Creativity Characteristics Portfolio

Education and Science

Vol 41 (2016) No 183 181-197

181

The Predictive Level of Emotional Intelligence for the Domain-specific

Creativity: A Study on Gifted Students

Feyzullah Şahin 1, Esin Özer 2, Mehmet Engin Deniz 3

Abstract Keywords

The relationship between intelligence, emotional intelligence and

creative thinking skills is complicated, multi-layered and multi-

dimensional. The general purpose of this study is to determine

the relationship between emotional intelligence of the students

and their domain-specific creativity and the effect of emotional

intelligence in predicting domain-specific creativity. Two different

high schools were accepted as the study group and the data

obtained from 239 gifted students was included into the study. In

the study, the Creativity Tests for Kaufman Domains adapted by

Şahin (2015b, 2015c) and the Trait Emotional Intelligence

Questionnaire–Short Form adapted by Deniz, Özer and Işık (2013)

were employed. The results of analysis revealed that the sociality

which is one of the sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence was

in relation with the entire creativity subdomain and self/

everyday creativity subdimension was in relation with the entire

emotional intelligence dimensions. Moreover, it was determined

that sociability could predict academic creativity, artistic

performance and self/ everyday creativity whereas the other

dimensions failed in doing it.

Gifted

Emotional intelligence

Domain-specific creativity

Creative thinking

Article Info

Received: 08.04.2015

Accepted: 20.01.2016

Online Published: 17.02.2016

DOI: 10.15390/EB.2016.4576

Introduction

The history of studies for understanding and defining intelligence dates back to Plato and

Conficius. Both philosophers regarded intelligence as a gift of god for human beings (Ziegler and

Heller, 2000) and brought proposals for identifying and supporting the gifted individuals (Mönks,

Heller, and Passow, 2000). Since the ancient times, another skill which draws the attention of human

beings has been creativity as well as intelligence. Plato wrote his opinion about the creativity process

in poetry as a response to Socrates (Rothenberg and Hausman, 1976, as cited in Sak, 2014).

The relationship between intelligence and creativity is multilayered, multidimensional and

complicated. This situation beclouds the assessment of both concepts independent from each other.

When the term emotional intelligence which enables the productive and effective use of both

structures is added, on the other hand, it becomes much more difficult to solve the puzzle. The general

purpose of this study is to analyze the levels of emotional intelligence among the gifted students on

their creativity. Within this scope, the emotional intelligence, the relationship between emotional

1 Düzce University, Faculty of Education, Department of Special Education, Turkey, [email protected] 2 Düzce University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Turkey, [email protected] 3 Yıldız Technical University, Faculty of Education, Department of Educational Sciences, Turkey, [email protected]

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

182

intelligence and giftedness, giftedness-creativity and emotional intelligence-creativity will be

discussed and then the conceptual framework of the creativity sub-fields will be outlined.

Emotional Intelligence

Emotional intelligence is a concept which is defined as comprehending, explaining and

managing own feelings and the feelings of others (Mayer, Salovey, Caruso and Sitarenios, 2001).

Although emotions are common for entire human beings, individuals process their emotions and

differentiate in using those (Petrides and Furnham, 2003). In order to express the emotions effectively

and relevantly in explaining the emotional intelligence, the elements such as having the competences

of managing them (Cooper and Sawaf, 2003), rationalizating the emotions and competence of

receiving and explaining the emotion, using and understanding the emotions to facilitate ideas,

managing the emotions for emotional improvement and competence of managing all draw attention

(Brackett and Warner, 2004).

Petrides and Furnham (2000) consider the emotional intelligence in two forms such as

emotional intelligence as a “trait” and “information processing process”. The Trait Emotional

Intelligence (TEQ) is regarded as self-oriented perceptions related to emotions and located into the

concept of “personality” and includes the individual differences of the individual related to

experiencing, identifying, understanding, organizing and using his/ her own emotions or other people

(Petrides and Funham, 2001). In other words, the trait emotional intelligence emphasizes personal

tendencies in perceiving, processing, organizing and using the emotional information and it includes

qualifications related to personal intrinsic evaluation of the individual (it reflects itself in particular

attitudes and traits such as consistent attitudes in different environments, optimism, safe assertiveness

and empathy).

According to the researches, emotional intelligence increases the levels of adapting strategies.

The individuals with high emotional intelligence may cope with stress better and have larger social

networks; they also may get higher grades in academic performance – through decreasing the

negative effect of the pressure (Petrides, Fredericson and Furnham, 2004). The individuals with higher

emotional competences are the individuals who facilitate having higher levels of life saturation and

subjective well-being; have higher capacities in obtaining, using, perceiving and managing the

emotions of himself/ herself and other people. The individuals with higher emotional competences

have more adequate mechansims to cope with the situation and regard the situation as an opportunity

for their development rather than considering it a threat (Mikolajczak and Limunet, 2008). The more

ability of the individuals for recognizing their own feelings, perceiving the feelings of the others and

manipulate their emotions increase; the more their perception to solve the problems increase (İşmen,

2001). Moreover, the more optimism and skills of expressing feelings which are among the sub-

indicators of emotional intelligence increase among the individuals; the more their life satisfaction

levels increase (Akkan, 2010; Koçak and İçmenoğlu, 2012).

The feature of high emotional intelligence helps the individuals choose the transducer

strategies, reduce the negative feelings and replace the positive emotions. Against the troublesome

events and situations, individuals with high emotional intelligence experience less stress than those

with lower emotional intelligence, during exam, the individuals with higher EQ, levels show

psychological symptoms and somatic complaints lesser than those with lower EQ (Mikolojczak and

Limunet, 2008). Individuals with higher emotional intelligence levels are more successful at regulating

their emotions and evaluating the social clues, better at providing the encouragement in social

relations and they are accepted more by the others (Mavroveli, Petrides, Sangareau&Funham, 2009).

Giftedness – Emotional Intelligence

According to the general intelligence theory suggested by Spearman (1904), the intelligence is

regarded as a general cognitive power that affects all the activities of the individual. Especially after

1980’s, however, this point of view which means the competence levels of individuals might differ and

the domains could be completely independent from each other started to be discussed. One of those

approaches is the theory of emotional intelligence.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

183

Although the literature related to emotional intelligence is rather large and prosperous, the

number of available studies is relatively limited. In the study of Singh and Sharma (2012), the

performance sub-dimension of WISC-R India version was compared to the scores of intelligence

developed by Schutte and measured using Emotional Intelligence Scale. No significant relation was

obtained between both variants (r= –.26). A similar result was obtained in the study of Haro and

Castejon (2014). The researchers compared the scores obtained from the Spanish version of the

General Intelligence Test developed by Catell (1993) to the scores obtained from the Spanish version of

Trait-Mood-Scale-24 (as cited in Haro and Castejon, 2014). No relationship was determined between

general intelligence and emotional perception, comprehending the emotions, emotional self-

arrangement which is all sub-dimensions of emotional intelligence. In the study of Leana and Köksal

(2007) conducted on total 53 students in the first year of the primary schools which 32 of them were

gifted while 21 of them had an average level of intelligence. No significant relationship was

determined between WISC-R verbal, performance and total scores and Bar-On Emotional Intelligence

Test. In the study of Derksen, Kramer and Katzko (2002), a slight positive and significant relationship

was determined between emotional intelligence and general intelligence (r= .08). On the other hand,

Wolfradtz, Felfe and Köster (2001) determined a nonsignificant negative relationship between verbal

intelligence and self efficacy and a slightly negative significant relationship between perceiving and

verbal intelligence (r = –.17).

