Creativity Research Journal

ISSN: 1040-0419 (Print) 1532-6934 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hcrj20

On the development of creativity in children

Klaus K. Urban

To cite this article: Klaus K. Urban (1991) On the development of creativity in children,
Creativity Research Journal, 4:2, 177-191, DOI: 10.1080/10400419109534384

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534384

Published online: 02 Nov 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 253

View related articles

Citing articles: 26 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=hcrj20

Download by: [137.189.171.235] Date: 12 October 2016, At: 13:49

Creativity Research Journal
Volume 4 (2) 177-191 (1991)
On the Development of Creativity in Children
Klaus K. Urban
University of Hannover, Germany
ABSTRACT: There seems to be a quantitative
increase in creativity scores through the years of
childhood and adolescence, with some strong de-
clines at certain developmental stations. However,
earlier studies give no information about qualita-
tive changes in creativity development. Tradi-
tional divergent thinking tests, for example, give
more or less pure quantitative information about
cognitive skills. The present investigation exam-
ined age trends using the recently developed Test
zum schöpferischen Denken--Zeichnerisch, or in
English, Test for Creative Thinking-Drawing
Production (TCT-DP). The TCT-DP recognizes
qualitative response categories. In the present in-
vestigation, the TCT-DP was administered to chil-
dren between four and eight years of age (N =
272) from kindergarten and the first two school
grades. In addition to a quantitative analysis, a
special qualitative analysis of the drawings shows
how and in which way different subcomponents of
creativity develop. Six developmental stages of cre-
ativity, closely related to general cognitive develop-
ment, were identified.
The role and function of creativity during
childhood are relatively neglected topics in
the literature. This may be due to the dom-
inance of intelligence, or more specifically,
cognitive development, as topics in the
field of child development. In recent times,
the interest specifically in creativity seems
to have increased. For example, in tackling
nativist positions, Feldman (1989) used cre-
Creativity Research Journal
ativity as "proof that development occurs,"
and Cohen (1989) tried to design a devel-
opmental continuum as a bridge linking
creativity in childhood and adulthood.
Feldman's (1989) work is on a very abstract
and meta-theoretical level, but Cohen's
(1989) model allows room for drawing
practical consequences. The present article
is empirical, but it may supply some quanti-
tative as well as qualitative data as bricks for
that developmental bridge.
Every child might be described as
creative, because all children have the
need for newness— a central motive for
human development (Hunt, 1965). Ex-
ploratory behavior is constitutional for
humans and never totally wears off
(Storr, 1988). This "inherent curiosity"
(Feldman, 1989), striving for knowledge
(Lehwald, 1986a, 1986b; Urban, 1990),
and searching for stimuli and problems
(Getzels, 1982) normally is very strong
during early childhood. In fact, the
child him- or herself creates new situa-
tions if there are no new external stim-
uli (see Oerter, 1971, p. 352). Accord-
ing to Russell (1956), childhood and
creativity belong together inseparably,
for learning— including all processes of
Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Klaus
K. Urban, University of Hannover, Fb Erziehungswissenschaften I,
Bismarckstr. 2, D-3000 Hannover, Federal Republic of Germany.
177
K.K. Urban
change which lead to new forms of be-
havior— may be seen as a creative pro-
cess.
Anderson (1959) considered the cre-
ative process as development which is
characterized as a goal-oriented and
constructive process of positive change.
Already acquired schemes or structures
have to be given up by processes of dif-
ferentiation in order to come to new
and higher forms by new integration
(see Ulmann, 1968, p. 122). In Piaget-
ian terms, the assimilation and accom-
modation processes of the very young
child and the first acquired schemes
and plans are creative achievements.
The initially more or less undirected—
but later directed— explorative and curi-
ous activity which is natural and proper
for every normal child may be seen as
the root of creativity.
If one differentiates between inter-
nal and external reference systems for
evaluating creative action (Stein, 1967),
even a child may be creative in relation
to his or her internal or intraindividual
reference system. The child is able to
produce ideas and objects having never
before heard, seen, or produced. The
first manifestations of creative behavior
include the child's explorations of his
or her own body (Oerter, 1971; Russell,
1956), experimenting, manipulating,
and constructing with objects (Tor-
rance, 1964), early drawing productions
expressing feelings and experiences,
early language, curiosity, and question-
ing. Constructions and products which
are new and original for the child are
more or less the incidental result of
playful action.
The relationship between play and
the creative process is critical for the
child's development (Hogan, 1988). On
the one hand, creative behavior and
178
abilities are expressed by means of vari-
ous forms of play, such as imagination,
fiction, role playing, and construction;
on the other hand, the child can de-
velop creative aptitudes and acquire cre-
ative experiences in play. Here the basic
dialectic in child development becomes
obvious. Presuppositions, possibilities,
and chances for the development of cre-
ative behavior of the child are given.
As years pass, the child's perception
becomes more and more conscious, con-
cise, and intentional, the play becomes
more goal- and gestalt-oriented, and the
contents and products of creative behav-
ior change. Children learn that certain
kinds of products are more socially ex-
pected, rewarded, and accepted than
others. The products may become com-
pared to those of other children and to
population standards, and creative
products which are interindividually ac-
ceptable. The creative process is being
completed when the final product is
"presented to and accepted by a group
of significant others as tenable, useful, or
satisfying" (Stein, 1988, p. 59).
In order to develop the creative
roots and to nurture creativity, not only
do parents and the family have to pro-
vide a stimulating and enriched environ-
ment (Hogan, 1988), but society as a
whole should be a creativogenic one
(Stein, 1988). The literature often
stresses the point that authorities and
circumstances of socialization are more
inhibiting than nurturing, and thereby
prevent children from being creative.
Cropley (1983) explicitly stated that so-
cializing authorities can inhibit creativ-
ity. In any case, the development of the
inborn creative roots to creative think-
ing and acting which manifest them-
selves in socially accepted, creative, new,
and original products is highly depen-
Creativity Research Journal

