You're using an outdated browser. Please upgrade to a modern browser for the best experience.
Creativity of Deaf and Typical Hearing People
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/children10081383

Human creativity is viewed as a talent that is considered a source of success with an impact on human society. In the history of human society, appreciation has been given to creative problem solving or the development of completely new things in all areas of society, including culture. The individual aspect of creativity is marked by the ability to view the current reality from an unconventional perspective and thus bring new and unconventional solutions. Creativity is also considered to be an important manifestation of a person’s intellectual functioning. For the learning process, both in schooling and as an important part of human life, creativity is one of the important supporting factors. The level of creativity of an individual can be assessed using performance measures derived from creative thinking.

hard of hearing persons person deaf creativeness

1. Introduction

Human creativity is viewed as a talent that is considered a source of success with an impact on human society [1]. In the history of human society, appreciation has been given to creative problem solving or the development of completely new things in all areas of society, including culture [2][3]. The individual aspect of creativity is marked by the ability to view the current reality from an unconventional perspective and thus bring new and unconventional solutions. Creativity is also considered to be an important manifestation of a person’s intellectual functioning. For the learning process, both in schooling and as an important part of human life, creativity is one of the important supporting factors. The level of creativity of an individual can be assessed using performance measures derived from creative thinking [4]. Creative thinking skills include finding, analyzing, and solving problems from different perspectives that have not been identified by others [5].
The theory of the connection between intellect and creativity was developed by Guilford [6] in his concept of the structure of intellect. Within the structure of the intellect, he distinguishes five operations—cognition, memory, convergent thinking, divergent thinking, and evaluation. Creativity can be conceptualized as the drive and skill to generate new ideas or alternatives to solve problems, develop forms of communication, and ultimately develop personal life in a broader perspective. Thinking, which among other things leads to problem-finding and the search for solutions, is assessed as the basic and highest monetary function, and this is precise with the support of creativity. In the broadest view of the application of creativity, it can be said to be the driving force behind a process that produces new knowledge and original approaches. All is necessary not only for the development of the individual but also for the development of human progress. Amabile and Pillemer [7] consider creativity as a form of skill to teach, practice, and shape.
Deafness and hard of hearing (DHH) are manifested by differences in communication and the construction of communication competencies. DHH is considered to be one of the most serious handicaps that can influence an individual’s development, depending on the type and level [8][9][10][11]. Especially from the educational point of view, this disability can have a major effect on the person concerned, in particular as regards communication and thinking capacities. According to the WHO [12], it is possible to define three basic areas of impact of DHH: the functional, social and emotional, and economic areas. DHH has a fundamentally negative impact on the development of vocabulary and understanding of verbal terms, especially if they are not wholly concrete, which means the saturation of the concept bank, activation of the tongue, and also its use in communication [13][14][15]. Marschark et al. [16] suggest that the academic achievement of DHH students is the result of the complex interplay of many factors. These factors include characteristics of the students (e.g., hearing thresholds, language fluencies, mode of communication, and how their communication functions), characteristics of their family environments (e.g., parents’ level of education, socioeconomic status), and experiences inside and outside school (e.g., school placement, having been retained at a grade level). DHH children who grow up in a language-less environment have fundamental problems in the construction of mathematical ideas and thus success in school mathematics and generally speaking in school success [17][18].
For the education and training of people with hearing impairments, the basis for process education is the same as for hearing people. In the current approach to the education of children and pupils with hearing impairments, it is the merit of effective communication through sign language that enables creativity to develop [19][20].