In another study, the emotional responses which are effective on the interaction of the

individual with his/ her environment were analyzed from the point of Dabrowski’s hyperalertness

domains. It was determined that the gifted students obtained higher scores-Dabrowski’s

hyperalertness domains - than their peers in kinetic, emotional and intellectual domains while they

obtained similar scores in affective and creativity fields (Yakmacı-Güzel, 2002). The way individual

perceives himself and his interaction with his environment have impact on his emotional intelligence

level (Köksal, 2007). In a similar study, it was analyzed that whether the gifted individuals differ from

their peers from the point of the density and qualification of their interaction with other people and

personality traits having indirect impacts on them the data was compiled through a meta-analysis

study. The studies executed on the personal traits of the gifted people and their peers were compiled

through a meta-analysis study. As a result of the 14 researches which employed MBTI personal traits

inventory, it was determined that the gifted students were more extraverting (51.30%), more

intuitoning (71.60%), more thinking (53.80%) and more perceiving (60.10%) than their peers (Sak,

2004).

In another group of researches, some affective traits to be considered within the context of

emotional intelligence were analyzed. In the aforementioned researches, it was determined that gifted

individuals were in better situation than their peers in the social development and adaptation, they

were sensually happy, controlled and optimistic and they experienced less problems related to the

school discipline, crime and aggressive behaviors (Terman and Oden, 1976). Moreover, they were

determined to be the individuals who can experience emotional density (Chan, 2000; Finley, 2008;

Terman and Oden, 1976), having advanced level of feelings of humor and aesthetics (Finley, 2008), are

into their independency (Durr, 1979; Endepohls-Ulpe and Ruf, 2005; Terman and Oden, 1976), having

more developed self-conception than their peers (Durr, 1979), internally motivated individuals (Chan,

2000). While interpreting the research findings in this group, however, it should be considered that the

occurrence levels of those behaviors might suddenly become distinct (Gross, 2004; Özbay and Palancı,

2011) and might emerge in any period of the developmental process (VanTassel-Baska, 1998).

Giftedness – Creativity

The relationship between intelligence and creativity is another research subject which draws

the most attention and employs the most contradictory results in the literature. It was mainly aimed to

explain the aforementioned relationship using threshold hypothesis in the studies. According to this

hypothesis, an individual should at least have a medium-level intelligence in order to exhibit creative

performance and the rate of relationship between intelligence and creativity is expected to be higher

below 120 IQ scores than the individuals having the scores over 120 IQ (Kim, Cramond and

VanTassel-Baska, 2010; Runco, 2007). The findings from a group of studies (Cho, Nijenhuis,

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

184

VanVianen, Kim and Lee, 2010; Fuchs-Beauchamp, Karnes and Johnson, 1993; Şahin, 2014) support the

hypothesis while some others had contradictory findings (Kim, 2005; Runco and Albert, 1986; Runco,

Millar, Acar and Cramond, 2010; Preckel, Holling and Wiese, 2006; Sligh, Conners and Roskos-

Ewoldsen, 2005).

In a group of studies, the relationship between intelligence and creativity was analyzed

ignoring the threshold effect. In this context, a relationship with general intelligence at the levels of r=

.34, .12, .20 and .21 (respectively, Batey, Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2009; McCloy and Meier,

1931, as cited in Ogurlu, 2014; Silvia, 2008), the fluid intelligence rate of r= .43, .26 and .21 (Batey,

Chamorro-Premuzic and Furnham, 2009; Batey, Furnham and Safiullina, 2010; Virgolim, 2005) was

determined. In addition to this, there are also studies where no significant relationship was obtained

(Furnham, Zhang and Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006; Plucker, 2010; Richmond, 1966; Sanchez – Ruiz,

Hernandez – Torrano, Perez – Gonzalez, Batey and Furnham, 2011; Solomon, 1967; Yoon, 2005). Even,

there are studies reporting negative correlation (Batey and Furnham, 2006). The results of a study

which analyzed the scores of WISC-R sub-dimension and sub-scores of Torrance Creativity Thinking

Test (TTCT) through factor analysis technique indicate that intelligence and creativity are different

structures (Şahin, 2015a).

According to Jauk and others (2013), the main reason for the occurrence of different and

contradictory results in the studies which the relationship between intelligence and creativity is

analyzed is that the criteria of 120 IQ score which was regarded as the threshold value is deprived of

experimental proof. In addition to this opinion, Şahin (2014) stated that this occasion results from the

different criteria of assessment tools and the nature of the assessed groups. According to Şahin, -in

addition to this opinion– the reason for this occasion comes from the different criteria in the

evaluation instruments employed in various researches and nature of the evaluated groups. The

emerging of different findings is among the factors which cause this occassion.

Emotional Intelligence-Creativity

The multi-dimensional nature of the creativity depends on the interaction between personal

traits of the individual, his/ her cognitive competence, thinking style and motivation (Amabile, 1983,

1996; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). Creative thinking differentiates as creative potential and creative

performance. Since potential dimension was reviewed in this study, the sub-title will be limited within

this context.

Creative potential has two important critera. They are divergent thinking (Guilford, 1966) and

creative personality traits. The findings from the studies of Barron and Harrington (1981), Runco

(1994) and Feist (1999) summarize the general personality traits seen in the individuals with high

creativity. In one of their collected works, Barron and Harrington (1981) which classified the

individuals with higher creativity have common interests, high aesthetical criteria, risk-taking,

energetic, they are able to make independent decisions, internally motivated, interrogator, self-

confident and having ability to bring different perspectives. Runco (1994) defines the individuals with

high creativity as the people who are successful in coping with difficulties and can manage the tension

effectively. The creative individuals have higher tendency to new experiences and ideas and they can

give independent decisions. They can convince others related to the quality of their opinions and use

social competencies effectively. In one of his studies, Feist (1999) summarized the traits of the

individuals with high creative achievement in the domains of art and science. He reported that the

scientists are open to new experiences, more traditionalist, having high self-confident, having high

self-perception, internally oriented, ambitious and aggressive. The artists were determined to be more

affective, a nonstationary mood, having lower social competencies and less accepted by the group

members than the scientists. According to Russ (1998), the personal traits related to emotions facilitate

creativity. The executed studies point out two emotional traits. They are sensitivity to emotions

(perceiving and expressing emotions) and self-control (regulation of emotions and stress control)

(Feist, 1998).