dent on environmental conditions, in-
cluding educational institutions.
Creativity tests usually try to measure
the creative potential of an individual
and compare it to population standards.
Rising test scores during the years of
childhood seem to reflect increasing
creative achievements. Torrance (1963)
evaluated cross-sectional and longitudi-
nal studies and derived a developmental
curve of creativity in children which
generally goes up but, also shows typical
sections of decline (see Figure 1). Ac-
cording to Torrance, the explanation
for the decline in creative achievements
of the five year old children, for exam-
Creativity Score
80 -,
70 -
60 -
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10-
ii i i i i i i i i
3 5 1 3 5
Age Grades
Figure 1. Developmental Curve of Cre-
ative Abilities (according to E.P. Torrance,
1963; adapted from Seiffge-Krenke, 1974).
Creativity Research Journal
The Creativity of Children
ple, lies in the normal, traditional de-
mands for adaptation, compromises,
and acceptation of social authorities
when entering school.
The instruments in those studies
upon which Torrance based his curve
were tests of divergent thinking. Their
fluency, flexibility, originality, and elab-
oration factors are substantial compo-
nents of the creative process, but may
not be seen synonymously with creativ-
ity. Most tests only measure the first fac-
tor, fluency, and only supply quantita-
tive information. They do not address
the various qualitative subcomponents
of creativity or the qualitative changes
during the developmental process.
This limited view of creativity was
one reason the new instrument, the Test
zum schopferischen Denken— Zeichnerisch,
or, in English, Test for Creative Think-
ing- Drawing Production (TCT-DP), was
developed (Jellen & Urban, 1986; Urban
& Jellen, 1985, 1986). The German term
schopferisch describes the shaping, the
production, and the final gestalt of the
creative end product. The objective was
to consider not only divergent, quantita-
tive aspects of thought, but also aspects
of quality, content, gestalt, and elabora-
tion. The TCT-DP has proven its useful-
ness and broad applicability in various
studies in various countries and for
different age and ability groups. The test
criteria for reliability and validity are
very satisfying and encouraging (Brocher,
i i i i i r
7 9 12
1989; Herrmann, 1987; Jellen & Urban,
1986, 1988; Scheliga, 1988; Urban, in
press).
The present investigation is unique,
being the first developmental study with
this new instrument, the TCT-DP. The
objectives of this investigation were: to
determine if the test is useful for very
young children (between 4 and 8 years
179
K.K. Urban
of age); to determine if the TCT scores
and their statistics change with age or
type of educational institution (kin-
dergarten vs. elementary school); to
compare any detected developmental
changes with the ages of Torrance's
(1963) curve; and to assess qualitative
changes with age, if any. The last objec-
tive is especially important because pure
quantitative measures do not really give
substantial developmental information.
In order to understand the creative pro-
cesses and their supposed changes dur-
ing childhood, we must know more
about qualitative parameters and their
changes. Though this study is not a lon-
gitudinal one, but rather a cross-sec-
tional one with children of same and
similar groups and comparable socializa-
tion, the results should help to consider
creativity within the larger framework of
cognitive development. It may also give
lead to specific suggestions for educa-
tional practice and application.
Method
Subjects
Respondents in this study included two-
hundred seventy-two children between four
and eight years of age from four normal kin-
dergartens and three elementary schools
(grades one and two) in Hannover, Federal
Republic of Germany. There were 137 girls
and 135 boys, equally distributed over all
age groups. Thirty children were four years
old; 32 were five years old; 108 were 6 years
old; 65 were 7 years old; and 37 were eight
years old. All the tests were given and eval-
uated by the same trained person after the
children had completed their first quarter
of the school year.
180
Measuring Instrument
The Test for Creative Thinking- Drawing Pro-
duction (TCT-DP)1 asks the examinee to
complete a drawing on the basis of six
given figural fragments. Five of these are
located within a large square frame (see
Figure 2). Other details are presented else-
where Qellen & Urban 1986, 1988; Urban
& Jellen 1985, 1986). The interrater reli-
ability is highly sufficient; various studies
yielded coefficients around .90 (Brdcher,
1989; Herrmann, 1987; Scheliga, 1988;
Urban, in press). The same is true of dis-
criminant and convergent validities.
Evaluation Criteria. Each test drawing
is assessed by means of the following evalua-
tion criteria (all of which are extensively
described and illustrated in the test man-
ual):
Continuations (Cn): Any use or extension of the
six given figural fragments (0-6 points).
Completion (Cm): Any additions, completions,
complements, or supplements made to the used,
continued, or extended figural fragments (0-6
points).
New elements (Ne): Any new figure, symbol, or
element (0-6 points).
Connections made with a line (Cl) between one
figural fragment, figure, or new element (0-6
points).
Connections made to produce a theme (Cth): Any
figure contributing to a compositional theme or
gestalt (0-6 points).
Boundary breaking that is fragment dependent (Bfd):
Any use, continuation, or extension of the small
open square located outside the square frame (0
or 6 points).
Boundary breaking that is fragment independent
(Bfi): Any drawing using the space outside the
1
The test may be obtained from the authors: Hans Jellen,
California State University, School of Education, 5500 Univer-
sity Parkway, San Bernardino, CA 92407-2397, or Klaus Urban,
Universität Hannover, Fb Erziehungswissenschaften I,
Bismarckstr. 2, D-3000 Hannover, Federal Republic of Ger-
many.
Creativity Research Journal

