Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,023

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 7 of the 7 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire

Carson, Shelley H., Peterson, Jordan B., Higgins, Daniel M.·2005·Creativity Research Journal
DOI 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) is a new self-report measure of creative achievement that assesses achievement across 10 domains of creativity. It was designed to be objective, empirically valid, and easy to administer and score. Study 1 established test-retest reliability (r = .81, p < .0001) and internal consistency reliability (a = .96) in a sample of 117 undergraduate students. Study 2 established predictive validity of the CAQ against artist ratings of a creative product, a collage (r = .59, p < .0001, n = 39). Study 3 (n = 86) established convergent validity with other measures of creative potential, including divergent thinking tests (r = .47, p < .0001), the Creative Personality Scale (Gough, 1979; r = .33, p = .004), Intellect (Goldberg, 1992; r = .51, p < .0001), and Openness to Experience (Costa & McCrae, 1992; r = .33, p = .002). Study 4 established discriminant validity between the CAQ and both IQ and self-serving bias. Study 5 examined the factor structure of the CAQ. A three-factor solution identified Expressive, Scientific, and Performance factors of creative achievement. A two-factor solution identified an Arts factor and a Science factor.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Cites

7 of 7 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 7 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. 10.1037//0022-3514.43.5.997 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.43.5.997 · Paper page
  2. Amabile, T. M . (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag. · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255 · DOI · Paper page
  4. Brooker B. H., 1986, Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42, 983, 10.1002/1097-4679(198611)42:6<982::AID-JCLP2270420624>3.0.CO;2-G · DOI · Paper page
  5. 10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.499 · DOI · Paper page
  6. Colangelo N., 1992, Creativity Research Journal, 5, 157, 10.1080/10400419209534429 · doi:10.1080/10400419209534429
  7. Feist, G. F. (1999). The influence of personality on artistic and scientific creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  8. Finke, R. A., Ward, T. B. & Smith, S. M. (1992). Creative cognition: Theory, research, and applications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. · DOI · Paper page
  9. 10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.26 · doi:10.1037//1040-3590.4.1.26 · Paper page
  10. 10.1037//0022-3514.37.8.1398 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.37.8.1398 · Paper page
  11. Gough, H. G. & Heilbrun, A. B. (1965). The Adjective Check List manual. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.
  12. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  13. Hennessey, B. A. & Amabile, T. M. (1988). The conditions of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), The nature of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  14. Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity. New York: Plenum. · DOI · Paper page
  15. Holland J. L., 1964, Journal of Educational Psychology, 55, 55, 10.1037/h0047977 · doi:10.1037/h0047977
  16. Ludwig A., 1992, Creativity Research Journal, 5, 109, 10.1080/10400419209534427 · DOI
  17. MacKinnon D. W., 1962, American Psychologist, 17, 484, 10.1037/h0046541 · DOI · Paper page
  18. 10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1258 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.52.6.1258 · Paper page
  19. 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00101-4 · DOI · Paper page
  20. 10.1037//0022-3514.54.3.476 · DOI · Paper page
  21. Rosenthal, R. & Rosnow, R. L. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York: McGraw-Hill.
  22. 10.1037//0022-3514.32.6.1119 · doi:10.1037//0022-3514.32.6.1119 · Paper page
  23. 10.1037//0022-3514.38.6.972 · DOI · Paper page
  24. Sternberg, R. J. & O'Hara, L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Taylor C. W., 1967, Science, 155, 1075, 10.1126/science.155.3766.1075 · doi:10.1126/science.155.3766.1075
  26. Torrance E. P., 1968, Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 165, 10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00099.x · doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1968.tb00099.x
  27. Torrance E. P., 1972, Gifted Child Quarterly, 16, 75, 10.1177/001698627201600201 · DOI
  28. Ward, T. B., Smith, S. M. & Finke, R. A. (1999). Creative cognition. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

See all 1,023

Metadata

Authors
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M.
Venue
Creativity Research Journal
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2005-02
Volume
17
Issue
1
Pages
37-50
ISSN
  • 1040-0419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6934
DOI
10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
OpenAlex
W2166269878
Cited by
1,023
References
7
FWCI
7.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

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.

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
The paper
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, Validity, and Factor Structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.