View in EDS HTML Full Text PDF Full Text

Intelligence and Creativity: Over the Threshold Together?

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: Intelligence and Creativity: Over the Threshold Together?
Language: English
Authors: Welter, Marisete Maria, Jaarsveld, Saskia, van Leeuwen, Cees, Lachmann, Thomas
Source: Creativity Research Journal. 2016 28(2):212-218.
Availability: Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
Peer Reviewed: Y
Page Count: 7
Publication Date: 2016
Document Type: Journal Articles
Reports - Research
Education Level: Elementary Education
Descriptors: Prediction, Creativity, Longitudinal Studies, Correlation, Scores, Gender Differences, Instructional Program Divisions, Intelligence Quotient, Elementary School Students, Student Motivation, Tests, Statistical Analysis
Assessment and Survey Identifiers: Raven Progressive Matrices
DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162564
ISSN: 1040-0419
Abstract: Threshold theory predicts a positive correlation between IQ and creativity scores up to an IQ level of 120 and no correlation above this threshold. Primary school children were tested at beginning (N = 98) and ending (N = 70) of the school year. Participants performed the standard progressive matrices (SPM) and the Test of Creative Thinking--Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Each child with IQ = 120 was grade-and-gender matched to a child with IQ < 120. Results in accordance with the threshold theory were found only for female children in the highest grade level (Grade 4). Longitudinal analysis implies that a subgroup of children goes down in IQ and creativity simultaneously, possibly due to motivational issues. Their correlated scores may be a source of evidence for the threshold theory. The relationship between intelligence and creativity is not straightforward and depends on a combination of factors including grade level and gender.
Abstractor: As Provided
Number of References: 23
Entry Date: 2016
Accession Number: EJ1100519
Database: ERIC
Full text is not displayed to guests.
FullText Links:
  – Type: pdflink
    Url: https://content.ebscohost.com/cds/retrieve?content=AQICAHj0k_4E0hTGH8RJwT4gCJyBsGNe_WN95AvKlDbXJGqwxwF2x7a34rUqOOpJuUcPt4SaAAAA4jCB3wYJKoZIhvcNAQcGoIHRMIHOAgEAMIHIBgkqhkiG9w0BBwEwHgYJYIZIAWUDBAEuMBEEDE5Mp0-BZRgfav3XSAIBEICBmtScqnPJ-EIv_ExLjrBBwVuN-us4109nfoCLqsWjdmk7vPmT7rNLeON6axId83STxYgo78Bu1Ok8GnwVH_T8NP58-G3mB8qPuDKOkmU8pFbpG3Y-wWosDTKrYIWxhMyt7MKe963rvxkULpActjj7rhwNrseZspAFs-AEJg8pjYXoPoAkQU0cVDeaO6aeUvIus1dZOpQL-IQVPTU=
Text:
  Availability: 1
  Value: &lt;anid&gt;AN0116263900;7lo01apr.16;2019Feb12.16:58;v2.2.500&lt;/anid&gt; &lt;title id=&quot;AN0116263900-1&quot;&gt;Intelligence and Creativity: Over the Threshold Together?&#160;&lt;/title&gt; &lt;p&gt;Threshold theory predicts a positive correlation between IQ and creativity scores up to an IQ level of 120 and no correlation above this threshold. Primary school children were tested at beginning (N = 98) and ending (N = 70) of the school year. Participants performed the standard progressive matrices (SPM) and the Test of Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Each child with IQ ≥ 120 was grade-and-gender matched to a child with IQ &amp;lt; 120. Results in accordance with the threshold theory were found only for female children in the highest grade level (Grade 4). Longitudinal analysis implies that a subgroup of children goes down in IQ and creativity simultaneously, possibly due to motivational issues. Their correlated scores may be a source of evidence for the threshold theory. The relationship between intelligence and creativity is not straightforward and depends on a combination of factors including grade level and gender.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Creativity researchers have long been debating the relationship (or the lack thereof) between intelligence and creativity (see Batey &amp;amp; Furnham, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib1&quot; id=&quot;ref1&quot;&gt;1&lt;/reflink&gt;] for a review). The threshold theory of intelligence (Guilford, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref2&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]) predicts a positive correlation between IQ and creativity scores until a certain IQ threshold, particularly, an IQ of 120, above which no correlation will be observed (Lubart, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref3&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Results in respect to the threshold theory have been mixed. Some studies confirmed the theory (Cho, Nijenhuis, Van Vianen, Kim, &amp;amp; Lee, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib2&quot; id=&quot;ref5&quot;&gt;2&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Fuchs-Beauchamp, Karnes, &amp;amp; Johnson, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib3&quot; id=&quot;ref6&quot;&gt;3&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Weinstein &amp;amp; Bobko, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;]); others failed (Kim, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref8&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Preckel, Holling, &amp;amp; Wiese, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco &amp;amp; Albert, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco, Millar, Acar, &amp;amp; Cramond, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sligh, Conners, &amp;amp; Roskos-Ewoldsen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Theurer, Kastens, Berner, &amp;amp; Lipowsky, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Here the possibility is considered that the relationship depends on grade level or on gender. Torrance ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]) reported correlations between intelligence and creativity scores consistently higher in girls than in boys. Kim ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref15&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]), moreover, noted in a meta-analysis that the correlation is lower for younger students than for older ones and adults. Because the variation in IQ in the lower intelligence group is usually larger than that in the higher IQ group, and to prevent that this alone may produce the threshold effect (Runco &amp;amp; Albert, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref16&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sligh et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref17&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]), we used matched pairs for grade level and gender in a sample of primary school children. Although matched groups do not counter this problem directly, at least they reduce the problem by minimizing other individual sources of variability.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Overall, the main purpose of this study was to answer the following research questions: Can the threshold theory be confirmed within a sample of primary school children using matched pairs for gender and grade level? Does the threshold theory apply equally to both genders irrespective of grade level or is it conditioned by either gender or grade?