square frame independent of the small open
square (0-6 points).
Perspective (Pe): Any breaking away from two-di-
mensionality (0-6 points).
Humor (Hu): Any drawing which elicits a humor-
ous response (0-6 points).
Unconventionality (Uc): (a) Any manipulation of
the material (0 or 3 points); (b) any surrealistic,
fictional, or abstract elements or drawings (0 or 3
points); (c) any usage of symbols or signs (0 or 3
points); or (d) unconventional figures (0-3
points).
Speed (Sp): A breakdown of points, beyond a cer-
tain score-limit, according to the time spent on
the drawing production (0-6 points).
The points given for each category
are summed up to a total score which is
seen as an index of creative potential.
750-2
TC7-W>
w all subsamples the distribution is oblique,
Q Vittn & Jellcn, i m
0 JrlUn 1 tliltn, 198S
Figure 2. TCT-DP Test Sheet (size re-
duced).
Creativity Research Journal
The Creativity of Children
Results and Discussion of
Quantitative Analyses
The reliability of ratings was examined,
with a very high level of agreement (aver-
age product moment r = .93). In light of
the purposes of the study, the single catego-
ries were considered as well as the total
score. Results of different sexes, age
groups, and grades were compared. In ad-
dition, special qualitative criteria based
upon developmental hypotheses were used
for the analyses.
Differences in Age and Sex
A classified distribution of total scores
(Table 1) indicates that the proportion of
children with very low scores was lower for
the older groups than the younger groups.
Although the variation is nearly the same
for 4- to 6-year-olds, there was a higher fre-
quency of extreme scores with the 7- and
ciyear-old children. It is interesting that in
and the majority of the cases are located in
the lower ranges, with exception of the dis-
tribution for the 5-year-olds.
The distributions in Table 1 suggest
that it is necessary to consider not only
the arithmetic mean (M). In principle,
the means (see Table 2) indicate an in-
crease with age; but this did not apply to
the 6-year-olds, a finding confirmed by
the other indices of central tendency:
mode classes (Mode) and medians (MD).
After that drop, the scores increased
again (M and MD), though without sig-
nificant differences between neighbor-
ing age groups. Only the 8-year-old pu-
pils achieved a slightly higher level than
the 5-year-old kindergarten children.
The result of the ANOVA for all age
groups just failed to reach statistical sig-
181
K.K. Urban

