On the relationship among Iranian EFL Leaners’ Crystallized Intelligence, Fluid Intelligence, Creativity, and their Performances on Multiple-Choice and Constructed-Response Items

Nilufar Ebrahimpur, Khalil Motallebzadeh, Mitra Zeraatpishe


Studies have been done on finding construct-irrelevant factors and cognitive processes involved in test taking. Previous studies have explored correlations between reading comprehension (RC) ability and psychological variables such as creativity and intelligence reporting significant relations. Many researchers trying to figure out the difference between diverse formats performance. The present study takes  interest in investigating if each test format performance is affected by cognitive traits of test takers. It  investigates the effects of three psychological variables including Fluid intelligence (Gf), Crystallized intelligence (gc), and creativity (C) on reading comprehension (RC) performance where Multiple-Choice (MC) and Constructed-Response (CR) formats are involved for English as a Foreign Language (EFL) Learners. The relations among all five variables are examined applying Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) by hypothesizing a model related to the previous researches. The model goes through modifications twice and the final revision reports the relationships. Path analysis demonstrates direct significant effects in paths for Gc-MC, Gc-CR, Gf-CR and indirect significant effects in Gf-MC, creativity-MC, and creativity-CR. Therefore, CR items are the most affected format by those cognitive variables. The results are further discussed and concluded in more details.


Fluid Intelligence (Gf), Crystallized Intelligence (Gc), Creativity (C), Reading Comprehension (RC), Multiple-Choice (MC) Items, Constructed-Response (CR) Items

Full Text:



Abedi, J., (1993). Creativity and new techniques to quantify it. Psychological Research, 1 & 2, Tehran. Alghazo, I.M., 2006. Quality of Internet use by teachers in the United Arab Emirates. Education, 26(4), 769-781

Abedi, J. (2002). A latent-Variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14 (2), 267-276.

Ackerman, T.A., & Smith, P.L. (1988). A comparison of the information provided by essay, multiple-choice and free-response writing tests. Applied Psychological Measurement, 12, 117-128.

Arthur, W., & Day, D.V. (1994). Development of a Short form for the Raven Advanced Progressive Matrices Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54 (2) , pp. 394 – 403. doi:10.1177/0013164494054002013

Auzmendi,E. Villa, A. Abedi, J. (1996). Reliability and validity of a newly-constructed multiple-choice creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 9 (1) (1996), pp. 89-95.

Bachman, L. (1990). Fundamental considerations in language testing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Baghaei, P., & Tabatabaee, M. (2015). The C-Test: An integrative measure of crystallized intelligence. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 46–58.

Barati, H., Ravand, H., & Ghasemi, V. ( 2013). Investigating Relationships among Test Takers’ Characteristics and Response Formats in a Reading Comprehension Test: A Structural Equation Modeling Approach. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 3 (2) , October 2013.

Batey, M., & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and Personality: A Critical Review of the Scattered Literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132 (4) , 355−429.

Benson, N. (2008). Cattell–Horn–Carroll Cognitive Abilities and Reading Achievement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 26 , 27-41.

Birenbaum, M. Pinku, P. (1997). Effects of test anxiety, information organization, & testing situation on performance on two test formats. Contemporary Educational Psychology,22, 23–38.

Boden, M. A. (1998). Creativity & artificial intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 103, 347-356.

Carroll, J. B. (1984). Raymond B. Cattell's contributions to the theory of cognitive abilities. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 19, 300-306.

Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A Survey of Factor Analytic Studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Cattell, R. B. (1971). Abilities, their structure, growth & action. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

Cattell, R. B. (1987). Intelligence: Its Structure, Growth, and Action. New York: Elsevier Science.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2007). Personality and individual differences. Oxford: Blackwell

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Reichenbacher, L. (2008). Effects of Personality and Threat of Evaluation on Divergent and Convergent Thinking. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 1095–1101.

Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2006). Intellectual competence and the intelligent personality: A third way in differential psychology. Review of General Psychology ,10 , 251–267.

Chapelle, C., & Abraham, R. (1990). Cloze Method: “ What difference does it make?”. Language Testing, 7 (2), 121-145.

Cropley, A. J. (2006). In Praise of Convergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 391–404.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1996). Creativity : Flow & the psychology of discovery & invention. NewYork: Harper Perennial.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. ( 2014). The Systems Model of Creativity : The Collected Works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer, 2014. ISBN 978-94-017-9084-0

Dornyei, Z. (2005). The psychology of the language learner.US: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Ekstrand, L. H. (1977). Social and Individual Frame Factors in Second Language Learning. In T. Skutnabb-Kangas (Ed.), Papers from the first Nordic conference on Bilingualism, 40– 61.

Evans, J. J. Floyd, R. G., & McGrew, K. S. (2002). The Relations between Measures of Cattell-Horn- Carroll (CHC) Cognitive Abilities and Reading Achievement During Childhood and Adolescence. School Psychology Review, 31 (2) , 246-262.

Flanagan, D. P. (2008). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll Theory of Cognitive Abilities. Encyclopedia of Special Education. 381:368–382.