&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-2&quot;&gt;METHOD&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-3&quot;&gt;Participants&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;A sample of 175 school children from Grade 1 to Grade 4, between 6 and 10&#160;years of age was tested. State authorities approved this study and parents consented to the participation of their children. Children performed the paper-and-pencil versions of the standard progressive matrices (SPM; Raven, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib12&quot; id=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;12&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and the Test for Creative Thinking—Drawing Production (TCT-DP, Urban &amp;amp; Jellen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Form A and B). Children were informed they could end their participation at any time during the session if for any reason they felt uncomfortable; one female child did so and her results were accordingly excluded from the study. For the remaining 174 participants, IQ was obtained using the German norms for the SPM (1998; 6–18&#160;years old) and children assigned to either of two groups: IQ ≥ 120 and IQ &amp;lt; 120. Eight first-grade children had to be excluded from the study because their answer sheets contained multiple answers for one item. Of the remaining 166 children, 52 had an IQ ≥ 120 and 114 an IQ &amp;lt; 120. Each child of the IQ ≥ 120 group was matched with a child of the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group with the same gender and grade level. For three children of the IQ ≥ 120 group, no match could be found, leaving two groups of 49 children each. Each group contained 23 male and 26 female participants with an age mean of 8.12 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;0.97) for IQ ≥ 120 and 8.20 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;0.94) for IQ &amp;lt; 120. The IQ mean for the IQ ≥ 120 was 133 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;6.69) and for the IQ &amp;lt; 120 it was 105 (&lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;8.32).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-4&quot;&gt;Material&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-5&quot;&gt;Standard Progressive Matrices (SPM)&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The SPM was developed in 1938 by John C. Raven and is frequently used to test g—general intelligence (Raven, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib13&quot; id=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;13&lt;/reflink&gt;]) or fluent intelligence. Each item (&lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;60, maximum score 60) comprises an incomplete pattern which the child has to complete by choosing a figure from six or eight possible solution options given below the matrix.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;According to Raven ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib14&quot; id=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;14&lt;/reflink&gt;]), &quot;The objective of the test was to create a set of items whose difficulty would increase in such a way that everyone would complete all the items up to the most difficult they could solve&quot; (p. 10). He intended to develop a test that would be theoretically relevant, easy to administer, clear to interpret, and could be administered to individuals of different ages and socio-economic backgrounds. The SPM is supposed to capture the different levels of cognitive ability in as many age groups as possible, regardless of education, nationality, or health condition (Heller, Kratzmeier, &amp;amp; Lengfelder, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib5&quot; id=&quot;ref22&quot;&gt;5&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The SPM is applicable as single or group test and provides norms for individuals from 6&#160;years old onward.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-6&quot;&gt;TCP-DP&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The TCP-DP (Urban &amp;amp; Jellen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib21&quot; id=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;21&lt;/reflink&gt;]) can be used to identify very high creative potential, as well as to recognize individuals with underdeveloped creative abilities, who may be in need of stimulation and support (Urban &amp;amp; Jellen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref24&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The test contains two answering forms (Form A and Form B, which is the upside down of Form A) that provide six figure fragments in a square frame inspiring further drawing. Based on these fragments, the respondent is requested to complete the drawing in a free and open way. These fragments are: semi-circle, point, large right angle, curved line, broken line, and a small open square outside the frame (Urban &amp;amp; Jellen, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib22&quot; id=&quot;ref25&quot;&gt;22&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The drawing is evaluated and scored by means of 14 evaluation criteria that can deliver up to six points each (maximum score&#160;=&#160;72), except for the four criteria of unconventionality which are valued at a maximum of 3 points. The evaluation criteria are: continuations, completions, new elements, connections made with a line, connections made to produce a theme, boundary breaking that is fragment dependent, boundary breaking that is fragment independent, perspective, humor and affectivity, unconventionality A, unconventionality B, unconventionality C, unconventionality D, and speed. The test is applicable as single or group test and provides norms for individuals from 5&#160;years old onward.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-7&quot;&gt;Procedure&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The first test session was held shortly after the beginning of the school year and the second test session just before the end of it. Children were tested in groups during class time. Children were seated in a widely separated manner in the classroom and were asked to work quietly and alone. Two researchers conducted the session without the teacher being present. In each test session, children first performed the SPM (45&#160;min) and then the TCT-DP (15&#160;min; Form A first session, Form B second session). Participants that had completed the SPM were engaged in another quiet activity until all children had finished the test or the time allowed for performing was over. The total test session lasted about 60&#160;minutes.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-8&quot;&gt;RESULTS AND DISCUSSION&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Regarding confirmation for the threshold theory most studies, according to Karwowski and Gralewski ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref26&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]), use a liberal criterion: The theory is confirmed when a positive correlation between the scores of an intelligence and a creativity test occurs for IQ &amp;lt; 120 in combination with a near-zero correlation, or at least a lower one for IQ ≥ 120. They suggest a more stringent criterion: a test comparing both correlation coefficients. Only if the coefficients differ significantly from each other, the decision should be made to accept the theory. Here we report whether the data provide evidence for the liberal criterion, or also for the strict one.