Table 1
Classified Distribution of TCT-DP Total Scons (Percentages) for the Different Age Groups

Age (in years)

Score 4 5 6 7 8
3-9 36.7 21.9 25.0 20.0 18.9
10-16 16.6 21.9 36.1 30.8 29.7
17-23 23.4 9.3 19.5 24.6 21.7
24-31 16.6 34.4 12.0 12.3 10.8
32-38 6.7 12.5 6.5 7.7 8.1
39-45 0.9 3.1 8.1
46-52 1.5
53-59 2.7

Table 2
Statistics of the Age Subsamples (TCT-DP Total Score)

Age M SD MD Mode n
4 15.6 9.0 15 6 30
5 19.3 10.2 21.5 27 32
6 15.7 8.4 12 13 108
7 17.9 9.7 16 13 65
8 20.2 12.1 17 13 37

nificance, F ( 4 , 267) = 2.19, p = .07. Nev- TCT-DP-Score

ertheless, the differences between the 5-
22
and 6-year-old children— at the break-
down in Figure 3— as well as between
the 6- and 8-year-olds, were significant, / 20
(138) = 2.02 and t (44) = 2.07, respec- /
A\
tively, both p = .04. All other differences 18
/ /
*\\ •••' / /

were not statistically significant.

Differences between the means of 16 'ft
/

//
/ • •" \

girls and boys were not significant for

the various age groups, but they did 14
*
have interesting courses (see Figure 3).
In general, they ran parallel to the
curve of the total group, but with boys •

and girls changing their relative posi- 5 6 7

tions around the pivot point of the 6- Years of Age
year-old children. But again, the only
statistically significant difference within
sexes was that between the 5- and 6-year- Figure 3. Developmental Curve for the
old boys, confirming the decline, t (67) TCT-DP Scores for Girls (G), Boys (B), and
= 2.02, p = .05. the Total Sample (T).

182 Creativity Research Journal


Influences of Different Educational
Institutions
If the relatively low scores of the 6-year-olds
reflected the influence of the school, than
an analysis of data classified with respect to
educational institutions (kindergarten vs.
school) should also show differences (see
Table 3). Even including the youngest chil-
dren, the mean of all kindergarten chil-
dren (M = 19.1) was significantly higher, t
(129) = 2.71, p = .008 than that of all first
graders (M = 15.3). There were increases,
within both institutions, with age. The low-
est score was that of the 6-year-old children
from the first grade in school (M = 14.5).
The 7-year-old children in the same classes
(M = 19.7) and the 6-year-old children in
kindergarten (M = 28.2) had significantly
higher scores, ^ (117) = 2.83, p = .005, and t
(106) = 5.97, p = .0001, respectively.
The curve of the means in Figure 3
is dominated by the steep decrease to
six years after the increasing tendency
from the four to the five years. This
breakdown is not necessarily typical for
six-year-olds, and may be dependent on
school influences which could prevent
children from obtaining high scores.
This result is indeed comparable to for-
mer findings compiled by Torrance
(1963), as shown in Figure 1. Yet one
Table 3
Means of TCT-DP Total Scores. Differentiated as to Age and Kindergarten/'Grades and Significance of Differences
Kindergarten 15.6 19.3
Grade 1
Grade 2
Note. Level of significance (between adjacent means): * = .05. ** = .01. *** = .001.
Creativity Research Journal
The Creativity of Children
must keep in mind that the curve in Fig-
ure 3 is not a developmental one in a
narrow sense: Those are not longitudi-
nal data, but cross-sectional from sam-
ples of different ages.
Though the 7-year-old children from
grade one did not go to school longer
than the 6-year-olds, they scored signifi-
cantly higher. Because they stayed one
more year in kindergarten, they may
have been able to develop their creative
abilities without further constraint by
the school. They may also be more sta-
ble against negative influences of
schooling. A long stay in kindergarten
seems to have positive effects on the de-
velopment of creativity, and the negative
influence of the school in this respect
seems to be overcome very slowly, if
ever. The following qualitative analyses
were used to test if and how far these
general results may be due to a general
trend of all or most evaluation criteria,
or if they reflect a few criteria, or even
one single criterion.
Results and Discussion of the
Differentiated Analysis of the Test
Evaluation Criteria
A detailed analysis using single criteria was
used to reveal if there was one or more cri-
Age
8 Total
28.2 19.1
*** **
14.5 19.7 15.3
*
16.9 20.2
18.4
183
K.K. Urban