Furnham, A., & Bachtiar, V. (2008). Personality and intelligence as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 45 (7), 613-617.

Gamer, M. Engelhard Jr., G. (1999). Gender differences in performance on Multiple-Choice & Constructed-Response mathematics items. Applied Measurement in Education, 12 (1) , 29-51. doi:10.1207/s15324818ame1201_3

Genesee, F. (1976). The Role of Intelligence In Second Language Learning. Language Learning, 26, 267–280.

Getzels, J. W., & Jackson, P. W. (1958). The Meaning of “Giftedness”—An Examination of an Expanding Concept. Phi Delta Kappan, 40, 75–77.

Ghabanchi, Z., & Rastegar, R. ( 2014). The Correlation of IQ and Emotional Intelligence with Reading Comprehension. An International Online Journal, 14 (2) , 135-144

Gould, K.L. (1972). Relationships of Creativity, Reading Comprehension, Intelligence, & Response to a Literature Selection for Fourth Grade Inner-City Children ( Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED072434

Grabe, W. (2009). Reading in a second language: Moving from theory to practice. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Griffee, D.T (2012). An Introduction to Second Language Research Methods: Design and Data. TESL-EJ Publications.

Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York, NY, US: McGraw-Hill.

Hansen, L. (1984). Field Dependence-Independence & language testing: Evidence from six pacific island cultures. TESOL Quarterly, 18 , 311–324. doi:10.2307/3586696

Hebb, D. O. (1949). The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York:Wiley.

Heim, A. W., & Watts, K. P. (1966). An Experiment on Multiple-Choice Versus Open-Ended Answering in A Vocabulary Test. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 37,339-346.4

In’nami, Y., & Koizumi,R. (2009). A Meta-analysis of Test Format Effects on Reading and Listening Test Performance: Focus on Multiple-choice and Open-ended Formats. Language Testing, 26 (2), 219–244.

Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New Support for the Threshold Hypothesis by Means of Empirical Breakpoint Detection. Intelligence, 41, 212–221.

Jensen, A. R. (1998). The g factor: The science of mental ability. Westport, CT: Praeger.

Karimi, N. (2011). C-test and Vocabulary Knowledge. Language Testing in Asia, 1 (7). 7-38.

Kassaeian, Z., & Kassaeian, N. (2008). The Relationship between EFL Learners' Proficiency, Intelligence, and Creativity. Journal of Literature and Language, 27, 72-82.

Kastner,M., & Stangl, B. ( 2011). ‘Multiple Choice and Constructed Response Tests: Do Test Format and Scoring Matter?’. Procedia Social and Behavioral Sciences, 12, 263–273.

Kaufman, J. C., & Sternberg, R. J. (Eds). (2010). Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Katz, I. R., Bennett, R. E., & Berger, A. E. (2000). Effects of Response Format on Difficulty of SAT- Mathematics Items: It's not the Strategy. Journal of Educational Measurement, 37, 39-57.

Kennedy, P., & Walstad, W. B. (1997). Combining Multiple-Choice and Constructed-Response Test Scores: An Economist's View. Applied Measurement in Education, 10 (4) , 359-375.

Kim, K. H. (2005). “Can only Intelligent People be Creative?”. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 16, 57– 66.

Kline, P. (1991). Intelligence: The Psychometric View. London: Routledge.

Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and Practices of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.

Kordjazi, Z. Ghonsooly, B. (2015). Brain dominance & test format: A Case of vocabulary. Journal of Language Teaching and Research, 6 (3) , pp. 695-703. doi: 10.17507/jltr.0603.29

Kunnan, A.J. (2004). Test fairness. In M. Milanovic & C. Weir (Eds.). European language testing in a global context: Proceeding of the ALTE Barcelona conference, 27- 50.

Lohnes, P. R. Gray, M. M. (1972). Intelligence & the cooperative reading studies. Reading Research Quarterly, 7 (3) , 466-476. doi: 10.2307/746994

Martinez, M. E. (1991). A Comparison of Multiple-Choice and Constructed Figural Response Items. Journal of Educational Measurement Summer 1991, 28 (2), 131-145.

McGrew, K. S. (1993). The Relationship between the WJ-R Gf-Gc Cognitive Clusters and Reading Achievement Across the Life-Span. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, Monograph Series WJ-R, 39-53.

McHugh M. (2012). Inter-rater reliability: The Kappa statistic. Biochemia Medica, 22 (3), 276-282.

Meera, KP., & Remya, P (2010). Effect of Extensive Reading and Creativity on Achievement in English Language. E-journal of All India Association for Educational Research, 22 (1),16-22.

Messick, S. (1987). VALIDITY. ETS Research Report Series, 1987 (2), i–208.

Messick, S. (1993). Trait equivalence as construct validity of score interpretation across multiple methods of measurement. Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement, 61-74.

Motallebzadeh, Kh., & Tabatabaee, M. (2016). The Relationship between EFL Learners’ ReadingComprehension Ability and their Fluid Intelligence, Crystallized Intelligence, and Processing Speed. Cogent Education (2016), 3, 1-8.