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Runco and Albert ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref27&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]) and Sligh et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref28&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]) suggested that the threshold theory might be the result of a statistical artifact. The range of IQ scores in the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group is larger than in the IQ ≥ 120 group. Absence of correlation in the latter can thus be a consequence of the smaller variance (Sligh et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref29&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]). Recent research, therefore, proposes that rather than correlations, regression analyses using the linear and the quadratic (curvilinear) components provide a more suitable method for testing the threshold theory (Jauk, Benedek, Dunst, &amp;amp; Neubauer, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref30&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Karwowski &amp;amp; Gralewski, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref31&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref32&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref33&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Sligh et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib18&quot; id=&quot;ref34&quot;&gt;18&lt;/reflink&gt;]). The threshold theory could be confirmed by a quadratic trend that flattens off at the high end of IQ. Note however, that a flattening trend curve is not the same as a decrease in correlation; a steep linear trend, for instance, can go together with a low correlation (if the trend is a bad fit). That we apply different type of analyses for all research question will extend our result section. This, however, will allow us to check to what extent one and the same data set will lead to different conclusion just depending on the criterion chosen.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The results from the first test session are as follows. Means and standard deviations of the SPM and the TCT-DP are presented in Table 1. There was a positive correlation, &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.330, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.020, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;49, for the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group, whereas no correlation, &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.071; &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.625; &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;49, was obtained for the IQ ≥ 120 group. Correlations, however, did not differ significantly from each other (&lt;emph&gt;Z&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;−1.303, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.096). These results, therefore, support the threshold theory according to the liberal criterion (Karwowski &amp;amp; Gralewski, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref35&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]), but not according to the strict criterion. The regression analyses are inconclusive in that neither a linear (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt;&#160;=&#160;.23, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.138) nor a quadratic (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; change&#160;=&#160;.005, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.504) trend was found. This pattern of results is consistent with other studies, e.g. Runco et al. ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref36&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]). It may be concluded that the aggregate data of all matched pairs yield at best only weak support for the threshold theory.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 1 SPM and TCT-DP means for grade level and gender of the first test session with matched pairs&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Grade&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#60; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;49&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#8805; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;49&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;23&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;26&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;23&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F, N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;26&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M (SD)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;SPM&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;amp;#8211;2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;30.43(4.35)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;31.60(4.62)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.71(4.72)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;40.8(1.64)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;33.63(5.61)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;36.60(3.84)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;46.63(1.92)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;45.00(4.03)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;38.25(2.19)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;40.36(3.36)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;46.88(2.70)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;48.82(2.23&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;TCT-DP&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;amp;#8211;2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10.00(5.72)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.60(5.64)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.29 (3.90)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.80(5.71)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.25(6.65)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.40(4.67)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;16.38 (7.15)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;18.30(8.03)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;12.63(5.66)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;20.09(7.16)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;21.25(10.49)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;19.55(9.73)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;4 &lt;emph&gt;Note&lt;/emph&gt;. Grade 1 and Grade 2 were taken together because of the small number of participants. M&#160;=&#160;Male, F&#160;=&#160;Female, SPM and TCT-DP over raw scores&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Pearson&#39;s correlations (two-tailed) between SPM (raw score) and TCT-DP (raw score) were then performed separately for gender and grade level in each IQ group (IQ &amp;lt; 120 and IQ ≥ 120) to answer the question whether the threshold theory depends on individual properties such as grade level or gender (Table 2). Grade 1 (&lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;4) and Grade 2 (&lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;20) were combined due to the small numbers of participants.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 2 SPM and TCT-DP correlation coefficients for grade level and gender of the first test session with matched pairs&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#60; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#8805; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;F&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Grade&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;r (p)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;r (p)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;r (p)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;N&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;r (p)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;1&amp;amp;#8211;2&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.201(.666)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;886&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;(.046)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;829&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;(.021)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;926&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;(.024)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.183(.664)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.114(.754)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.448(.265)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;10&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.364(.301)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.101(.812)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.