The relationships between divergent thinking and personality traits of the individual were

analyzed by a group within the content of “Big Five personality traits”. In those studies, a positive

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

185

relationship was determined between divergent thinking and being open to new experiences

(Furnham, Batey, Anand and Manfield, 2008; Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008; McCrae and Costa, 1997),

extravertion (Batey et al., 2009; Furnham et al., 2008; Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008), agreeableness and

conscientiousness (Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008). In a study by Batey, Furnham and Safiulluna (2010),

on the other hand, no significant relationship was determined divergent thinking fluency rates and

personality traits. Even, there is a study which has found a negative relationship with

conscientiousness (Furnham and Bachtiar, 2008).

In a meta-analysis study which employed eighty three studies on scientific and artistic

creativity, a positive relationship was found between extraversion, openness and neuroticism while a

negative relationship was found between agreeableness, and conscientiousness (Feist, 1998). In a

longitudional study of 45 years which Soldz and Vaillant (1999) executed on 163 males, a positive

relation with openness was determined (r= .40) while a negative relation with agreeableness (r= –.27)

was determined. No significant relationship was determined in the other three personality traits.

In another study which Wolfradtz, Felfe and Köster (2001) analyzed the relationships between

the emotional intelligence and five major personality traits; a positive relationship was determined

between the dimensions of self-efficiacy, empathy and utilization and extraversion, openness,

agreeableness, and conscientiousness (respectively, r= .42, .16, .28, .45, .27, .33, .27, .21, .24, and .21); a

significant and positive relationship was determined between the dimension of perceiving and

extraversion and agreeableness (r= .16 and .15); a negative relationship was found between emotional

balance and self-efficiacy and empathy (r= –.52 and –.16) while a non-significant relationship was

found between neuroticism and utilization and perception. Moreover, significant relationships were

determined between creative personality scale and self-efficiacy, empathy, utilization and perception

(respectively, r= .55, .40, .33, and .36). A similar study was conducted by Sanchez – Ruiz and others

(2011). The researchers found significant and positive relationships between well-being, self-control,

sociability and global emotional intelligence and creative personality (respectively; r = .19, .19, .40, and

.29), and nonsignificant relations were determined with emotionality. Significant relationships were

determined between the total of divergent thinking test TTCT and openness (r= .29) and neuroticism

(r= .23) while non-significant relations were found in other dimensions. Moreover, a negative relation

was determined between the total of TTCT and self-control (r= –.10); a positive relationship was

determined with sociality (r= .03) yet the relationships in the dimensions of well-being, emotionality

and global emotional intelligence weren’t significant. In the doctoral thesis which Bender (2006)

collected data from 80 university students, significant and slight reltionships were determined

between the originality, flexibility and fluency scores of TTCT Verbal Form and total score of Bar-On

Emotional Intelligence Scale (r = .23, .26 and .25, respectively).

Creativity Sub-Fields: Conceptional Framework

One of the contemporary discussions in the literary of creativity is whether creativity is a

domain-specific or a general aspect. According to Guilford (1966), the creative thinking ability (which

he described as divergent thinking) is a general cognitive characteristics which emerges in various

fields such as art and science. According to Gardner (2009), it describes human cognition – in the

theory of multiple intelligence which he presented in 1983 for the first time – as mutual interaction of

numerous factors. The factors are relatively independent from each other and they differ from each

other from two aspects. The first of them is the basic data processing operations employed for each

mental process function according to their domain-specific principles. The second one is that data

processing operations which are in direct interaction with domain-specific forms of the information. In

the specific occassions, an activity/process may occur in more than one intellectual field. The creative

responses may emerge depending on the interactions between domain-specific knowledge, skills and

educational life. The Creativity Componential Model of Amabile (1983, 1996) and the Amusement

Park Theory by Kaufman and Baer (2004b) are theoretical approaches supporting the idea that

creativity is domain-specific. In various experimental studies, there are results supporting both

perspectives. In a group study, it was found that creativity is domain-specific (Baer, 1991, 1994, 1996,

2003; Baer, Kaufman and Gentile, 2004; Han, 2003; Hickey, 2001) while another group of studies

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

186

revealed that creativity is a general characteristic (Conti, Coon and Amabile, 1996; Eunsook and

Milgram, 1995).

One of the topics which incorporates no concensus in literature of creativity is the sub-fields of

creativity. Various researchers conducted studies considering various sub-fields (For the sample

studies; Ayas and Sak, 2014; Carson, Peterson and Higgins, 2005; Kaufman, 2012; Kaufman and Baer,

2004a; Kaufman, Cole and Baer, 2009; Oral, Kaufman and Agars, 2007; Rawlings and Locarnini, 2007).

In this study, the creativity sub-fields presented by Kaufman (2012) was considered. The

aforementioned researcher conceptualized creativity in five sub-fields. They are scholarly,

mechanical/scientific, artistic performance, self/ everyday and art.

While scholarly (academic) creativity is developed, the intellectual creativity by Ivcevic and

Mayer (2009), the language field by Feist (2004) and linguistic intelligence field of Gardner (1999) were

considered. Mechanical/scientific creativity is theoretically based on the logical-methematical

intelligence and naturalist intelligence by Gardner, intellectual creativity by Ivcevic and Mayer and

scientific factor by Carson and others (2005). The field artistic performance was developed considering

bodily/ kinesthetic and musical intelligence by Gardner, performance arts by Ivcevic and Mayer and

musical field of Feist. Self/ everyday creativity field is based on the interpersonal and intrapersonal

intelligence by Gardner and creative life style by Ivcevic and Mayer The theoretical infrastructure of

the field of art was presented through inspiring from the spatial intelligence by Gardner, the art factor

by Carson and others and the field of art by Feist.