teria which contributed specifically to the
above findings, and in which way there was
a change for certain criteria with age. Table
4 gives the results for selected criteria. It
shows very clearly that both the categories
for boundary breaking (Bfd and Bfi, re-
flecting risk taking) were responsible and
critical for the lower scores of the 6-year-
olds. Both categories showed a dramatic
and highly significant decrease after five
years of age, and increased continuously
after that. They did not reach the former
peak even for the 8-year-old pupils. A dif-
ferentiation between the 6-year-old chil-
dren in kindergarten and those in school
made it still more evident that the regula-
tions in school may have contributed to the
results.
For the 4-year-old children, the pro-
duction of a thematic relation/composi-
tion (Cth) between elements of the
drawing— or the recognition of such con-
tent relation for the scorer— is very dif-
ficult even without interviewing the
child; already a fifth of the children one
year older produced such connections.
However, there was no total thematic
composition yet, only a few elements
may have been connected by a theme.
That proportion did not grow substan-
tially with age, though the number of
whole thematic solutions increased with
age. There were no attempts with three-
dimensional perspective with 4- or 5-
year-olds; the number remained gener-
ally very small.
For drawings eliciting an evaluator's
humor response (Hu), there was a re-
markable and continuous increase of
rates. The children seemed to become
more and more conscious of what they
were drawing, and more goal- and prod-
uct-oriented (cf. Rosenblatt & Winner,
1989). They seemed to have a drawing
plan, or to reflect and stand in distance
to their drawings. All these, in connec-
tion with setting meta-signs, are possibil-
ities or conditions for humor.
Again, with increasing age, certain
elements became less stereotypical, and
more individual and original (Uc,d).
This was the primary reason for a con-
tinuous increase of the unconventional-
ity scores (Uc, total).

Table 4
Frequencies (in Percentages) of Selected Evaluation Criteria for Different Age Groups, and Significance of Differences Between
Directly Neighboring Figures

Evaluation
Criteria Age (in years)
4 5 6 7 8
Cth 2.7 19.7 18.6 20.8 25.3
Bfd 33.3 34.3 *** 15.7 21.5 27.0
Bfi 40.0 42.3 *** 10.4 16.9 21.6
Pe 0.0 0.0 4.5 1.8 5.4
Hu 6.7 21.2 17.4 32.3 51.4
Uc,a 10.0 25.4 24.9 25.1 24.3
Uc,b 0.0 0.0 3.7 9.2 8.1
Uc,c 23.3 18.7 18.5 30.8 27.0
Uc.d 6.7 17.5 19.4 27.7 42.2
Uc, total 10.0 15.5 16.5 23.2 25.5

Note. Considered if earned at least one point in the respective evaluation criteria.