2. General Study Details

The extracted articles were written between 1942 and 2019. The focus of research interest on the creativity of individuals with DHH was perhaps at its peak in the 1970s and 1980s (16 out of 30 studies). Twenty-three studies were conducted in the USA, two in Central Europe (Poland and Slovakia), the remainder in the People’s Republic of China, Nigeria, and India, and two in Indonesia. In 10 cases, the research population consisted of DHH individuals only, in 19 cases the research population was a comparison of DHH respondents with the TH population (see Table 1 for details), and in one case [21] the creativity of TH and visually impaired individuals was examined. Overall, the number of respondents ranged from 1 to 777. For three studies, the number of respondents was not given. In 9 cases, the gender of the respondents was not stated, and in the remaining 21 cases, the number of women (girls) and men (boys) was explicitly stated. In all these cases, the authors of the studies tried to maintain a balanced gender ratio of respondents. In three cases, the age of the respondents was not given. In the other studies, the ages of the respondents ranged from four to 88 years; the focus of the research was on the population from school age to adolescence. The hearing loss of the respondents was clearly defined only in some cases; where no specific value loss appeared, a note type was given: profoundly deaf, i.e., they did not benefit from hearing aids.
Table 1. General study details.
Table
Authors and Publication Date Country Respondents
Number
N (DHH)		 Gender Age Characteristic of DHH
Arnidha and Hidayatulloh, 2019 [22] Indonesia 5 NS fifth grade deaf
Daramola et al., 2019 [23] Nigeria 248 (146) NS second year NS
Davies, 1984 [24] United States of Amerika NS NS NS Hearing-impaired
Ebrahim, 2006 [25] United States of Amerika 410 (210) NS 8–11 y Hear loss 90–131 dB
Ebrahim, 2006 [26] United States of Amerika 410 (210) NS 8–11 y Hear loss 90–131 dB
Gallagher, 1968 [27] * United States of Amerika 74 Boys 34
Girls 40		 4th–8th grades deaf
Halpin and Torrance, 1973 [21] United States of Amerika 68 (34) NS 9–11 y Hearing deprivation was substantial
enough to prevent them from making satisfactory progress in public schools.
Hicks, 1942 [28] * United States of Amerika 8 (8) Boys 4
Girls 4		 5 y 11 m–8 y 9 m deaf
Johnson, 1975 [29] United States of Amerika 182 Males 90
Females 92		 10–19 y Profoundly deaf; not benefit from hearing aids.
Johnson, 1977 [30] United States of Amerika 133 (133) Males 68
Females 65		 11–19 y deaf—not benefiting from hearing aids
Johnson and Khatena, 1975 [29] United States of Amerika 417 (181) Males 89
Females 92		 10–19 y profoundly deaf, i.e., they did not benefit from hearing aids
Kaltsounis, 1969 [31] United States of Amerika 35 NS second grade deaf
Kaltsounis, 1970 [32] United States of Amerika 777 (172) NS 1st–6th grades Deaf–hearing deprivation was substantial enough
Kaltsounis, 1970 [33] United States of Amerika 418
(67)		 NS 4th–6th grades hearing deprivation was substantial
enough to prevent them from making satisfactory progress in public schools
Kaltsounis, 1971 [34] United States of Amerika 233 Boys 114
Girls 119		 1st–4th grades deaf
Laughton, 1988 [35] United States of Amerika 28 Male 14
Female 14		 8–10 y 85 dB loss or greater
Lubin and Sherrill, 1980 [36] United States of Amerika 24 (12) Boys 7
Girls 5		 3–5 y hearing loss (moderate, severe, profound)
Marschark and Clark, 1987 [37] United States of Amerika NS NS NS NS
Marschark et al., 1987 [38] United States of Amerika NS NS NS deaf
Marschark and West, 1985 [39] United States of Amerika 8 (4) Boys 3
Girl 1		 12.10–15.0 y ≥80 dB
Marschark et al., 1986 [40] United States of Amerika 40 (20) Male 11
Female 9		 8.1–14.8 y deaf
Minarsih and Wahab, 2019 [41] * Indonesia 1 NS high school deaf
Moorjhani et al., 1998 [42] Rajasthan 80
(NS)		 NS 6–11 y from 55 dB to 89 dB
Pang and Horrocks, 1968 [43] United States of Amerika NS (11) Boys 6
Girls 5		 11–12 y deaf
Paszkowska-Rogacz, 1992 [44] Poland 44 (22) Boys 10
Girls 12		 13–15 y deaf
Reber and Sherrill, 1981 [45] United States of Amerika 10 Male 8
Female 2		 9–14 y 71–90 dB 4
90 dB + 6
Silver, 1977 [46] United States of Amerika 44 (22) NS NS deaf
Stanzione et al., 2013 [20] United States of Amerika 52 (17) Male 10
Female 7		 14–18 y CI 3
hearing aids 14
Szobiová and Zborteková, 2006 [47] Slovakia 69 (45) Male 18 Female 27 18–88 y NS
Yu et al., 2009 [48] * People’s Republic of China 144 (122) Male 62
Female 60		 8–16 deaf