In brief, there are scattered and contradictory results in the studies which the relationships

between giftedness-creativity and emotional intelligence-creativity are analyzed. There is limited

availability of researches in the literature related to the relationships between intelligence and

emotional intelligence while there is limited number of studies consisting the analysis of the

relationship between the general intelligence scores of the individuals and their emotional intelligence

scores and which is related to the gifted people. However, gifted individuals differ from their peers

according to with their both cognitive traits and socio-emotional traits (Detailed information: Saranlı

and Metin, 2012; Özbay and Palancı, 2011; Şahin and Kargın, 2014). According to Shiyko, Rim and

Grimm (2012), on the other hand, some sub-groups which data is collected from may have different

ranges. Hair, Hult, Ringle and Sarstedt (2014) suggest reviewing and defining unobserved mixed

groups in the sampling in order to avoid the possible mistakes that may emerge during the analysis of

the data set containing mixed groups. In other words, the scores of those sub-groups should be

computed separately when there are possible sub-groups which may distort the homogeneity in the

study group (Bryne, 2010). Considering the fact that the socio-emotional traits of the gifted students

might differ from their peers and there are contradictory results and statistical suggestions in the

literature, it was concluded that conducting the study with the individuals with gifted would provide

more healthy results.

The general purpose of this study is to analyze whether there is a relationship between

emotional intelligence and creativity among the gifted students and the effect of their emotional

intelligence in predicting their creativity. The answers will be sought for the following questions

within the context of this general purpose:

1. Is there a significant relationship between domain-specific creativity of the gifted students

(academic, mechanic/scientific, artistic performance, self/everyday, and art) and their

emotional intelligence (well-being, self-control, emotionality, sociability, global emotional

intelligence)?

2. Does the emotional intelligence of the gifted students significantly predict their domain-

specific creativity?

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

187

Methods

Study Group

The study was conducted on the students4 of two different science high schools in 2014-2015

educational years. The schools where data was collected were chosen among the schools in the 3%

percentile and according to the principles of easily accessible convenience sampling. One of the high

schools was public high school while the other was a private enterprise. In order to enroll to the

aforementioned high schools, there is an exam to pass secondary education from the basic education

(TEOG) which is conducted all over the country and is a mixture of competence and achievement tests

is required. In the TEOG exam, the students who ranked in the first one percent share all over Turkey

were enrolled to the science high school of private enterprises while those who were in the first 2.75

percent share were enrolled to the science high schools of public enterprises (Ministry of National

Education, 2014). Data was collected from 239 students through Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale-

Short Form (TEQ-SF) and Kaufman Domains Creativity Scale (KDOCS). Of all the students, 122 of

them (51.05%) were females (48 of them in the 9 th grade, 35 of them in the 10.th grade, 23 of them in

the first grade and 16 of them are in ythe 11.th grade) and 111 of them (46.44%) were males (40 of them

in the 4.th grade, 30 of them were were in the 10.th grade, 21 are in the 11.th grade and 20 of them

were in the 12.th grade). 6 of the students (2.51%) didn’t state their gender or grade. The students are

voluntarily participated the research. The data of research was analyzed through using 16.0 version of

SPSS package program.

Data Collecting Instruments

Trait Emotional Intelligence Scale-Short Form (TEQ-SF): TEQ-SF is a scale developed by Petrides

and Furnham (2000, 2001) based upon the conceptualization of emotional intelligence as a “trait of

personal character”. The scale was adapted into Turkish by Deniz, Özer and Işık (2013). The

adaptation was sustained with 464 students attending university. As a result of the adaptation, a

structure consisting of 20 items and four factors was asserted. As a result of Confirmatory Factor

Analysis (CFA), the fit indices of the model were determined as; χ2/df= 2.46, GFI= .95, AGFI= .92, CFI=

.91, RMSEA= .056, and SRMR= .060. Two different types of scores are obtained from the scale. The

internal consistency reliability coefficient of TEQ-SF; .72 for well-being factor, .70 for self-control, .66

for emotionality, .70 for sociability .81 for the totaly scale and test-repeat reliability score was

calculated as .86. The internal consistency reliability coefficients of this research are given in Table 1.

The scale was prepared in seven point likert scale. The minimum score which may be obtained from

sub-dimensions is 4 while maximum score is 28. Moreover, another score which is called as global

emotional intelligence score might be obtained from the scale. The range of the scores to be obtained

from the scale is between 4 and 28. Three field experts were consulted about whether the scale

adjusted for the university students could provide convenient results for the gifted students of high

schools and it was decided to employ in this study upon the responses of those experts stating that

positive results could be obtained without any alterations in the measurement instrument.

Kaufman Domains Creativity Scale (KDOCS): Through the scale consisting 50 items and

developed by Kaufman (2012) with the approach stating that creativity appears in a “domain-specific”

form, the creativity skills in the academic, mechanical/ scientific, artificial performances, self/ everyday

and art domains. The scale is assessments according to self-evaluation method. The scale was adapted

4 According to the Theory of Three-Ring Conception of Giftedness, giftedness emerges depending on the interaction between

motivation, creative abilities and above average ability (Renzulli, 2005). In the description of the aforementioned individuals,

numerous instruments with various characteristics from intelligence or creativitiy tests to general ability test may be used

separately or together. Within the framework of the description by Renzulli, the science high schools in Turkey may be

regarded as private schools which serve to gifted (gifted and talented students in the intellectual fields) (Sak, 2007). According

to the description accepted by the Ministry of National Education (2012), “The individuals who display higher level

performances than their peers from the points of intelligence, creativity, art, sports, leadership capacity or in the special

academic fields” are regarded gifted. According to this definition, the students who are within the 2-3% percentile and attend

science high schools may be considered as gifted within the context of “special academic ability”.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

188

into Turkish by Şahin (2015b, 2015c). In order to bring KDOCS into Turkish, the consent was obtained

from James C. Kaufman through e-mail. Then, the adaptation activities started. For the language

equivalence of KDOCS, the scale was translated into Turkish from English by two expertisized people

who know both English and Turkish well. Afterwards, the form which had been previously translated

into Turkish was re-translated into English from Turkish by two different people who are experts in

their field. Those translation forms were compared by two people who are experts in their field and

they were finalized. The adaptation activity was conducted on 254 gifted students attending science

high schools. As a result of the adaptation, a structure with 42 items and five factors were presented.

The fit indices of the CFA model was found as; χ²(765)= 1480.75 p< .01; χ²/Sd= 1.93, RMSEA= .06, SRMR=

.074, CFI= .93, and GFI= .78. The internal consistency reliability coefficient of KDOCS was found as .87

for academic creativity, .84 for mechanic/ scientific creativity, .86 for creativity in the field of artisitic

performance, .77 for self-everyday creativity, .83 for art creativity, and .90 for the totaly scale. The

internal consistency reliability coefficients of this research are given in Table 1. The scale is in five

point likert form. The scores to be obtained from sub-dimensions are as follows; 5-55 for creativity, 7-

35 for mechanic/ scientific, 9-45 for artistic performance and self/ everyday, 5-25 for art field, and 42-

201 for totaly scale.