&amp;lt;bold&amp;gt;785&amp;lt;/bold&amp;gt;(.004)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;amp;#8722;.075(.861)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;.111(.745)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;5 &lt;emph&gt;Note&lt;/emph&gt;. Grade 1 and Grade 2 were taken together because of the small number of participants. M&#160;=&#160;Male, F&#160;=&#160;Female, SPM and TCT-DP over raw scores; Correlation coefficients set in bold indicate significance at the.05 level.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;For Grades 1–2, although female participants presented high positive correlations between intelligence and creativity scores above and below the threshold, male participants presented a high correlation only in the IQ ≥ 120 group. Hence, the threshold theory cannot be confirmed within the low grade levels; the pattern of correlation seems dependent on gender. Interestingly, results from the male participants suggested a reversed threshold effect, but should be interpreted with caution due to small sample size.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;For Grade 3, no correlations between intelligence and creativity scores were observed, neither for female nor for male pupils. The pattern of correlation seems to be independent of gender.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In Grade 4 female participants with an IQ &amp;lt; 120 showed a positive correlation while those with an IQ ≥ 120 showed no correlation. Hence, threshold theory could be confirmed but only for the female pupils in this grade. Both correlation coefficients differed (&lt;emph&gt;Z&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;−1.894, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.029), meaning that within this sample, the strict criterion for accepting the threshold theory is met. However, the quadratic trend showed only a tendency in this direction (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; change&#160;=&#160;.136, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.092, see Figure 1), and the linear trend was not significant at all (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt;&#160;=&#160;.043, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.353). No other effects could be observed.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 1. SPM and TCT-DP raw scores scatterplots of the first test session with matched pairs. The scatterplot of the fourth grade female participants (in the bottom of the right column) shows a tendency for a quadratic trend suggesting the confirmation of the threshold theory.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In a more detailed analysis, we found that the impact of gender on the correlation between intelligence and creativity, particularly in the highest grade level, could be explained by the different creativity test scores for female pupils compared to male ones in the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group (see Table 1). An independent &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;-test demonstrated that girls with an IQ &amp;lt; 120 had higher creativity scores (&lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;20.09, &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;7.16) than boys with an identical IQ level (&lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;12.63, &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;5.66), &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref37&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;2.441, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.026.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;As proposed in the literature, gender may be responsible for some differences in the relationship between creativity and intelligence (Torrance, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref38&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]). In addition, the relationship may become more apparent with age. Kim ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref39&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]) suggested that the correlation is smaller in younger children because of less educational influences over the use of their cognitive abilities. On the other hand, this may be a developmental effect. According to Piaget ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;]), around 7 or 8&#160;years of age marks the transition from the &lt;emph&gt;pre-operational stage&lt;/emph&gt;, in which symbolic thinking is predominant, to the &lt;emph&gt;concrete operational stage&lt;/emph&gt;, where children begin thinking logically about concrete events. Although it was found that the correlation between intelligence and creativity depends on grade level, it remains unclear whether this is due to time spent in education, to more general developmental effects, or all of the above, confounded as they necessarily are.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-9&quot;&gt;LONGITUDINAL ANALYSIS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;Because the first test session showed effects specific to grade level and gender, we considered these underlying variables may provide insights in the developmental dynamics of intelligence and creativity, when studied in a longitudinal analysis. However, not all children were available for the second test session at the end of the school year and this resulted in a substantial decrease of sample size from the original 98 to 70 children (44 boys and 26 girls with an IQ ranging from 90 to 139).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;From the first to the second test session, according to Table 3, out of the 35 participants who showed an IQ ≥ 120 in the first session seven showed an IQ &amp;lt; 120 in the second session (downgrade: DG), and out of 35 participants who showed an IQ &amp;lt; 120 in the first session eleven showed an IQ above 120 in the second (upgrade: UG). Leaving two groups without IQ changes, IQ &amp;lt; 120 (&lt;emph&gt;N&#160;&lt;/emph&gt;=&#160;24) and IQ ≥ 120 (&lt;emph&gt;N&#160;&lt;/emph&gt;=&#160;28). Random fluctuations from one test to the next will land certain individual pupils in the DG, even if their intelligence remains the same. However, on average, the DG will have more pupils whose intelligence went down compared to the no-changes group. Vice versa, the UG will on average have more pupils whose intelligence went up.