3. Methodology

3.1. Characteristics of Creativity

The first important item that was analyzed for all the selected articles was the characterization of the concept of creativity. In nine articles [22][24][28][38][39][40][41][42][44], it is not explicitly stated which theory of creativity the authors are drawing on. Daramola et al. [23] provide a characterization ability to perceive the world in new ways to find hidden patterns, make connections between seemingly unrelated phenomena, and generate solutions. In other cases, the authors draw on Torrance’s theory of creativity. Torrance [49] characterizes creativity as a complex of abilities, among which he includes sensitivity to problems—the ability to perceive and search for problems, fluency—the ability to produce a multitude of ideas, flexibility—the ability to have a variety of perspectives, originality—the ability to have a new and different perspective, elaboration—the ability to be careful and sophisticated, and redefinition—the ability to define a problem unusually. Ebrahim [24] Laughton [35] and Stanzione et al. [20] then add to Torrance’s notion of creativity with the definition of thinking of Guilford [50], who distinguished two types of thinking, namely convergent and divergent. The relationship between fluency and verbal creativity is based on the close connection between intelligence and creativity. Creativity is characterized according to the Cattell–Horn–Carroll concept of intelligence as a significant factor at a similar functional level to the fluency of thought and verbal fluency [51][52].
Divergent thinking allows for a search for different alternatives in the context of problem-solving, from which the most appropriate one is then selected using convergent thinking. According to Guilford [50], divergent thinking, which is closely related to creativity, has the following components: fluency or the smooth flow of ideas, flexibility or flexibility of thought, originality, sensitivity to problems, redefinition or the ability to use prior knowledge in a new way, and elaboration, i.e., the creation of functional details in problem-solving.

3.2. Study Design

Depending on the chosen design, the articles can be divided into three basic groups: quantitative, mixed, and Text and Opinion Papers.