184 Creativity Research Journal

 The Creativity of Children

Results and Discussion of the tively quickly. In contrast, the percentages

Qualitative Evaluation
All drawings were evaluated by means of
the qualitative criteria listed above. Addi-
tional criteria were as follows:
1. No use of fragments.
2. Fragments were copied only.
3. Fragments were used and completed or sup-
plemented, but remained abstract— they did not
have concrete meanings.
4. Fragments or new elements became concrete
objects or creatures.
5. The elements (completed fragments or new
elements) contributed to a content relation or a
thematic composition.
At the age of four, children's draw-
ings can be classified in the first four
categories with fairly comparable por-
tions. Category 5 has not been observed
(see Table 5). This may reflect a rela-
tively broad range of developmental
steps as hypothetically formulated in the
categories. The distribution changes
through the years in favor of the last
three categories, with a highly dominat-
ing portion on category 4.
As expected, the observed percent-
ages of the first three categories de-
creased continuously with age, and rela-
of categories 4 and 5 increased continu-
ously. That implies that with increasing
age children learn to recognize and pro-
cess given information; they learn more
and more to associate to the given frag-
ments an objective or object-related
meaning, to draw and shape them inten-
tionally, and finally to begin to incorpo-
rate them into a holistic composition.
Each category except 5 had not only
superficial changes, but a statistically
significant decline or increase in per-
centage. The respective point of age,
which tentatively may indicate a devel-
opmental change referring to that draw-
ing behavior described by the respective
category, differs between the evaluation
criteria. The category "no-use of given
fragments," which applied to nearly a
quarter or a fifth of the 4- and 5-year-
olds, disappeared nearly entirely from
age six and on. Mere copying of the
given fragments (criterion 2), which
may be called a form of accommoda-
tion, was found relatively often for the
4-year-olds. This was only the case for
3.1% of the 5- and for .09% of the 6-
year-old children. The first objects and
creatures drawn from the fragments,

Table 5
Frequencies (in Percentages) of Certain Qualitative Evaluation Criteria for Different Age Groups, and
Significance of Differences Between Directly Neighboring Figures

Evaluation Age (in years)

Criteria 4 5 6 7 8
] 23.3 21.9 * 6.5 6.2 0.0
2 23.3 ** 3.1 0.9 0.0 0.0
3 20.1 28.1 29.6 24.6 * 13.5
4 33.3 40.6 * 51.9 56.9 * 70.3
5 0.0 6.3 11.1 12.3 16.2

*/>=.O5. **p-= .01. ***p=.00l.

Creativity Research Journal 185

K.K. Urban
which reflect assimilation, were circles
or heads, made from the given "half cir-
cle," or a simple house, made from the
fragment "right angle." Four-year-old
children experience their world mainly
through their visual modality, and draw
and express what they know percep-
tively. They are less able than children
capable of concrete operations, in
Piagetian terms, to associate given ab-
stract elements with their perceptive
knowledge and to interpret them in
order to create something concrete and
perceptually bound (cf. Rosenblatt &
Winner, 1989). Very often they lack sim-
ple drawing skills or lack confidence in
their drawing skills.
Unconcrete completion or supple-
menting of elements may be found for
all age groups, but mostly for the 4- to
7-year-olds. The decline was significant
for the 8-year-old children. Observa-
tions and remarks of children revealed
that this kind of completion for various
children was due to "not knowing what
to do or how." For example, the chil-
dren tried to draw something meaning-
ful from the given elements, especially
with growing ability to accept externally
given tasks; on the other hand the ob-
servations made for criterion 2 are accu-
rate, and much bound by the given frag-
ment. Thus, mostly from the more
concrete and simpler given fragments
("semicircle," "right angle," and "snake
line," in contrast to "dotted line," "full
stop," and "little open square" outside
the frame), stereotypical figures were
drawn and the other fragments re-
mained untouched and unused.
Significant differences between girls
and boys were found for category 4. A
very high percentage of the girls at the
age of 4 were drawing objects and crea-
tures from the fragments, increasing
186
from 50% up to 82% percent for the 8-
year-old girls. This percentage was much
lower for boys (19% of the 4 and 60% of
the 8-year-old boys). Earlier, in category
5, the boys had a higher percentage
than girls, for composing figural and
thematic relationships (20% vs. 12% of
the 8-year-olds).
General Discussion
According to the results of this qualitative
analysis, one can assume that our com-
prehensive conception of creativity, as it is
operationalized and evaluated by the TCT-
DP, is not quite adequate if generally ap-
plied to all children below the age of six.
Perhaps the test results of very young chil-
dren reflect more their general state of
cognitive development than their specific
creative potentials. Nevertheless, early
stages seem recognizable, and even pre-
school aged children can have extraordi-
narily high "creative potential" as defined
by our test (see Figure 4). That does not
mean that preschoolers with low scores may
not be creative or can not develop creative
abilities, perhaps in other ways or other
areas, especially verbally.
If we conceptualize creativity in a
very broad sense and use internal evalu-
ation schemes, every TCT drawing pro-
duction could be viewed as a creative
achievement. But if we apply external
reference systems— and this includes
our definition of creativity on the
TCT— without looking for societally rel-
evant products, then it is not enough
that the test or the given fragments are
used. Quality and the way of usage must
be assessed.
According to the results of the last
analyses, the following rough stages for
a development of creative abilities (in
Creativity Research Journal
 The Creativity of Children

