Normative Data for 111 Compound Remote Associates Test Problems in Romanian

Is Cognitive Flexibility Equivalent to Shifting? Investigating Cognitive Flexibility in Multiple Domains

In the present exploratory study we investigate whether cognitive flexibility is a unitary mechanism underlying flexible behaviours across many domains or a domain-specific capacity. The literature on cognitive flexibility is divided into several research lines that do not converge. The most prominent one considers flexibility an executive function that represents the ability to switch among rules or tasks. In other research traditions it is associated with distinct components, such as the capacity to place an item into many categories (in creativity tests) or a characteristic of different cognitive or perceptual processes (e.g., flexible language use, flexibility in mathematics, perceptual flexibility). To determine whether flexibility in different domains relies on a general shared mechanism, 221 subjects from two countries (The United States and Romania, mean age 19.52 years) were tested online with several measurements from four different domains of investigation: language, mathematics, perception, and executive functions (specifically, set shifting). All tasks required some form of cognitive flexibility. In addition, we measured math anxiety to see how this relates to mathematical flexibility. The results show very few and small significant partial correlations among the tasks. They also highlight that there is no unitary overarching "executive" factor. The most prominent common factor was speed of processing for mathematical and language response times. Shifting does not seem to be a mechanism that underlies flexibility in all the investigated domains. While we acknowledge the need for replication of this study, the data suggest that the construct of shifting does not exhaust the notion of flexibility as it arises across cognitive domains.

Scaling a common assessment of associative ability: Development and validation of a multiple-choice compound remote associates task

The assessment of creativity as an individual difference has historically focused on divergent thinking, which is increasingly viewed as involving the associative processes that are also understood to be a key component of creative potential. Research on associative processes has proliferated in many sub-fields, often using Compound Remote Associates (CRA) tasks with an open response format and relatively small participant samples. In the present work, we introduce a new format that is more amenable to large-scale data collection in survey designs, and present evidence for the reliability and validity of CRA measures in general using multiple large samples. Study 1 uses a large, representative dataset (N = 1,323,480) to demonstrate strong unidimensionality and internal consistency (α = .97; ωt = .87), as well as links to individual differences in temperament, cognitive ability, occupation, and job characteristics. Study 2 uses an undergraduate sample (N = 685) to validate the use of a multiple-choice format relative to the traditional approach. Study 3 uses a crowdsourced sample (N = 357) to demonstrate high test-retest reliability of the items (r =.74). Finally, Study 4 uses a sample that overlaps with Study 1 (N = 1,502,922) to provide item response theory (IRT) parameters for a large set of high-quality CRA items that use a multiple-choice response mode, thus facilitating their use in future research on creativity, insight, and related topics.

A Systematic Review of Creativity-Related Studies Applying the Remote Associates Test From 2000 to 2019

The study examines how the remote associates test (RAT) has been used to examine theories of creativity through a review of recent studies on creativity. Creativity-related studies published between 2000 and 2019 were retrieved from the SCOPUS database. A total of 172 papers were chosen for further analysis. Content analysis shows that research on creativity using RAT mainly concerns remote association, insight problem-solving, general creative process, test development, individual difference, effect of treatment, clinical case, social interaction effect, and predictor or criterion. The study constructs a theoretical framework based on the 4P (Product–Person–Process–Place) model and demonstrates how empirical studies using the RAT explore the individual differences, internal processes, and external influences of creative thinking. In addition, the most commonly used version of the RAT is the Compound Remote Associates Problems (Bowden and Jung-Beeman, 2003a). Current research shows a trend whereby the creative thinking process has been receiving greater attention. In particular, a growing number of studies in this field have been carried out using cognitive neuroscience technologies. These findings suggest that the RAT provides researchers with a way to deepen their understanding of different levels of creativity.

Are All Remote Associates Tests Equal? An Overview of the Remote Associates Test in Different Languages

The Remote Associates Test (RAT, CRA) is a classic creativity test used to measure creativity as a function of associative ability. The RAT has been administered in various different languages. Nonetheless, because of how embedded in language the test is, only a few items are directly translatable, and most of the time, the RAT is created a new in each language. This process of manual (and in two cases, computational) creation of RAT items is guided by the researchers' understanding of the task. This paper focuses on the question of whether RAT datasets administered in different languages within the literature are comparable. To answer this question, datasets acquired using different RAT stimuli are analyzed qualitatively and quantitatively. Kruskal-Wallis tests are conducted to find out whether there is a significant difference between any of the datasets for a given time frame. Pairwise Mann-Whitney post-hoc tests are then used to find out which pairs are different. Significant differences are observed between 18 dataset pairings regarding Accuracy and between 16 in terms of Response Time. The potential sources of these differences are discussed, together with what this means for creativity psychometrics and computational vs. manual creation of stimuli.

A Visual Remote Associates Test and Its Validation

The Remote Associates Test (RAT) is a widely used test for measuring creativity, specifically the ability to make associations. The Remote Associates Test normally takes a linguistic form: given three words, the participant is asked to come up with a fourth word associated with all three of them. While visual creativity tests do exist, no creativity test to date can be given in both a visual and linguistic form. Such a test would allow the study of differences between various modalities, in the context of the same creative process. In this paper, a visual version of the well-known Remote Associates Test is constructed. This visual RAT is validated in relation to its linguistic counterpart.