Quantitative Design

Most of the articles (19 of 30) describe quantitative research. As can be seen from Table 2, the quasi-experimental research design was used in 15 articles, case series in three, and before and after studies in one. In the case of quasi-experimental research design, except for two articles [34][45], DHH and TH subjects were compared. Kaltsounis [34] looked at the effect of race concerning DHH, and Reber and Sherrill [45] compared the effect of dance training in two DHH groups.
Table 2. Quantitative research—Study design, statistical methods, Aim and Tools.
Table
  Study Design Statistical Methods Used Aim Tools
Daramola et al., 2019 [23] Case series Split half, Cronbach’s Alpha, Spearman-Brown correlation Difference between DHH and TH a tool created by the authors Questionnaire on the Creativity Level of Students with Hearing- impaired and Hearing
Ebrahim, 2006 [25] Case series Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Difference between DHH and TH Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural, Form A (A1-3)
Ebrahim, 2006 [26] Case series Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Difference between DHH and TH Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural, Form A (A1-3)
Gallagher, 1968 [27] Quasi-experimental Research Design Split half and Kuder-Richardson coefficient of reliability The relationship between Creativity thinking and IQ The Abbreviated Form VII, Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking.
Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales
Johnson, 1975 [29] Quasi-experimental Research Design Factor analysis The relationship between creativity and onomatopoeic words Onomatopoeia and Images, Form lB
Johnson, 1977 [30] Quasi-experimental Research Design Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Difference between DHH and TH + intellectual function Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking—Figural Form B;
Johnson and Khatena, 1975 [29] Quasi-experimental Research Design F-test, correlation Difference between DHH and TH Onomatopoeia and Images, Form 1B
Kaltsounis, 1970 [32] Quasi-experimental Research Design Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Difference between DHH and TH Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural, Form A
Kaltsounis, 1970 [33] Quasi-experimental Research Design Three two-way factorial analyses Difference between DHH and TH Torrance Test of Thinking Creatively With Words, Form A
Kaltsounis, 1971 [34] Quasi-experimental Research Design Two-way factor analysis Level of creativity of DHH Torrance Test of Thinking Creatively With Pictures, Form A (1966)
Laughton, 1988 [35] Before and after studies Multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) Influence of creativity + two curricular designs Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Lubin and Sherrill, 1980 [36] Quasi-experimental Research Design Analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) Difference between DHH and TH + motor creativity Torrance Tests of Thinking Creatively in Action and Movement
Pang and Horrocks, 1968 [43] Quasi-experimental Research Design Analysis of variance (ANOVA) Difference between DHH and TH + intellect Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices, Wallach and Kogan Creativity Test;
Paszkowska-Rogacz, 1992 [44] Quasi-experimental Research Design Medium values, standard deviation Difference between DHH and TH Barron–Welsh Art Scale, Torrance’s
Tests of Creative Thinking, Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children
Reber and Sherrill, 1981 [45] Quasi-experimental Research Design Pearson correlation,
Student’s t-test and frequency analysis		 Difference between DHH and TH + classroom behavior The Test for Creative Thinking–Drawing Production; Raven’s Progressive Matrices test; Pupil Behavior Inventory
Stanzione et al., 2013 [20] Quasi-experimental Research Design Test-retest; Correlation; Covariations; F-test Influence of creativity
+ dance/movement skills		 Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking, Figural form B; Dance/Movement Skills Assessment
Szobiová and Zborteková, 2006 [47] Quasi-experimental Research Design Multivariate Analysis of Covariance (MANCOVA) Difference between DHH and TH Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Yu et al., 2009 [48] Quasi-experimental Research Design Student’s t-test Difference between DHH and TH General Ability Tests (Smith and Whetton)
Daramola et al., 2019 [23] Quasi-experimental Research Design, Control study t-test Difference between DHH and TH New Creativity Test, Raven’s Test
In two cases [42][44] the area of interest for exploring creativity was not explicitly stated, while the remaining 17 were about the potential for using the findings in teaching. Of the 19 articles, 14 dealt directly with the relationship between the creativity of children with DHH and children with TH. Of these 14 studies, 4 [30][36][42][44] related the comparison of creativity to other factors such as intelligence, motor skills, or social relationships in the classroom. The remaining five cases involved different characteristics of creativity in individuals with DHH. The authors of two articles [35][45] considered the possibilities for the development of creativity in DHH individuals, and in three cases [27][29][34] creativity in DHH individuals was examined as a separate phenomenon with a focus on intelligence or language ability. The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking were used to determine levels of creativity in 11 cases, supplemented in one case [43] by the Barron–Welsh Art Scale and in another [45] by the Dance/Movement Skills Assessment. In the remaining cases, there were different tests of creativity chosen by the researchers concerning the issue at hand (see Table 2 for details), and in one of these cases [23] the researchers developed their own instrument. Dramola et al. [23] reported that the instrument they created was validated by experts in the Unit of Educational Research, Measurement, and Evaluation, Department of Social Sciences Education, Faculty of Education, Loyola University, and the reliability of the instrument would be determined using a split-half method (Cronbach’s α = 0.76).