(1) (2)

(3)

(5) (6)

Figure 4a. The Six Developmental Stages (Examples).

Creativity Research Journal 187

KK. Urban

U _

1 1 ''
v »

Figure 4b. Different Developmental Stages in One Age Group (Boys, Six Years Old).

188 Creativity Research Journal

 The Creativity of Children

&%"%m
Am&T-cs^

^Tlt, St^rf BtaU-vtM*)

Figure 4c. Examples for Highly Creative Drawings (Second Grades, Seven and Eight Years
Old).

Creativity Research Journal 189

K.K. Urban
the sense of the test concept) may be
formulated (see examples of the stages
in Figure 4). They may be seen in close
relationship to the general cognitive de-
velopment of children in that age
range:
Stage 1. The child is not able yet to recognize or
perceive provided information or adapt to the
information according to the given problem: He
or she scribbles or draws something independent
from the fragments.
Stage 2. Beginning accommodations; the child
uses the fragments, but without completing or
forming or changing. The fragments are only
copied.
Stage 3. First assimilating, but still not very cre-
ative drawings: The fragments are completed
and become more or less closed, completed, sim-
ple figures, like circles or squares.
Stage 4. Uses own individual and complex
schemes and assimilation, incorporating given
fragments by means of creating and interpreting
figures as objects or creatures.
Stage 5. Figures and objects are drawn and in-
terpreted as having an inner relation or thematic
dependency structure; an intention of forming
and composition becomes recognizable.
Stage 6. High stage of creative achievement; all
completed, equipped, new elements and parts of
the drawing contribute to a holistic composition,
and to a common theme which is expressed by
the holistic way of formal figural quality of the
drawing. (This does not necessarily mean high
technical artificial drawing skills.)
Creativity depends on originality,
multidimensionality, risk-taking, and un-
conventionality. Further steps should be
taken to apply this approach to the work
of older and more creative children. To-
gether with the stages outlined above,
this might help us to better sketch the
development from a mere egocentric
and accommodative behavior to free
and intentional creative action which re-
sults in new, original, societally relevant
products, and new and changed bodies
of existing knowledge (Feldman, 1989),
190
reflecting "mature creativity" (Cohen,
1989).
REFERENCES
Anderson, H. H. (1959). Creativity as personality de-
velopment. In H. H. Anderson (Ed.), Creativity and
its cultivation (pp. 119-141). New York: Harper &
Brothers.
Arieti, S. (1988). New views of creativity. In F. Flach
(Ed.), The creative mind (pp. 212-242). Buffalo, NY:
Bearly Limited.
Cohen, L. M. (1989). A continuum of adaptive creative
behaviors. Creativity ResearchJournal, 2, 169-183.
Cropley, A. J. (1983). Kreativität: Entstehungs-
bedingungen und Einflupfaktoren (Creativity: De-
velopmental conditions and influential factors). In
W. Wieczerkowski & H. zur Oeveste (Eds.),
Lehrbuch der Entwicklungspsychologie (Handbook of de-
velopmental psychology) (Vol. 2, pp. 259-274).
Düsseldorf: Schwann.
Feldman, D. H. (1989). Creativity: Proof that devel-
opment occurs. In W. Damon (Ed.), Child develop-
ment today and tomorrow (pp. 240-260). San Fran-
cisco,CA:Jossey-Bass.
Getzels, J. W. (1982). Probleme finden - die Natur
und Entwicklung von Hochbegabung (Finding
problems - the nature and development of gifted-
ness). In K. K. Urban (Ed.), Hochbegabte Kinder
(Gifted children) (pp. 41-55). Heidelberg:
Schindele.
Hogan, P. (1988). Creativity in the family. In F. Flach
(Ed.), The creative mind (pp. 23-50). Buffalo, NY:
Bearly Limited
Hunt, J. McV. (1965). Intrinsic motivation and its role
in psychological development. In D. Levine (Ed.),
Nebraska symposium on motivation 1965. Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
Jellen, H., & Urban, K. K. (1986). The TCT-DP (Test
for Creative Thinking--Drawing Production): An
instrument that can be applied to most age and
ability groups. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11,
138-155.
Jellen, H., & Urban, K. K. (1988). Assessing creative
potential worldwide: The first cross-cultural appli-
cation of the Test for Creative Thinking--Drawing
Production (TCT-DP). Creative Child and Adult
Quarterly, 13, 151-167.
Lehwald, G. (1986a). (Ed.). Frühdiagnostik als
Voraussetzung für eine entwicklungsgerechte
Creativity Research Journal
 The Creativity of Children

