**2. The Quantitative Framework**

There are disputes with the psychometric approach to studies on creativity and creative imagination. Many scholars doubt that it is possible to quantify something as delicate as creative imagination through standardized tests [12,13]. Consistently, in keeping with this line of thinking, Ausubel et al. [14] proposed that creativity was an 'innate capacity'; that is, a particularized and substantial capacity and born with the individual, but it would be di fficult to develop it under influences of environment. There are some creative traits, however, that if developed, could turn to function as supportive instruments for the intellect and the personality of a child.

We demonstrate similarly that categorical re-inforcements might actually help children in our designated age group not only to deal with immediate instruments, but also learn to apply creative imagination to such instruments for better alternatives. If proven, intrinsic abilities within creative-imaginative modules may be shown to have positive e ffects children in the primary school segment. As we said, this proposition is not new in the literature, but our research could probably confirm the presence of variables in the project. We observed creativity in children to hypothesize if certain elements already singled out in the literature are also not instrumental in domain of the tasks for the experiment. We go<sup>t</sup> to confirm that, among other suggested variables, creative imagination involves at least the following steps: (1) 'Encounter', since any process begins with the presentation of a tangible problem to the individual who engages with it [15]. (2) 'Incubation', during which an individual

is continuously inspired by the reality of the problem [16]. (3) 'Enlightenment', corresponding to the results of the process [17]. (4) Self-induced evaluation and verification, in which the participant takes time to check the best options and ideas adopted [18]. We also endorse the profile of the creative subject in terms of nine aspects, among several recognized instruments realized in such authorities as Guilford [19] and Torrance [20]: These are originality, flexibility, production or fluency, elaboration, analysis, synthesis, mental opening, communication and sensitivity to problem, and level of inventiveness [21]. These factors are reduced to more computable categories for the experiment, as are outlined in the section on methodology. Finally, what remains to be said is that these factors, after careful extraction, are set aside specifically for verbal and visual creativity—the two more common sensory functions responsible for semantically valid constructs.

### **3. Existing Models of Creativity: Review and Suggestions**

The evaluation of creativity is, thus, a hotly debated topic ranging from skepticism about the possibility of evaluation to asserting that creativity must be evaluated for purposes of improvement and instruction. De la Torre [22] is one author that bets on evaluation. He proposed that creativity requires inter and transdisciplinary approaches, since it has psychological, pedagogical, neurobiological, and sociological connotations [23]. The importance of evaluation of is also defended by authors such as Kaufman [24], who states that creativity is evaluated not only to measure the performance of an individual, but to promote the same type of creativity through stimuli and incentives.

In order to evaluate creativity, di fferent instruments have been employed, all of which have taken into account the three major avenues to its understanding—namely, that of 'creative process' [25–27], and finally, that of quantifying the 'creative product' [28].

We should, thus, draw attention to these attempts in a systematic manner to follow the debate on how attempts have been made to quantify, use, and develop creative practices in real terms. First of all, studies on creative persons are usually aimed at identifying 'personality', 'motivation', 'intelligence', 'cognitive styles', and 'knowledge' that creative people possess or employ [29–31]. Most of these studies conclude that there are certain factors or personality traits that are often associated with high creativity in very di fferent areas. These factors could be increased tolerance for ambiguity, willingness to take risk, self-regulation, interest etc. In this sense, the creative person is described as being more sensitive to problems and information gaps and seems to manifest a need to construct more hypotheses, to investigate and to evaluate problems [26]. Some personality traits appear to be more frequent in people who stand out for their artistic creativity and ye<sup>t</sup> there are others that are more frequently visible in fields of scientific inventions [28].

The other approach to factorial analysis of creative activity has been to consider the conditions responsible for execution of novel tasks. The main models in this group attempts to describe mental operations or phases that a person goes through or experiences during the making of a creative product, such as exploration, incubation, insight, evaluation, etc. This approach also invites categorization of creative thinking in terms that sugges<sup>t</sup> that it is di fferent from non-creative thinking: Such as, for example, the extent to which creative thinking involves conscious, as distinct from unconscious processes, or to what extent creative thinking is the result of external e ffects such as luck, or of long-term efforts such as persistence and hard work. An example of this process-centered approach is the "Geneplore" model proposed by Finke, Ward, and Smith [31] in which they identify two phases in the creative process: A first of "generation", generating many possible ideas that can solve a problem and a second phase of "exploration", in which the di fferent possible solutions are evaluated to select the most appropriate one. Another well-known approach is the one proposed by Csikszentmihaly [25], which introduces, as we well know, the notion of "flow". We do take cognizance of this model, as well the former one, with their insistence on personality and processual actions.