Findings

First of all, it was tested in the study that whether TEQ-SF developed for pre-analysis on the

university students would provide similar results for gifted students. As a result of CFA, t values of

the observed and unobservable variants were found to be significant (p< .01). Model fit indices are as

computed; χ²(98)= 189.64 p< .01; χ²/Sd= 1.94, RMSEA= .063, SRMR= .066, CFI= .94, AGFI= .88, and GFI=

.91. As a result of CFA, it was concluded that TEQ-SF scale could provide convenient results. After

then, the arithmetic mean, standart deviation and Cronbach α internal consistency coefficients of the

responses of the participants for the questions of the scale were measured.

Table 1. The Descriptive Statistics and Internal Consistency Coefficients of TEQ-SF and KDOCS

Measurement Instruments Sub-domains / Scores Scores

α SS

TEQ-SF

Well-being 19.54 4.55 .66

Self-control 17.65 6.06 .60

Emotionality 19.31 4.05 .60

Sociability 20.48 4.63 .61

Global emotional intelligence 19.15 4.79 .64

KDOCS

Academic 33.90 7.26 .83

Mechanic/ scientific 20.03 6.09 .80

Artistic performance 25.83 8.45 .86

Self/ everyday 32.24 4.66 .67

Art 14.45 4.57 .75

The the arithmetic means and standard deviation of the scores from two measurement

instruments are given in Table 1. The Cronbach α internal consistency coefficients for measurement

instruments were calculated as .91 for KDOCS while sub-tests are within the range of .83 – .67. TEQ-SF

sub-tests are within the range of .60–.66. In the study, it was analyzed that whether there is a

relationship between the domains of emotional sub-score and the domain of creativity.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

189

Table 2. The Relationships Between Sub-Dimensions of KDOCS and TEQ-SF

KDOCS TEQ-SF

Well-being Self-control Emotionality Sociability General EQ

Academic -.002 -.021 .124 .236** .099

Mechanic/ Scientific .108 .049 -.072 .127* .082

Artistic performance -.007 -.084 .084 .211** .011

Self/ Everyday .145* .193** .229** .311** .279**

Arts -.036 -.057 .010 .144* .051

N= 239, *p< .05, **p< .01.

As seen in Table 2, a positive, slight and significant relationship was determined between the

sub-scores of sociability and mechanic/ scientific, artistic performance, self/ everyday and art (r= .236,

.211, .311, and .284, p<.05; r= .127, and .144, p<.01). Moreover, a similar relationship was found between

TEQ-SF sub-scores and self/ everyday creativity. (r= .145, p<.01; r= .193, .229, .311, and .279, p<.05). No

significant relationship was observed between the other sub-scores of KDOCS and TEQ-SF (p>.05). In

the study, emotional intelligence sub-domains were examined predictors of creativity sub-domains.

Table 3. The Results of Regression Analysis

KDOCS Sub-fields R R2 F β t

Academic .271 .073 3.694 .249 3.337*

Artistic performance .271 .073 3.685 .057 .769*

Self / Everyday .356 .127 6.762 .214 2.955*

N= 239, * p< .001.

It was analyzed through hierarchical regression analysis that whether the TEQ-SF well-being,

self-control, emotionality and sociality sub-scales and global intelligence scores predict KDOCS

academic, mechanic/scientific, artistic performance, self/everyday and artistic creativity scores or not.

The results of analysis indicate that KDOCS-SF doesn’t provide significant contributions to the

regression model established so that the sub-dimensions except its sociality dimension and global

emotional intelligence score can predict creativity sub-fields. The sociality diemension can

significantly predict only creativity fields of academic, artistic performances and self/everyday.

The analyses which provide significant contributions to the regression model are given in

Table 3. It was determined that Sociality sub-dimension of TEQ-SF (β= .249) could significantly predict

academic creativity score (R= .271, R2= .073, F(5-233)= 3.694, p<.001) and it could explain .07% of the total

variance. It was also determined that sociality score (β= .057) could predict artistic performance

creativity score significantly (R= .271, R2= .073, F(5-233)= 3.685, p<.001) and could explain .07% of the total

variance. It was determined that sociality scores (β= .214) could significantly predict the self/everyday

creativity scores (R= .356, R2= .127, F(5-233)= 6.762, p<.001) and explain .13% of the total variance.

Discussions, Conclusions and Suggestions

In the study, it was found that there was a significant relationship between the entire sociality

and subfields of creativity while there was a significant relationship between self/ everyday creativity

and the subfields of emotional intelligence. A significant relationship was seen between the entire

emotional intelligence sub-fields and self/ everyday creativity and between sociability and the entire

creativity sub-domains. No significant relationship was determined among the other sub-dimensions.

In the literature, no study which the relationship between self/ everyday creativity field and emotional

intelligence sub-dimensions is studied was obtained. In the study of Sancez – Ruiz and others (2011), a

slight, positive and significant relationship was found between general creativity skills and sociability.

On the other hand, no significant relation was determined between general creativity and well-being,

emotional, and global emotional intelligence. These results were parallel to the findings of this study.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

190

On the other hand, a slight, significant and negative relationship was observed between the general

creativity and self-control in the same study. This result is contradictory to the findings of this study.

Moreover, significant, positive and slight relationships were determined between socibiality and

academic, mechanical/ scientific, artistic performance and arts domains. In the study conducted by

Sancez – Ruiz and others no significant relationship was seen among fluency, flexibility, elaboration

and originality sub-scores while a positive, significant and slight relationship was found with the total

score.

The TCTT total score reported in their study by Sancez – Ruiz and others was obtained in four

sub-score types. According to Torrance (1974, as cited in Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Zuo, Bandalos,

2005), using total creativity scores isn’t a convenient way to obtain information related to the details of

creativity among the individuals. Thus, the findings of Sancez–Ruiz and others should be considered

within the frame of that limitedness.

Researchers’ think that the basic reason of the significant relationship between emotional

intelligence sub-dimensions and self/everyday creativity is that it may occur depending on its

theoretically originating from internal or inter-personal intelligence. In other words, this sub-

dimension contains affective skills. The studies show that there is a relationship between creative

personality traits and divergent thinking abilities (For a detailed meta-analysis; Feist, 1998). Moreover,

those findings may be indirectly explained using over-excitability field s discussed by Dabrowski. One

of the fields where gifted students are over- excitability is the sensory field which indicates over-

excitability related to the senses (Yakmacı-Güzel, 2002). The results of the study is parallel to those of

this research.

Significant, positive relationships were determined between sociability and entire sub-fields of

creativity. When the item pool consisting of TEQ-SF sociability scores, it is seen that this dimension

includes the traits of effectively coping with problems, having the ability to discuss, being able to

defend their right even in the hard positions and affecting the emotions of other people. It may be

concluded that those traits substantially overlaps with general personality traits of creative

individuals. The personality traits of individuals are effective factors in the emergence of creativity

(Amabile, 1983, 1996; Sak, 2009, 2014; Sternberg and Lubart, 1991). According to Feist (1998),

moreover, the sensitivity to the emotions is the occassion which facilitates creativity. Sensitivity to the

emotions indicates the status of emotions which were indirectly mentioned under the title of sociality.

