What Happens After Nomination? Evaluating the Probability of Gifted Identification With the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking

Abstract

The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is the most widely used norm-referenced creativity test used in gifted identification. Although commonly used for identifying talent, little is known about how creativity tests, like the TTCT-Figural, contribute to the probability of being identified as gifted especially with underrepresented populations. Using nominated students ( n = 1,191) from a diverse midsized urban school district, this study examined the differential predictive validity among student demographics (i.e., race/ethnicity, free/reduced price lunch status, English learning status, sex) and the TTCT-Figural to the probability of being identified as gifted. Results of a multilevel hierarchical generalized linear regression indicated underrepresented groups showed no difference in the probability of being identified after controlling for cognitive ability and academic achievement; the same was true when the TTCT-Figural was included within the model. The inclusion of the TTCT-Figural does contribute to the probability of identification; however, the disproportionality of underrepresented student groups remains in this school district. Gifted administrators looking to enhance equity may not find the solution with the mere inclusion of a creativity assessment. Implications for practice and future directions are discussed.

A Reliability Generalization of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural

“…Decades of research on TTCT resulted in three forms: Figural (TTCT-F), Verbal (TTCT-V), and Abbreviated (TTCT-A). Of these three, TTCT-F is the most used in educational research and practice including gifted identification (Lee et al, 2024). The historical popularity of TTCT comes at least in part from the decades of research focused on the psychometric qualities including predictive validity (Cramond et al, 2005; Runco et al, 2010; Torrance, 1980, 1981a, 1981b), and construct validity (Clapham, 1998; Humble et al, 2018; Kim, 2006b; Kim et al, 2006; Krumm et al, 2014, 2016; Yoon, 2017).…”