Mousavi, M., Maghsoudi, M., & Yarahmadi, M. (2013). The Impact of Creativity on Iranian EFL Learner’s Reading Comprehension Ability. Indian Journal of Fundamental and Applied Life Sciences, 3, 437-445.

Olive, H. (1973). The Relationship of Divergent Thinking to Intelligence, Social Class, and Achievement in High-School Students. The Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 122 (2) , 179-186.

Oller J. W. (1981). “Language as intelligence?”. Language Learning, 31, 465-492.

Park, G., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2008). Ability differences among people who have commensurate degrees matter for scientific creativity. Psychological Science, 19, 957–961.

Pishghadam, R. Khodadady, E. Zabihi, R. (2011). Learner creativity in foreign language achievement. European Journal of Educational Studies, 3 (3) , 465-472.

Pishghadam, R., & Tabataba’ian, M. ( 2011a). IQ and Test Format: A Study into Test Fairness. Iranian Journal of Language Testing, 1 (1) , 17-29.

Pishghadam, R., & Tabataba’ian, M. (2011b). ‘ Emotional Intelligence: Can It Be a Predictor of Performance on Different Test Formats?’. International Journal of Linguistics, 3 (1) , 1-21.

Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.

Reynolds, R. M. Turek, J. J (2012). A dynamic developmental link between verbal Comprehension-Knowledge (Gc) and Reading Comprehension: Verbal Comprehension-Knowledge drives positive change in reading comprehension. Journal of School Psychology, 50 (6) , 841–863. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2012.07.002.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 205-210.

Rindermann, H., Flores-Mendoza, C., & Mansur-Alves, M. (2010). Reciprocal effects between fluid and crystallized intelligence and their dependence on parents' socioeconomic status and education. Learning and Individual Differences, 20, 544–548.

Rodriguez,M. (2003), Construct Equivalence of Multiple-Choice and Constructed-Response Items: A Random Effects Synthesis of Correlations. Journal of Educational Measurement Summer 2003, 40 (2) , 163-184.

Runco, M. A.(2006). Personal creativity and the uncertainty of creative potential. In J. Gonzelez (Ed.), Proceedings of I Simposio International Sobre Altas Capacidades Intellectuales. Las Palmas, Spain: Directorate for Educational Planning and Innovation.

Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24 (1), 1–10.

Runco M. A., & Albert R. S. (1987). The Threshold Hypothesis Regarding Creativity and Intelligence: an Empirical Test with Gifted and Non-Gifted Children. Creat. Child Adult Q, 11 , 212–218

Ryhammar, L., & Brolin, C. (1999). Creativity Research: Historical Considerations and Main Lines of Development. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 43 (3) ,259-273.

Schreiber, J. B., Nora, A., Stage, F. K., Barlow, E. A., & King, J. (2006). Reporting Structural Equation Modeling and Confirmatory Factor Analysis Results: A Review. The Journal of Educational Research, 99 (6) , 323-337.

Schneider, W. J., & McGrew, K. (2012). The Cattell-Horn-Carroll model of intelligence. In, D. Flanagan & P. Harrison (Eds.), Contemporary Intellectual Assessment: Theories, Tests, and Issues (3rd ed.), 99- 144. New York: Guilford.

Schumacker, R. E., & Lomax, R. G. (2010). A beginner's guide to structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New York: Routledge.

Shohamy, E. (1984). Does the testing method make a difference? The case of reading. Language Testing, 1, 147–170.

Simonton, D. K. (1990). History, Chemistry, Psychology, and Genius: An Intellectual Autobiography of Historiometry. In M. A. Runco & R. S. Albert (Eds.), Theories of creativity, 92–115. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Sligh, A. C., Conners, F. A., & Roskos – ewoldsen, B. (2005). Relation of Creativity to Fluid and Crystallized Intelligence. Second Quarter, 39 (2) , 123-136.

Sternberg, R. J., & Kaufman, S. B. (2011). The Cambridge Handbook of Intelligence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Sternberg R.J., & Lubart T.I.(1991). An Investment Theory of Creativity and Its Development. Human Development, 34 , 1–31.

Stevens, J. (1996). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Publishers.

Sutrisno (2007). Students’ Creativity and Its Relation to English Learning Achievement: A Case Study of the Tenth Grade Students of SMA N 1 Brebes in the academic year 2006/2007 (dissertation). Semarang State University.

Taub, G. E., & Benson, N. (2013). Identifying the Effects of Specific CHC Factors on College Students’ Reading Comprehension. International Journal for the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 7 (2), 1-13.

Vernon, P. E. (1950). The structure of human abilities. London, England: Methuen.

DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.7575/aiac.ijalel.v.7n.1p.163


  • There are currently no refbacks.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

2012-2020 (CC-BY) Australian International Academic Centre PTY.LTD

International Journal of Applied Linguistics and English Literature

To make sure that you can receive messages from us, please add the journal emails into your e-mail 'safe list'. If you do not receive e-mail in your 'inbox', check your 'bulk mail' or 'junk mail' folders.