The result of this study supports these findings. Moreover, it may be concluded that the sociality

dimension might be found significant as a result of the better status of gifted students than their peers

from the point of social development and compliance, their joyful and optimist psychological state

from the point of sensuality (Terman and Oden, 1976) and their activeness in numerous fields (Reis

and Renzulli, 2004).

When the matter is examined from the point of another view; it is seen that the creativity

thinking abilities in the “Amusement Park Theory” presented by Kaufman and Baer (2004) consists of

general and specific creativity domains skills. In the study of Sancez–Ruiz and others (2011), a positive

and significant relationship was reported between general creativity and sociability. When the

findings of aforementioned research and this research are assessed together, sociability sub-dimension

of emotional intelligence seems to be the trait which is effective in the emergence of general and

domain-specific creativity.

Another problem which was examined in the research is the question whether emotional

intelligence sub-domains predict the creativity fields or not. The results of analysis may separately

explain well-being, self-control, emotionality, sociability and sub-dimension of global emotional

intelligence but only sociability dimension is a significant predictor on creativity domains. This

occasion is the same for the dimensions of artistic performances and self/ everyday creativity. In the

study of Sancez–Ruiz and others (2011), it was seen that other sub-dimensions except social traits

don’t predict general creativity.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

191

In the literature, there is limited number of studies which the relationship between divergent

thinking abilities (general creativity) and emotional intelligence is examined. These studies were

conducted on different groups except gifted individuals. Moreover, no study which the relationship

between traits emotional intelligence of the gifted individuals and domain-specific creativity or

whether it predicts the creativity was obtained. For that reason, this study had to compare the findings

through indirect evidences. However, it may be regarded as the indicator that showing the originality

of this study from these two aspects.

In this study, self-evaluation method was employed in order to assess the skills related to

creativity. This occasion is the limitedness which may mask the findings of the study. By its nature,

self-evaluation method employs a problem of carelessly given answers (Silvia, Wigert, Reiter –

Palmon and Kaufman, 2012) or the parallelism high/ low scores obtained from measurement

instruments with the feedbacks of the teachers (Beghetto, 2006). However, this method is a highly

informative application in the occasions which no information is available related to the creative

thinking abilities of the participants (Kaufman, Evans and Baer, 2010). In order to avoid the

limitedness thay may arise from data collecting instruments chosen in this study; some precautions

such as providing students enough time to complete the evaluation instrument, interpreting the

results individually and eliminating the opportunity to compete and excluding the extreme values

from the analysis.

The researchers who may be interested in the topic may conduct a study on the domain-

specific creativity of the individuals such as specific to a different domain, general or emotional

intelligence traits. Numerous studies show that there is a latent relationship between intelligence-

emotional intelligence and creativity. Another limitedness of the study is that the study which KDOCS

was adopted was used in a notice and the expanded version of the aforementioned study is in the

process of publication in a journal. In order to avoid this limitedness, the factor structure, validity and

reliability values of KDOCS was summarized under the sub-title of “Data Collection Tools”.

This study is limited with the gifted students determined with the general talent test to attend

to science high schools. Thus, different results may be obtained depending on the employment of

measurement instruments which emotional intelligence is conceptualized as a “data processing

operation” or among the students with the diagnosis of giftedness through using various evaluation

instruments such as intelligence or creativity test. Moreover, more detailed information related to the

topic may be achieved through the comparative studies including various creativity fields such as

science, art and writing and various intelligence levels. The findings to be obtained through this

method in the education programs prepared for the development of both emotional intelligence and

creativity has great significance. In other words, the education programs to be presented with the

purpose of developing those skills and increasing its productivity will be parallel to the determination

of starting point among the participants.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

192

References

Akkan, E. (2010). Research on prediction power of emotional intelligence and creativity level of secondary

education grade gifted children’s life satisfaction (Unpublished master thesis). Gaziosmanpaşa

University Institute of Social Science, Tokat.

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357-376, doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Colarado,

Boulder: Westview Press.

Ayas, B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the

creative scientific ability test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195-205.

Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4(1), 23-

39, doi:10.1080/10400419109534371

Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi–domain thinking experiment.

Creativity Research Journal, 7(1), 35−46, doi:10.1080/10400419409534507

Baer, J. (1996). The effect of task–specific divergent–thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30(3),

183-187, doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.1996.tb00767.x

Baer, J. (2003). The impact of the core knowledge curriculum on creativity. Creativity Research Journal,

15(2, 3), 297-300, doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651422

Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to

nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113–117,

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11

Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review

Psychology, 32, 439-476.

Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of

divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallised intelligence. Thinking Skills and

Creativity, 4, 60-69.

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the

scatter literature. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 132(4), 355-429.

Batey, M., Furnham, A., & Safiullina, X. (2010). Intelligence, general knowledge and personality as

predictors of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 532-535,

doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.008.

Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity

Research Journal, 18, 447-457.

Bender, M. T. (2006). The Relations between emotional quotient and creativity in the students of painting

education department (Unpublished doctoral thesis). İzmir Dokuz Eylül University, İzmir, Turkey.

Brackett, J., & Warner, R. (2004). EQ and its relation to everyday behaviour. Personality and Individual

Differences, 36, 1387-1402.

Bryne, B. M. (2010). Structural equation modeling with AMOS: Basic concepts, applications, and

programming (2nd ed.), New York: Routledge Taylor & Francis Group.

Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity and factor structure of the

creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4

Chan, D. W. (2000). Exploring identification procedures of gifted students by teacher ratings: Parent

ratings and students self-reports in Hong Kong. High Ability Studies, 11(1), 69-82.

Cho, S. H., Nijenhuis, J. T., VanVianen, A. E., Kim, H. B., & Lee, K. H. (2010). The relationship between

diverse components of intelligence and creativity. The Journal of Creative Behaviour, 44, 125-137.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

193

Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of

creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 385−389,

doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0904_9

Cooper, R. K., & Sawaf, A. (2003). Liderlikte duygusal zeka, (3th ed.). İstanbul: Sistem Publishing.

Cramond, B., Matthews-Morgan, J., Zuo, L., & Bandalos, D. (2005). A report on the 40-year follow-up

of the torrance tests of creative thinking: Alive and well in the new millennium. Gifted Child

Quarterly, 49(4), 283-292.

Deniz, M. E., Özer, E., & Işık, E. (2013). Trait Emotional Intelligence Questionnaire-Short Form:

Validity and reliability studies. Education and Science, 38(169), 407-419.

Derksen, J., Kramer, I., & Katzko, M. (2002). Does a self-report measure for emotional intelligence

assess something different than general intelligence? Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 37-

48.

