinking. Manual for Scoring and Interpreting Results

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Krumm, G., Aranguren, M., Arán Filippetti, V., & Lemos, V.
Affiliations
  • Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas (AR)
  • Interdisciplinary Center of Mathematical and Experimental Psychology Research “Dr. Horacio J. A. Rimoldi” (CIIPME) National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET) Argentina
Corresponding author
Krumm, Gabriela
ORCID
Venue
The Journal of Creative Behavior
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2014-10-17
Volume
50
Issue
2
Pages
150-164
ISSN
  • 0022-0175 (ISSN-L)
  • 2162-6057
DOI
10.1002/jocb.76
OpenAlex
W2010819681
Cited by
39
References
50
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2
FWCI
3.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • The Journal of Creative Behavior (publishedVersion)
  • CONICET Digital (CONICET) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
Funders
Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, factor structure, creativity assessment, fluency, originality, flexibility, Spanish-speaking adolescents, confirmatory factor analysis, construct validity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-23.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-23.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review