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Table 3 SPM and TCT-DP means and standard deviations for the four IQ trend groups in first and second test sessions&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt; &lt;ephtml&gt; &amp;lt;table&amp;gt;&amp;lt;thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#8805; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; (N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;28&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;IQ &amp;amp;#60; &amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;120&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt; (N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;24&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;DG (N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;7&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;UG (N&amp;amp;#160;=&amp;amp;#160;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;11&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;)&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td /&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Second Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Second Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Second Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;First Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;Second Test&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/thead&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;SPM&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;46.71&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;47.54&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;33.92&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;37.83&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;39.29&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;38.45&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;44.27&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.73&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.64&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.18&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.69&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.64&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;4.07&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;3.21&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.15&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;TCT-DP&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;M&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;14.89&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;17.57&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.88&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.38&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;21.43&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.00&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;15.64&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.55&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;italic&amp;gt;SD&amp;lt;/italic&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.58&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.47&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;6.16&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;5.77&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;13.50&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;8.37&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;7.69&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;td&amp;gt;2.91&amp;lt;/td&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tr&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/tbody&amp;gt;&amp;lt;/table&amp;gt; &lt;/ephtml&gt; &lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;6 &lt;emph&gt;Note&lt;/emph&gt;. DG (Downgrade Group) group refers to children who in the first test session, presented scores above an IQ of 120, and in the second session, scores below an IQ of 120, while the UG (Upgrade Group) group refers to children who, in the first test session, were placed in the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group, and in the second test session, showed an IQ above 120. &lt;emph&gt;M&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;mean, &lt;emph&gt;SD&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;standard deviation, SPM and TCT-DP over raw scores&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Naturally, the IQ of the UG group showed a significant increase in scores; &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref41&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;−9.033, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;&amp;lt;&#160;.001, while the DG group presented a significant decrease; &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref42&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;3.753, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.009. No effect was found for the IQ ≥ 120 group; &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;−1.214, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.235. However, the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group presented a significant increase of scores; &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref44&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;−3.519, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.002 (see Figure 2).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Graph: Figure 2 Intelligence (a) and creativity (b) measured by SPM and TCT-DP, respectively, of the four IQ trend groups in the two tests administrations (Time 1 and Time 2). DG (Down Grade) group refers to children that presented, in the first test session, scores above IQ of 120, and in the second test session, showed scores below IQ of 120, while the UG (Upgrade Group) group refers to children that were, in first test session, placed on the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group, and in the second test session, showed IQ above 120.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The creativity scores of the UG group and the DG group presented decreases, although these were not significant, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib10&quot; id=&quot;ref45&quot;&gt;10&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;.933, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.373, or only marginally significant &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib6&quot; id=&quot;ref46&quot;&gt;6&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;2.299, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.061, respectively. The IQ ≥ 120 participants presented a marginally significant increase; &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib27&quot; id=&quot;ref47&quot;&gt;27&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;−1.868, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.073 and no effect at all was found for the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group, &lt;emph&gt;t&lt;/emph&gt;(&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib23&quot; id=&quot;ref48&quot;&gt;23&lt;/reflink&gt;)&#160;=&#160;.319, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.752.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Only in the DG group creativity showed the same trend as IQ (see Figure 2). As this subgroup, for which intelligence and creativity scores are correlated, now belongs to the low-IQ population, it may be a source of support for the threshold theory. The fact that DG participants have decreasing scores on both tests suggests that this subgroup suffers from a lack of motivation and are failing to thrive.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Bivariate Pearson&#39;s correlation (two-tailed), using the results from the second test session of the IQ &amp;lt; 120 and IQ ≥ 120 groups showed no correlation; &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;-.055, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.769, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;31 and &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.028; &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.866; &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;39, respectively. Hence, the threshold theory cannot be supported in the second session, even when applying the liberal criterion (Karwowski &amp;amp; Gralewski, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref49&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]), no significant correlation was found between intelligence and creativity within the IQ &amp;lt; 120 group. For the first session no support, at least according to the rigid criterion (Karwowski &amp;amp; Gralewski, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib7&quot; id=&quot;ref50&quot;&gt;7&lt;/reflink&gt;]), was found for the threshold theory either, across grade and gender.