Durr, W. K. (1979). Characteristics of gifted children: Ten years of research. In J. C. Gowan, E. P.

Torrance (Ed.), Educating the ablest: A book of readings on the education of gifted children. (pp. 23-32),

İllinois: Peacock Publisher.

Endepohls-Ulpe, M., & Ruf, H. (2005). Primary school teachers’ criteria for the ıdentification of gifted

pupils. High Ability Studies, 16(2), 219-228.

Eunsook, H., & Milgram, R. M. (2010). Creative thinking ability: Domain generality and specificity.

Creativity Research Journal, 22(3), 272–287, doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.503535

Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and

Social Psychology Review, 2, 290-309.

Feist, G. J. (1999). Personality in scientific and artistic creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of

human creativity, (pp. 273-296), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L.

Grigorenko and J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–82). Washington,

DC: American Psychological Association.

Finley, L. T. (2008). Implementing a differentiated model of gifted education: Perspectives of elementary

principlaps and teachers (Unpublished Doctoral Thesis), Archadia University.

Fuchs-Beauchamp K. D., Karnes, M. B., & Johnson, L. J. (1993). Creativity and intelligence in

preschoolers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 37, 113-117.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity, Personality

and Individual Differences, 45, 613-617.

Furnham, A., Batey, M., Anand, K., & Manfield, J. (2008). Personality, hypomania, intelligence and

creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 1060-1069.

Furnham, A., Zhang, J., Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). The relationship between psychometric and

self-estimated intelligence, creativity, personality, and academic achievement. Imagination,

Cognition and Personality, 10, 251-267.

Gardner, H. (1999). Intelligence Reframed: Multiple Intelligences for the 21st Century. New York: Basic

Book.

Gross, M. U. M. (2004). Gifted and talented education professional development package for teachers: Module-

1, The University of South Walles, Retrieved from

https://education.arts.unsw.edu.au/media/EDUCFile/Module1_PRIMARY.pdf.

Guilford, J. P. (1966). Measurement and creativity, Theory into Practice, 5(4), 186-202.

Hair, J. F., Hult, G. T. M., Ringle, C. M., & Sarstedt, M. (2014). A primer on partial least squares structural

equation modeling (PLS-SEM). Thousand Oaks, California: Sage publishing.

Han, K. (2003). Domain–specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative

data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 117-142, doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2003.tb00829.x

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

194

Haro, J. M., & Castejon, J. L. (2014). Perceived emotional intelligence, general intelligence and early

professional success: Predictive and incremental validity. Anales de Psicología, (30)2, 490-498.

Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile's consensual assessment technique for rating the

creativity of children's musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234−244,

doi:10.2307/3345709

Ivcevic, Z., & Mayer, J. D. (2009). Mapping dimensions of creativity in the life–space. Creativity

Research Journal, 21(2-3), 152-165, doi:10.1080/10400410902855259

İşmen, A. E. (2001). Duygusal zeka ve problem çözme (Emotional intelligence and problam solving).

M. A. Atatürk Eğitim Fakültesi Eğitim Bilimleri Dergisi, 13, 111-124.

Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A., C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and

creativity: New support fort he threshold hypothesis by mean of empirical breakpoints detection.

Intelligence, 41(4), 212-221.

Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale

(K–DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308, doi:10.1037/a0029751

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004a). Sure, i’m creative-but not in mathematics!: Self–reported creativity

in diverse domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2) 143-155.

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004b).The Amusement Park Theoritical Model of creativity. The Korean

Journal of Thinking & Problem Solving, 14(2), 15-25.

Kaufman, J. C., Cole, J. C., & Baer, J. (2009). The construct of creativity: Structural model for self–

reported creativity ratings. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(2), 119-123, doi:10.1002/j.2162–

6057.2009.tb01310.x

Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M., & Baer, J. (2010). The American idol effect: Are students good judges of

their creativity across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28(1) 3-17, doi:10.2190/EM.28.1.b.

Kim, K. H. (2005). Can only intelligent people be creative? A meta-analysis, Journal of Secondary Gifted

Education, 16, 57-66.

Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & VanTassel-Baska, J. (2010). The relationship between creativity and

intelligence. In J. C. Kaufman and R. J. Sternberg (Ed.). Handbook of creativity (pp. 395-412).

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Koçak, R., & İçmenoğlu, E. (2012). Emotional intelligence and creativity as predictors of life

satisfaction among gifted students. Türk Psikolojik Danışma ve Rehberlik Dergisi, 4(37), 73-85.

Köksal, A. (2007). Üstün zekalı çocuklarda duygusal zekayı geliştirmeye dönük program geliştirme çalışması

(Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul: İstanbul University.

Leana, M. Z., & Köksal, A. (2007). Üstün ve normal zihin düzeyindeki öğrencilerin IQ ve EQ’ları

arasındaki ilişki. International Symposium Emotional Intellgince and Communication VI, 1, 140-151.

Mavroveli, S., Petrides, K. V., Sangareau, Y., & Furnham, A. (2009). Exploring the relationships

between trait emotional intelligence to objective socio-emotional outcomes in childhood. British

Journal of Educational Psychology, 9, 259-272.

Mayer, J. D., Salovey, P., Caruso, D. R., & Sitarenios, G. (2001). Emotional intelligence as a standard

intelligence. Emotion, 1, 232–242.

McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1997). Conceptions and correlates of openness to experience. In R.

Hogan, J. A. Johnson and S. R. Briggs (Eds.), Handbook of personality psychology (pp. 826-848). New

York: Academic Press.

Mikolajczak, M., & Limunet, O. (2008). TEQ and the cognitive appraisal of stressful events: An

exploratory study. Personality and Individual Differences, 44, 144-153.

Ministry of National Education, (2012). Özel eğitim hizmetleri yönetmeliği [Special education services

regulation]. Retrieved from http://www.meb.gov.tr.

Ministry of National Education. (2014). E-okul [E-school]. Retrieved from https://e-okul.meb.gov.tr/

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

195

Mönks, F. J., Heller, K. A., & Passow, A. H. (2000). The study of giftedness: Reflection on where we are

and where we going. In A. K. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik, (Ed),

International handbook of giftedness and talented, (pp. 839-864). Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Ogurlu, Ü. (2014). The relationship between intelligence and creativity in children. Mustafa Kemal

Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü Dergisi, 11(27), 337-348.

Oral, G., Kaufman, J. C., & Agars, M. D. (2007). Examining creativity in Turkey: Do western findings

apply? High Ability Studies, 18(2), 235-246, doi:10.1080/13598130701709590

Özbay, Y., & Palancı, M. (2011). Psychosocial characteristics of gifted children and adolecents. Sakarya

Üniversitesi Eğitim Fakültesi Dergisi, 22, 89-108.