Mixed Design

A mixed design was used in three articles. In all three cases, it was a comparison of creativity in DHH and TH children. In two cases [39][40], categories through which the specifics of creativity in DHH individuals were described were developed sequentially. In one case [46], levels of originality, fluency, flexibility, and elaboration were described for individuals with DHH. Qualitative analyses were supplemented in all cases by descriptive analysis. The relationship between creativity in children with DHH and children with TH was then compared using correlations (see Table 3).
Table 3. Mixed Research—Design, Methods, Aim, and Tools.
Table
  Research Design Methods Used Aim Tools
Marschark and West, 1985 [39] Phenomenological Studies + Quasi-experimental Research Design Coding + Descriptive analysis and correlation. Relationships between language and cognition and creativity Story Production
Marschark et al., 1986 [40] Phenomenological studies and
Quasi-experimental Research Design		 Coding + Descriptive analysis and correlation. Description of the development of linguistic and cognitive flexibility and its impact on creativity Story Production
Silver, 1977 [46] Observation + Quasi-experimental Research Design Thematic analysis + Descriptive analysis and correlation. Cognitive skills and creativity skills Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
In all three cases, the research results were directed toward the school environment. In two of the cases [39][40], the effect of language and cognitive level on creativity was investigated in comparison to TH peers. Silver [46] examined the relationship between cognitive functions and creativity, again in comparison with TH peers. Silver [46] used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Marschark and West [39] and Marschark et al. [40] chose their instruments: the respondents were asked to tell two stories each time. In both studies, one story was the same and the other was different. The common story is that once while walking through the mountains, they came upon a hidden door and a staircase leading deep into the earth. Below, they found a large cave and a previously unknown civilization. Different stories: They awoke one day to discover that animals and people had exchanged roles. They were asked to tell about seeing someone climbing a ladder and entering the window of a neighbor’s house (see Table 3).

Text and Opinion Studies

A total of eight articles that could not be classified in the previous categories because of missing or insufficient methodology were included in this group. In addition to being articles that met the inclusion criteria, these are articles that provide substantial information on the issue at hand.
Three studies [22][24][41] were concerned with describing different activities that can lead to the development of creativity in individuals with DHH. These include various activities in mathematics, drama, or art. In all these cases, the authors of the articles point out that the influence of specific activities can lead to the development of creativity. One article [31] briefly describes various teaching methods for DHH individuals and compares them in terms of their impact on creativity. Another study [21] is a brief report comparing the creativity of individuals with DHH and those with visual impairments. Hicks [28] compares creativity in DHH and TH individuals. However, he adds that regarding sample size, the results of the study cannot be generalized. The last two articles are different. Marschark and Clark [37] produced a literature review whose purpose was to review and weigh the available evidence concerning the non-linguistic and linguistic creative abilities of DHH children. Marschark et al. [38] presented information on a newly developed instrument for examining creativity in individuals with DHH. At the same time, they stress the need to approach individuals with DHH individually and to create a research environment for them that does not discriminate against them.

