The Remote Associates Test as a Predictor of Productivity in Brainstorming Groups
Open Access
- 26 July 1981
- journal article
- Published by SAGE Publications in Applied Psychological Measurement
- Vol. 5 (3), 333-339
- https://doi.org/10.1177/014662168100500306
Abstract
Two studies investigated the validity of the Re mote Associates Test (RAT) in predicting produc tivity in brainstorming groups. In Study 1 groups of high and low RAT scorers discussed two problems relevant to social concerns (energy conservation, rape prevention). In Study 2 Alternate Uses and Consequences problems were discussed by groups composed of heterogeneous RAT scorers. In each study the RAT was significantly related to fluency, flexibility, and originality of ideas generated by group members, with these effects appearing con sistently across problems. In addition, Study 2 indi cated that the RAT relationships to creativity in dices were independent of verbal intelligence. Pre liminary data were also gathered regarding RAT re lationships to idea generation while working indi vidually and to the potential value of the Marlowe- Crowne Scale as a predictor of brainstorming pro ductivity.Keywords
This publication has 8 references indexed in Scilit:
- A Comparison of Statistical Infrequency and Subjective Judgment as Criteria in the Measurement of OriginalityJournal of Personality Assessment, 1979
- Associative and attentional processes in creative performance1Journal of Personality, 1976
- SELECTING CREATIVITY TESTS FOR USE IN RESEARCHBritish Journal of Psychology, 1972
- Individual differences and the role of attention in the use of cues in verbal problem solving1Journal of Personality, 1972
- FLUENCY AS A PERVASIVE ELEMENT IN THE MEASUREMENT OF CREATIVITY1Journal of Educational Measurement, 1970
- Differential use of incidental stimuli in problem solving as a function of creativity.The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1964
- The Quick Test (QT): Provisional Manual,Psychological Reports, 1962
- The associative basis of the creative process.Psychological Review, 1962