Plucker, J. A. (2010). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance's (1958 to present)

longitudinal data, Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103-114, doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2000). On the dimensional structure of emotional intelligence.

Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 313-320.

Petrides, K. V., & Furnham, A. (2001). Trait emotional intelligence: Psychometric invesitigation with

reference to established trait taxonomies, Europan Journal of Personality, 15, 425-448.

Petrides, K. V., Fredericson, N., & Furnham, A. (2004). The role of trait EQ in academic performance

and deviant behaviours at school. Personality and Individual Differences, 36, 277-293.

Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and

non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40,

159–170, doi:10.1080/10400410409534553.

Rawlings, D., & Locarnini, A. (2007). Validating the creativity scale for diverse domains using groups

of artists and scientists. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 25, 163-172.

Reis, S. M., & Renzulli, J. S. (2004). Current research on the social and emotional development of gifted

and talented students: Good news and future possibilities. Psychology in the Schools, 41(1), 119-130.

doi:10.1002/pits.10144

Renzulli, J. S. (2005). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model for promoting

creative productivity, In R. J. Sternberg ve J. E. Davidson, (Ed.). Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed.)

(pp. 246-279), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Richmond, B. O. (1966). Creativity in monozygotic and dyzygotic' twins. Retrieved from ERIC

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED109580

Runco, M. A. (1994). Creativity and its discontents. In M. Shaw and M. Runco (Eds.), Creativity and

affect (pp. 102-126). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. NewYork: Elsevier

Academic Press.

Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1986). The threshold theory regarding creativity and intelligence: An

empirical test with gifted and nongifted children, The Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 11, 212–

218.

Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & 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.

Russ, S. W. (1998). Affect, creative experience and psychological adjustment. Ann Arbor, MI: Braun-

Brumfield.

Sak, U. (2004). A Synthesis of research on psychological types of gifted adolescents. The Journal of

Secondary Gifted Education, 15(2), 70-79.

Sak, U. (2007). Giftedness and the Turkish culture. In S. N. Philipson and M. McCann (Eds.).

Conceptions of giftedness: Socio-cultural perspectives (pp. 283-310). London: Lawrence Erlbaum

Associates.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

196

Sak, U. (2009). Gifted education programs. Ankara: Maya Publishing.

Sak, U. (2014). Growth and development creativity. Ankara: Vize Publishing.

Sanchez–Ruiz, M. J., Hernandez–Torrano D., Perez–Gonzalez, J. C., Batey, M., & Petrides, K. V. (2011).

The relationship between trait emotional intelligence and creativity across subject domains.

Motivation and Emotion, 35(4), 461-473, doi:10.1007/s11031-011-9227-8.

Saranlı, A. G., & Metin, N. (2012). Social – emotional problems observed in gifted children. Ankara

Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri Fakültesi Dergisi, 45(1), 139-163.

Silvia, P. L. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and

Kogan (1965), Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 34-39, doi:10.1080/10400410701841807

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R.,, & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-

report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts,

6(1), 19-34.

Singh, Y., & Sharma, R. (2012). Relationship between general intelligence, emotional intelligence,

stress levels and stress reactivity. Ann Neurosci, 19(3), 107-111, doi:10.5214/ans.0972.7531.190304.

Shiyko, M. P., Ram, N., & Grimm, K. J. (2012). An overview of growth mixture modeling a simple

nonlinear application in openmx. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.) Handbook of structural equation modeling,

(pp. 532-546), New York: Guilford Press.

Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of creativity to fluid and

crystallized intelligence. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 123-136, doi:10.1002/j.2162-

6057.2005.tb01254.x

Soldz, S., & Vaillant, G. E. (1999). The big five personality traits and the life course: A 45- year

longitudinal study. Journal of Research in Personality, 33(2), 208-232.

Solomon, A. O. (1967). A comparative analysis of creative and intelligent behavior of elementary school

children with different socio-economic backgrounds. Final progress report. Retrieved from ERIC

http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED017022

Spearman, C. (1904). General intelligence. Objectively determined and mesaured. The American Journal

of Psychology, 15, 201-292.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1991). An investment theory of creativity and its development. Human

Development, 34, 1-32.

Şahin, F., (2014). The relationship between creativity and intelligence: New evidence. Elementary

Education Online, 13(4), 1516-1530, doi:10.17051/io.2014.02374

Şahin, F. (2015a). A Research on the structure of intelligence and creativity, and creativity style,

Turkish Journal of Giftedness and Education, 5(1), 2-20.

Şahin, F. (2015b, May 13-15). Kaufman Alanları Yaratıcılık Ölçeği’nin Türkçeye uyarlanması ve

psikometrik özelliklerinin incelenmesi. Presented at the International Congress on Education for the

Future Congre: Issues and Challenges, Ankara

Şahin, F. (2015c). Adaptation of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale into Turkish and

examination of its psychometric properties. Elementary Education Online (Special Issue), (Inreview).

Şahin, F., & Kargın, T. (2013). The effect of a training programme on teachers’ knowledge on

identification of talented students by primary school teachers. Ankara Üniversitesi Eğitim Bilimleri

Fakültesi Özel Eğitim Dergisi, 14(2), 1-23.

Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1976). Genetic studies of genius: Volume IV, the gifted child grows up

twenty–five years’ follow – up of a superior group, Stanford: Stanford University Press.

Vantassel-Baska, J. (1998). Characteristics and needs of talented learners, In J. Vantassel-Baska (Ed.).

Excellence in educating gifted and talented learners, (pp. 173-191), Colorado: Love Publishing.

Virgolim, A. M. (2005). Creativity and intelligence: A study of Brazilian gifted and talanted students

(Unpublished doctoral thesis). Universitiy of Connecticut.

Education and Science 2016, Vol 41, No 183, 181-197 F. Şahin, E. Özer, & M. E. Deniz

197

Wolfradt, U., Felfe, J., & Köster, T. (2002). Self-perceived emotional intelligence and creative

personality, Imagination, Cognition and Personality, 21(4), 293-309.

Yakmacı-Güzel, B. (2002). Üstün yeteneklilerin belirlenmesinde yardımcı yeni bir yaklaşım: Dabrowski’nin

aşırı duyarlılık alanları (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). İstanbul University Institute of

Educational Sciences, İstanbul.

Yoon, S. (2005). Comparing the intelligence and creativity scores of Asian American gifted students with

Caucasian gifted students (Unpublished doctoral thesis). Purdue University.

Ziegler, A., & Heller, K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness from a meta-theoretical perspective, In A.

K. Heller, F. J. Mönks, R. J. Sternberg and R. F. Subotnik (Eds.), International handbook of giftedness

and talented (pp. 3-22) Oxford: Pergamon Press.

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.