References

  1. Batey, M.; Furnham, A. Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genet. Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr. 2006, 132, 355–429.
  2. Nettle, D. Strong Imagination: Madness, Creativity, and Human Nature; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2001.
  3. Hennessey, B.A.; Amabile, T.M. Creativity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2010, 61, 569–598.
  4. Fink, A.; Benedek, M.; Grabner, R.H.; Staudt, B.; Neubauer, A.C. Creativity Meets Neuroscience: Experimental Tasks for the Neuroscientific Study of Creative Thinking. Methods 2007, 42, 68–76.
  5. Hensley, N. Educating for Sustainable Development: Cultivating Creativity through Mindfulness. J. Clean. Prod. 2020, 243, 118542.
  6. Guilford, J.P. Transformation abilities of functions. J. Creat. Behav. 1983, 17, 75–83.
  7. Amabile, T.M.; Pillemer, J. Perspectives on the Social Psychology of Creativity. J. Creat. Behav. 2012, 46, 3–15.
  8. Potmesil, M.; Potmesilova, P.; Horakova, R.; Groma, M. Psychosociální Aspekty Sluchového Postižení; Masarykova Univerzita: Brno, Czech Republic, 2010.
  9. Sinnott, C.; Looney, D.; Martin, S. Social Work with Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Sch. Soc. Work J. 2012, 36, 1–14.
  10. Lampropoulou, V. The Education of Deaf Children in Greece. In Deaf People Around the World: Educational and Social Perspectives; Moores, D.F., Miller, M.S., Eds.; Gallaudet University Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009; pp. 194–212.
  11. Desjardin, J.L. Family Empowerment: Supporting Language Development in Young Children Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing. Volta Rev. 2006, 106, 275–298.
  12. WHO (World Health Organization). Deafness and Hearing Loss: Fact Sheet No. 300. 2014. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/deafness-and-hearing-loss (accessed on 1 May 2023).
  13. van der Straaten, T.F.K.; Rieffe, C.; Soede, W.; Netten, A.P.; Dirks, E.; Oudesluys-Murphy, A.M.; Dekker, F.W.; Böhringer, S.; Frijns, J.H.M. Quality of Life of Children with Hearing Loss in Special and Mainstream Education: A Longitudinal Study. Int. J. Pediatr. Otorhinolaryngol. 2020, 128, 109701.
  14. Stepanović, S.; Živković, J. Working with pupils with hearing impairments in an inclusive education: Characteristics and competences. Hum. J. Interdiscip. Stud. 2020, 10, 22–30.
  15. De la Rosa, O.M.A.; Angulo, L.M.V. Children with Hearing Loss Health-Related Quality of Life and Parental Perceptions. Int. Educ. Stud. 2020, 13, 33–47.
  16. Marschark, M.; Shaver, D.M.; Nagle, K.M.; Newman, L.A. Predicting the Academic Achievement of Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students from Individual, Household, Communication, and Educational Factors. Except. Child. 2015, 81, 350–369.
  17. Su, J.-Y.; Guthridge, S.; He, V.Y.; Howard, D.; Leach, A.J. The Impact of Hearing Impairment on Early Academic Achievement in Aboriginal Children Living in Remote Australia: A Data Linkage Study. BMC Public Health 2020, 20, 1521.
  18. Santos, S.; Cordes, S. Math abilities in deaf and hard of hearing children: The role of language in developing number concepts. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 129, 199–211.
  19. Marschark, M.; Spencer, P.E.; Adams, J.; Sapere, P. Evidence-based Practice in Educating Deaf and Hard-Of-Hearing Children: Teaching to Their Cognitive Strengths and Needs. Eur. J. Spec. Needs Educ. 2011, 26, 3–16.
  20. Stanzione, C.M.; Perez, S.M.; Lederberg, A.R. Assessing Aspects of Creativity in Deaf and Hearing High School Students. J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ. 2013, 18, 228–241.
  21. Halpin, G.; Torrance, E.P. Comparison of Creative Thinking Abilities of Blind and Deaf Children. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1973, 37, 154.
  22. Arnidha, Y.; Hidayatulloh. Mathematical Representation of Deaf Students in Problem Solving Seen from Students’ Creative Thinking Levels. J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2019, 1155, 012030.
  23. Daramola, D.S.; Bello, M.B.; Yusuf, A.R.; Amali, I.O.O. Creativity Level of Hearing Impaired and Hearing Students of Federal College of Education. Int. J. Instr. 2019, 12, 1489–1500.
  24. Davies, D.G. Utilization of Creative Drama with Hearing-Impaired Youth. Volta Rev. 1984, 86, 106–113.
  25. Ebrahim, F.A. Assessing Creative Thinking Abilities of Deaf Children. Int. J. Spec. Educ. 2006, 21, 153–163.
  26. Ebrahim, F. Comparing Creative Thinking Abilities and Reasoning Ability of Deaf and Hearing Children. Roeper Rev. A J. Gift. Educ. 2006, 28, 140–147.