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Additionally, Pearson&#39;s correlation performed within each of the four IQ trend groups showed no correlations; &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;–.104, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.599, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;28; &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.011; &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.959, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;24, &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;–.123; &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.792; &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;7; and &lt;emph&gt;r&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.279, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.406, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;11 for group IQ ≥ 120, IQ &amp;lt; 120, DG, and UG, respectively. Regression analyses showed neither a linear (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt;&#160;=&#160;.36, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.115, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;70) nor a quadratic trend (&lt;emph&gt;R&lt;/emph&gt;&lt;sups&gt;2&lt;/sups&gt; change&#160;=&#160;.012, &lt;emph&gt;p&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;.370, &lt;emph&gt;N&lt;/emph&gt;&#160;=&#160;70). Note that, for the first test session, it was found that gender and grade might influence the correlation between intelligence and creativity. However, due to small sample size in the second test session the data of the second set could not be analyzed for grade level and gender.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-10&quot;&gt;GENERAL DISCUSSION&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;The threshold theory is the most prominent theory on the relationship between intelligence and creativity. It proposes that the correlation between intelligence and creativity scores is nonlinear. The magnitude of the association between intelligence and creativity is assumed to depend upon the IQ level; a positive correlation is thought to occur until an IQ threshold of 120, beyond which no correlation will be observed (Guilford, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib4&quot; id=&quot;ref51&quot;&gt;4&lt;/reflink&gt;]; for an review see e.g., Lubart, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib9&quot; id=&quot;ref52&quot;&gt;9&lt;/reflink&gt;]; or Runco, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib15&quot; id=&quot;ref53&quot;&gt;15&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;In this study, the threshold theory was investigated with a sample in which the two IQ groups of primary school children were matched for grade and gender. The test results from the start of the school year yielded, at best, only weak support for the threshold theory. Results from the end of the school year on a subset of children yielded no support at all. The failure to confirm the threshold effect is relatively common in the literature (e.g. Kim, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib8&quot; id=&quot;ref54&quot;&gt;8&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Preckel et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib11&quot; id=&quot;ref55&quot;&gt;11&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco &amp;amp; Albert, [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib16&quot; id=&quot;ref56&quot;&gt;16&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Runco et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib17&quot; id=&quot;ref57&quot;&gt;17&lt;/reflink&gt;]; Theurer et al., [&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib19&quot; id=&quot;ref58&quot;&gt;19&lt;/reflink&gt;]).&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The question is, to what extent do results depend on grade level and gender. As Torrance ([&lt;reflink idref=&quot;bib20&quot; id=&quot;ref59&quot;&gt;20&lt;/reflink&gt;]) pointed out, these and other variables such as the range of the intelligence test scores and motivational factors may have an influence on the intelligence-creativity relationship and thus need to be taken into consideration. The present results indicate that grade level and gender affect the intelligence-creativity relationship.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;The longitudinal analyses revealed that IQ test scores are not entirely stable across one school year. As a result, some that receive an IQ score above 120 in the beginning of the school year may at the end have a score lower than 120. Part of this may be due to random fluctuations; yet children in this group are more likely to have suffered from a genuine loss of intelligence than ones whose IQ score remains in the same category. The downgraded group was the only one who&#39;s IQ and creativity scores were correlated. The correlation in this subgroup may be a sign of lack of motivation, depression, or failure to thrive. As their correlated scores fall in the low-IQ category, they may be the source of the threshold effect.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Taking together, the pattern of results indicates that the relationship between intelligence and creativity is rather complex and that there are underlying reasons why correlations for the threshold theory are so vulnerable. At best, there is only weak support for the theory. This research which focused mainly on grade level and gender demonstrated that these variables have an influence on the relationship and need to be taken into consideration in future research.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;hd id=&quot;AN0116263900-11&quot;&gt;ACKNOWLEDGMENTS&lt;/hd&gt; &lt;p&gt;We thank all children from the Pestalozzi Grundschule in Kaiserslautern, their teachers and their parents for the great support we received. Marisete Welter was supported by the KAAD and the Graduate School of the Center for Cognitive Science.&lt;/p&gt; &lt;ref id=&quot;AN0116263900-12&quot;&gt; &lt;title&gt; REFERENCES &lt;/title&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib1&quot; idref=&quot;ref1&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;1&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Batey, M., &amp;amp; Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429. doi:10.3200/MONO.132.4.355-430&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib2&quot; idref=&quot;ref5&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;2&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., Van Vianen, A. E. M., Kim, H.-B., &amp;amp; Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship between diverse components of intelligence and creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 44(2), 125–137. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2010.tb01329.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib3&quot; idref=&quot;ref6&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;3&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Fuchs-Beauchamp, K. D., Karnes, M. B., &amp;amp; Johnson, L. J. (1993). Creativity and intelligence in preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37(3), 113–117. doi:10.1177/001698629303700303&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib4&quot; idref=&quot;ref2&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;4&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York, N.Y.: McGraw-Hill.