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

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