  27. Gallagher, M.S. A Comparative Study of the Most Creative and Least Creative Student in Grades 4–8 at the Boston School for the Deaf, Randolph, Massachusetts; Boston College: Chestnut Hill, MA, USA, 1968.
  28. Hicks, A.C. A Comparative Study of the Creative Expressions in Paint and Clay of Deaf and Hearing Children. In Independent Studies and Capstones; Program in Audiology and Communication Sciences, Washington University School of Medicine: St. Louis, MO, USA, 1942; p. 33.
  29. Johnson, R.A.; Khatena, J. Comparative Study of Verbal Originality in Deaf and Hearing Children. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1975, 40, 631–635.
  30. Johnson, R.A. Creative Thinking in the Absence of Language: Deaf versus Hearing Adolescents. Child Study J. 1977, 7, 49–57.
  31. Kaltsounis, B. Impact of Instruction on Development of Deaf Children’s Originality of Thinking. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1969, 29, 298.
  32. Kaltsounis, B. Comparative Study of Creativity in Deaf and Hearing Children. Child Study J. 1970, 1, 11–19.
  33. Kaltsounis, B. Differences in Verbal Creative Thinking Abilities between Deaf and Hearing Children. Psychol. Rep. 1970, 26, 727–733.
  34. Kaltsounis, B. Differences in Creative Thinking of Black and White Deaf Children. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1971, 32, 243–248.
  35. Laughton, J. Strategies for Developing Creative Abilities of Hearing-Impaired Children. Am. Ann. Deaf 1988, 133, 258–263.
  36. Lubin, E.; Sherrill, C. Motor Creativity of Preschool Deaf Children. Am. Ann. Deaf 1980, 125, 460–466.
  37. Marschark, M.; Clark, D. Linguistic and Nonlinguistic Creativity of Deaf Children. Dev. Rev. 1987, 7, 22–38.
  38. Marschark, M.; Everhart, V.S.; Martin, J.; West, S.A. Identifying Linguistic Creativity in Deaf and Hearing Children. Metaphor. Symb. Act. 1987, 2, 281–306.
  39. Marschark, M.; West, S.A. Creative Language Abilities of Deaf Children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1985, 28, 73–78.
  40. Marschark, M.; West, S.A.; Nall, L.; Everhart, V. Development of Creative Language Devices in Signed and Oral Production. J. Exp. Child Psychol. 1986, 41, 534–550.
  41. Minarsih, N.M.M.; Wahab, R. The Influence of Role Art Learning for Improvement Creativity (Improvisation, Expression and Gesture) Deaf Students at SLB Marganingsih Yogyakarta; Atlantis Press: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2019; pp. 255–258.
  42. Moorjhani, J.D.; Jacob, E.A.; Nathawat, S.S. A Comparative Study of Intelligence and Creativity in Hearing Impaired and Normal Boys and Girls. Indian J. Clin. Psychol. 1998, 25, 200–205.
  43. Pang, H.; Horrocks, C. An Exploratory Study of Creativity in Deaf Children. Percept. Mot. Ski. 1968, 27, 844–846.
  44. Paszkowska-Rogacz, A. Nonverbal Aspects of Creative Thinking: Studies of Deaf Children. Eur. J. High Abil. 1992, 3, 236–239.
  45. Reber, R.; Sherrill, C. Creative Thinking and Dance/Movement Skills of Hearing-Impaired Youth: An Experimental Study. Am. Ann. Deaf 1981, 126, 1004–1009.
  46. Silver, R.A. The Question of Imagination, Originality, and Abstract Thinking by Deaf Children. Am. Ann. Deaf 1977, 122, 349–354.
  47. Szobiová, E.; Zborteková, K. Logické Uvažovanie, Vizuálno-Priestorová Predstavivosť a Tvorivé Vnímanie Adolescentov so Sluchovým Postihnutím = Logical Reasoning, Visual-Spatial Imagination, and Creative Perception of Adolescents with Hearing-Impairment. Psychológia A Patopsychológia Dieťaťa 2006, 41, 287–302.
  48. Yu, L.; Sun, Y.-J.; Yan, N.; Lin, Y.; Li, Q.; Wan, S.-Y.; Xun, M.-M. Creative Thinking of Deaf Children and Its Related Factors. Chin. Ment. Health J. 2009, 23, 824–827.
  49. Torrance, E.P. Creativity and Its Educational Implications for the Gifted. Gift. Child Q. 1968, 12, 67–78.
  50. Guilford, J.P. The Nature of Human Intelligence; McGraw-Hill Book Company: New York, NY, USA, 1967.
  51. Schneider, W.J.; McGrew, K.S. The Cattell–Horn–Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. In Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues, 4th ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 73–163.
  52. Silvia, P.J.; Beaty, R.E. Making Creative Metaphors: The Importance of Fluid Intelligence for Creative Thought. Intelligence 2012, 40, 343–351.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Education, Special
Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Petra Potměšilová
,
Miloň Potměšil
,
Miloslav Klugar
View Times: 562
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 01 Sep 2023
Table of Contents
Academic Video Service
Feedback