But the third existing model seems to be more viable, especially for children where personality is less complex, and products of creativity, such as drawing, are easier to deconstruct. Creativity is a fundamental aspect of cognitive development and is behaviorally manifested, and hence, its

measurement depends on variables reflected in the immediate products of psychomotor functions, and this is perhaps more readily visible in children [32]. It is necessary to both evaluate and quantify the behavioral manifests of creativity in order to understand if there are relevant correlations of elements within constituents of those products.

So, as for this creative product model of creative imagination, scholars like Sternberg [33] and Kaufman [24] point out that most creative ideas are characterized by the presence of three components. First, that the creative idea must refer to something di fferent, original, new, or innovative. Second, creative ideas must lead to a quality product. Third, creative ideas will have to be appropriate for the task or problem that is presented. In short, it could be said that a creative product must be novel, of recognizably high quality, and relevant. Studies focusing on the creative 'product' try to determine as to how to judge whether a particular work (poem, musical composition, drawing, etc.) is creative or not. In this sense, some researchers propose to use the consensual assessment technique while estimating the creativity of products or achievements of people or groups [13]. This technique involves judges or experts in an area of knowledge, assigning scores to real products such as a written composition, a poem, or a drawing. We would like to argue in favor of the fact that creativity should always be evaluated in such concrete domains. An evaluative-quantitative approach centered on the product has the potential of being more objective, although it would have the drawback of not allowing us to know how the subject reaches the end product. It also makes it possible to identify subjects that have been remarkably creative, but it does not make it easier to identify subjects whose creative potential are ye<sup>t</sup> to be developed [34].

The fourth factor, the pressures of the environment, emphasizes how the social environment, the models to which one is exposed and the cultural values and attitudes that surround us contribute, sometimes to a grea<sup>t</sup> extent, to foment or inhibit our creativity.

### **4. Creativity Testing in Children**

Torrance [35] has made grea<sup>t</sup> contributions to the study of creativity; he became interested in things that can be done before, during, and after a lesson to increase creative thinking. He indicated that creativity is a process that is expressed in changes discovered, is a capacity that can be developed and, in children, it is something that is confirmed through their productions, such as stories, fantasies, and drawings. In addition, he designed a test to evaluate the four basic skills that reflect creativity: Namely, fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. In the most recent version of his test published in 2008, he proposed some changes to the proposed indicators: Fluidity here refers to the ability to produce a large number of ideas; originality now involves, for him, the ability to contribute ideas or solutions that are far from the obvious, common, or established; elaboration appears as the aptitude of detailing ideas; finally, again, titles for creativity refer in the latest version of the analysis to the ability to generate ideas that capture the essence of drawings and sensory reproductions. Torrance also speaks of the ability to generate original ideas, with intense images and details in addition to the stimulus.

The *Torrance's Creative Thinking Test* [36] is based on Guilford's theory of intellect [37] and is a useful tool for evaluating both quantitative and qualitative aspects of divergent thinking, especially creative products [38]. This instrument consists of a group of useful tests to evaluate the creative process as a whole and also the specific skills that define it. The figurative expression section of Form 1A evaluates the level of imagination in constructs like drawings and computes the products of the three following activities: (a) Composition, (b) finish, and (c) parallels. The definition of creativity is far from reaching an unanimity among members of the scientific community, but despite the diversity of perspectives, most authors agree that it is a complex and multifaceted construct. Davis and Wechsler [39] and Vendramini and Oakland [40] validate the Torrance test for the evaluation of divergent thinking; these authors recognize the accuracy and validity of the assumptions regarding the structure of the novel image. Most other similar studies report on the structural validity of the dimensions assessed in the subtests of this test (fluidity, flexibility, originality, and elaboration) and even establish high correlations

between them. The works of Guilford [19] and Torrance [35] set a milestone in the study and evaluation of creativity based on psychometric and factorial perspectives.

Empirical evidence supporting the test proposed by Torrance [35] had its beginnings with the 1959 analyses of high school students where the three of the components of his test—fluidity, flexibility, and originality—were extensively confirmed and agreed upon as being the best predictors of creative achievement. Five years later, Torrance resent a questionnaire to the entire population that participated in the research of 1959 and found that all predictors of creativity were significant at a level of 0.01. In order to examine the relationship between the various indicators, a later study used Plucker's structural model in which it was argued that intelligence also has a positive e ffect on Torrance's test [41]. Increments in the four factors—fluidity, flexibility, originality, and elaboration—when evaluated by judgments of experts, reinforced the predictive validity of the test. In Plucker's research, data were examined under a Pearson product-moment correlation and a positive relationship was found between the indicators of creativity and the criteria of intelligence in creative achievement. Various analyses such as Plucker's have confirmed that the Torrance test is highly predictive of creative production in each of its indicators. Research of Terman and Oden (1959), Bloom (1985) [42], and Torrance (1993) with highly intelligent and talented individuals emphasized the critical role of personality factors, opportunity, experiences, and other environmental aspects that could play a role relevant to the development of creativity. However, it is very clear that there are other additional factors that can help or prevent the recognition of creative characteristics.