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib5&quot; idref=&quot;ref22&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;5&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Heller, K. A., Kratzmeier, H., &amp;amp; Lengfelder, A. (1998). Matrizen-Test Manual, band 1. G&#246;ttingen, Germany: Beltz-Test.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib6&quot; idref=&quot;ref30&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;6&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., &amp;amp; Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib7&quot; idref=&quot;ref26&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;7&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Karwowski, M., &amp;amp; Gralewski, J. (2013). Threshold hypothesis: Fact or artifact? Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 25–33. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.05.003&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib8&quot; idref=&quot;ref8&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;8&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education. doi:10.4219/jsge-2005-473&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibl id=&quot;bib9&quot; idref=&quot;ref3&quot; type=&quot;bt&quot;&gt;9&lt;/bibl&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Lubart, T. (2003). Psychologie de la Cr&#233;ativit&#233;. Cursus. Psychologie. Paris, France: Armand Colin.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Piaget, J. (1966). Psychologie der Intelligenz (2nd ed.). Z&#252;rich, Switzerland: Rascher Verlag.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Preckel, F., Holling, H., &amp;amp; Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 159–170. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Raven, J. (1991). Manual for Raven&#39;s progressive matrices and mill hill vocabulary scales. (Research Supplement No. 1). Oxford, UK: Oxford Psychologists Press.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Raven, J. (2000). The Raven&#39;s progressive matrices: Change and stability over culture and time. Cognitive Psychology, 41(1), 1–48. doi:10.1006/cogp.1999.0735&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Raven, J. (2009). The Raven progressive matrices and measuring aptitude constructs. The International Journal of Educational and Psychological Assessment, 2, 2–38.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier Academic Press.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Runco, M. A., &amp;amp; Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An empirical test with gifted and nongifted children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11(4), 212–218.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., &amp;amp; Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22(4), 361–368. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.523393&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., &amp;amp; Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39(2), 123–136. doi:10.1002/jocb.2005.39.issue-2&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Theurer, C., Kastens, C., Berner, N., &amp;amp; Lipowsky, F. (2011). Die Kreativit&#228;t im fr&#252;hen Grundschulalter und ihr Zusammenhang mit der Intelligenz. Zeitschrift F&#252;r Grundschulforschung: Zfg; Bildung Im Elementar- Und Primarbereich, 5(2), 83–97.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Torrance, E. P. (1967). The Minnesota studies of creative behavior: National and international extensions. Journal of Creative Behavior, 1(2), 137–154. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.1967.tb00021.x&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Urban, K. K., &amp;amp; Jellen, H. G. (1985). Der TSD-Z: Test zum sch&#246;pferischen Denken – zeichnerisch. Universit&#228;t Hannover, Arbeitsstelle HEFE, Paper 6. Hannover, Germany: HEFE.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Urban, K. K., &amp;amp; Jellen, H. G. (1995). Manual - Test zum Sch&#246;pferischen Denken - Zeichnerisch (TSD-Z). Frankfurt, Germany: Swets Test Services.&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;blist&gt; &lt;bibtext&gt; Weinstein, J. B., &amp;amp; Bobko, P. (1980). The relationship between creativity and androgyny when moderated by an intelligence threshold. Gifted Child Quarterly, 24(4), 162–166. doi:10.1177/001698628002400406&lt;/bibtext&gt; &lt;/blist&gt; &lt;/ref&gt; &lt;aug&gt; &lt;p&gt;By Marisete Maria Welter; Saskia Jaarsveld; Cees van Leeuwen and Thomas Lachmann&lt;/p&gt; &lt;p&gt;Reported by Author; Author; Author; Author&lt;/p&gt; &lt;/aug&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl1&quot; bibid=&quot;bib15&quot; firstref=&quot;ref4&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl2&quot; bibid=&quot;bib23&quot; firstref=&quot;ref7&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl3&quot; bibid=&quot;bib11&quot; firstref=&quot;ref9&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl4&quot; bibid=&quot;bib16&quot; firstref=&quot;ref10&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl5&quot; bibid=&quot;bib17&quot; firstref=&quot;ref11&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl6&quot; bibid=&quot;bib18&quot; firstref=&quot;ref12&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl7&quot; bibid=&quot;bib19&quot; firstref=&quot;ref13&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl8&quot; bibid=&quot;bib20&quot; firstref=&quot;ref14&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl9&quot; bibid=&quot;bib12&quot; firstref=&quot;ref18&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl10&quot; bibid=&quot;bib22&quot; firstref=&quot;ref19&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl11&quot; bibid=&quot;bib13&quot; firstref=&quot;ref20&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl12&quot; bibid=&quot;bib14&quot; firstref=&quot;ref21&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl13&quot; bibid=&quot;bib21&quot; firstref=&quot;ref23&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl14&quot; bibid=&quot;bib10&quot; firstref=&quot;ref40&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt; &lt;nolink nlid=&quot;nl15&quot; bibid=&quot;bib27&quot; firstref=&quot;ref43&quot;&gt;&lt;/nolink&gt;
Header DbId: eric
DbLabel: ERIC
An: EJ1100519
AccessLevel: 3
PubType: Academic Journal
PubTypeId: academicJournal
PreciseRelevancyScore: 0
IllustrationInfo
Items – Name: Title
  Label: Title
  Group: Ti
  Data: Intelligence and Creativity: Over the Threshold Together?
– Name: Language
  Label: Language
  Group: Lang
  Data: English
– Name: Author
  Label: Authors
  Group: Au
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Welter%2C+Marisete+Maria%22&quot;&gt;Welter, Marisete Maria&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Jaarsveld%2C+Saskia%22&quot;&gt;Jaarsveld, Saskia&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22van+Leeuwen%2C+Cees%22&quot;&gt;van Leeuwen, Cees&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;AR&quot; term=&quot;%22Lachmann%2C+Thomas%22&quot;&gt;Lachmann, Thomas&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: TitleSource
  Label: Source
  Group: Src
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SO&quot; term=&quot;%22Creativity+Research+Journal%22&quot;&gt;&lt;i&gt;Creativity Research Journal&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/searchLink&gt;. 2016 28(2):212-218.