Förderung begabter Kinder (Early diagnostics as Storr, A. (1988). The psychodynamics of creativity. In
presupposition for a developmentally adequate F. Flach (Ed.), The creative mind (pp. 191-212). Buf-
nurturing of gifted children). In U. Schaarschmidt, falo, NY: Bearly Limited.
M. Berg, & K.D. Häusgen (Eds.), Diagnostik geistiger Torrance, E. P. (1963). Education and the creative poten-
Leistungen (Diagnostics of mental achievements) (pp. tial. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota
160-167). Berlin, GDR: Academy of pedagogical Press.
sciences. Torrance, E. P. (1964). Education and creativity. In C.
Lehwald, G. (1986b). Kreative Motive bei Schülern W. Taylor (Ed.), Creativity: Progress and potential (pp.
(Creative motives of pupils). In W. Wieczerkowski, 49-128). New York: McGraw-Hill.
H. Wagner, K. K. Urban, & A. J. Cropley (Eds.), Ulman, G. (1968). Kreativitdt (Creativity). Weinheim:
Hochbegabung-Gesellschaft-Schule (Giftedness-society- Beltz.
school) (pp. 147-155). Bad Honnef: Bock. Urban, K. K. (1990). Besonders begabte Kinder im
Oerter, R. (1971). Psychohgie des Denkens (Psychology of Vorschulalter (Gifted children in the preschool age). Hei-
thinking). Donauwörth: Auer. delberg: HVA/Schindele.
Rosenblatt, E., & Winner, E. (1989). The art of Urban, K. K. (in press). Kreativitätsdiagnostik (Diag-
children's drawing. In H. Gardner & D. N. Perkins nostics of creativity). In H.-G. Mehlhorn (Ed.),
(Eds.), Art, mind, and education (pp. 3-16). Urbana, Ewickeln, Erkennen und Fördern von künstlerischen
IL: University of Illinois Press. Begabungen (Developing identifying and furthering
Russell, D. H. (1956). Children's thinking. Boston: gifts and talents in the arts). Leipzig, GDR.
Ginn. Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1985). Der TSDZ: Test
Seiffge-Krenke, I. (1974). Probleme und Ergebnisse der zum schöpferischen Denken-zeichnetisch. Universkät
Kreativitätsforschung (Problems and results of creativity Hannover, Arbeitsstelle HEFE, Paper 6.
research). Bern: Huber. Urban, K. K., & Jellen, H. G. (1986), Assessing cre-
Stein, M. I. (1967). Creativity and culture. In R. L. ative potential via drawing production: The Test for
Mooney & T. A. Razik (Eds.), Explorations in creativ- Creative Thinking-Drawing Production (TCT-DP).
ity (pp. x-y). New York: Harper & Row. In A. J. Cropley, K. K Urban, H. Wagner, & W.
Stein, M. I. (1988). Creativity: The process and its Wieczerkowski ( Eds.), Giftedness: A continuing world-
stimulation. In F. Flach (Ed.), The creative mind (pp. wide challenge (pp. 163-169). New York: Trillium
51-75). Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited. Press.

Creativity Research Journal 191