– Name: Avail
  Label: Availability
  Group: Avail
  Data: Routledge. Available from: Taylor &amp; Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals
– Name: PeerReviewed
  Label: Peer Reviewed
  Group: SrcInfo
  Data: Y
– Name: Pages
  Label: Page Count
  Group: Src
  Data: 7
– Name: DatePubCY
  Label: Publication Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: TypeDocument
  Label: Document Type
  Group: TypDoc
  Data: Journal Articles&lt;br /&gt;Reports - Research
– Name: Audience
  Label: Education Level
  Group: Audnce
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;EL&quot; term=&quot;%22Elementary+Education%22&quot;&gt;Elementary Education&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: Subject
  Label: Descriptors
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Prediction%22&quot;&gt;Prediction&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Creativity%22&quot;&gt;Creativity&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Longitudinal+Studies%22&quot;&gt;Longitudinal Studies&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Correlation%22&quot;&gt;Correlation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Scores%22&quot;&gt;Scores&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Gender+Differences%22&quot;&gt;Gender Differences&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Instructional+Program+Divisions%22&quot;&gt;Instructional Program Divisions&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Intelligence+Quotient%22&quot;&gt;Intelligence Quotient&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Elementary+School+Students%22&quot;&gt;Elementary School Students&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Student+Motivation%22&quot;&gt;Student Motivation&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Tests%22&quot;&gt;Tests&lt;/searchLink&gt;&lt;br /&gt;&lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;DE&quot; term=&quot;%22Statistical+Analysis%22&quot;&gt;Statistical Analysis&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: SubjectThesaurus
  Label: Assessment and Survey Identifiers
  Group: Su
  Data: &lt;searchLink fieldCode=&quot;SU&quot; term=&quot;%22Raven+Progressive+Matrices%22&quot;&gt;Raven Progressive Matrices&lt;/searchLink&gt;
– Name: DOI
  Label: DOI
  Group: ID
  Data: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162564
– Name: ISSN
  Label: ISSN
  Group: ISSN
  Data: 1040-0419
– Name: Abstract
  Label: Abstract
  Group: Ab
  Data: Threshold theory predicts a positive correlation between IQ and creativity scores up to an IQ level of 120 and no correlation above this threshold. Primary school children were tested at beginning (N = 98) and ending (N = 70) of the school year. Participants performed the standard progressive matrices (SPM) and the Test of Creative Thinking--Drawing Production (TCT-DP). Each child with IQ = 120 was grade-and-gender matched to a child with IQ &lt; 120. Results in accordance with the threshold theory were found only for female children in the highest grade level (Grade 4). Longitudinal analysis implies that a subgroup of children goes down in IQ and creativity simultaneously, possibly due to motivational issues. Their correlated scores may be a source of evidence for the threshold theory. The relationship between intelligence and creativity is not straightforward and depends on a combination of factors including grade level and gender.
– Name: AbstractInfo
  Label: Abstractor
  Group: Ab
  Data: As Provided
– Name: Ref
  Label: Number of References
  Group: RefInfo
  Data: 23
– Name: DateEntry
  Label: Entry Date
  Group: Date
  Data: 2016
– Name: AN
  Label: Accession Number
  Group: ID
  Data: EJ1100519
PLink https://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&site=eds-live&db=eric&AN=EJ1100519
RecordInfo BibRecord:
  BibEntity:
    Identifiers:
      – Type: doi
        Value: 10.1080/10400419.2016.1162564
    Languages:
      – Text: English
    PhysicalDescription:
      Pagination:
        PageCount: 7
        StartPage: 212
    Subjects:
      – SubjectFull: Prediction
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Creativity
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Longitudinal Studies
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Correlation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Scores
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Gender Differences
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Instructional Program Divisions
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Intelligence Quotient
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Elementary School Students
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Student Motivation
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Tests
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Statistical Analysis
        Type: general
      – SubjectFull: Raven Progressive Matrices
        Type: general
    Titles:
      – TitleFull: Intelligence and Creativity: Over the Threshold Together?
        Type: main
  BibRelationships:
    HasContributorRelationships:
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Welter, Marisete Maria
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Jaarsveld, Saskia
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: van Leeuwen, Cees
      – PersonEntity:
          Name:
            NameFull: Lachmann, Thomas
    IsPartOfRelationships:
      – BibEntity:
          Dates:
            – D: 01
              M: 01
              Type: published
              Y: 2016
          Identifiers:
            – Type: issn-print
              Value: 1040-0419
          Numbering:
            – Type: volume
              Value: 28
            – Type: issue
              Value: 2
          Titles:
            – TitleFull: Creativity Research Journal
              Type: main
ResultId 1