Dyslexia and creativity


Published on

Gonzalo santiago martinez

Published in: Education
1 Like
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total Views
On Slideshare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Dyslexia and creativity

  1. 1. DYSLEXIA AND CREATIVITY: INVESTIGATIONS FROM DIFFERING PERSPECTIVES No part of this digital document may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means. The publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this digital document, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained herein. This digital document is sold with the clear understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, medical or any other professional services.
  2. 2. Dyslexia, An Academic Perspective Additional books in this series can be found on Nova‘s website at: https://www.novapublishers.com/catalog/index.php?cPath=23&typesort=series
  4. 4. Copyright © 2010 by Nova Science Publishers, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or by any means: electronic, electrostatic, magnetic, tape, mechanical photocopying, recording or otherwise without the written permission of the Publisher. For permission to use material from this book please contact us: Telephone 631-231-7269; Fax 631-231-8175 Web Site: http://www.novapublishers.com NOTICE TO THE READER The Publisher has taken reasonable care in the preparation of this book, but makes no expressed or implied warranty of any kind and assumes no responsibility for any errors or omissions. No liability is assumed for incidental or consequential damages in connection with or arising out of information contained in this book. The Publisher shall not be liable for any special, consequential, or exemplary damages resulting, in whole or in part, from the readers‘ use of, or reliance upon, this material. Any parts of this book based on government reports are so indicated and copyright is claimed for those parts to the extent applicable to compilations of such works. Independent verification should be sought for any data, advice or recommendations contained in this book. In addition, no responsibility is assumed by the publisher for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from any methods, products, instructions, ideas or otherwise contained in this publication. This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information with regard to the subject matter covered herein. It is sold with the clear understanding that the Publisher is not engaged in rendering legal or any other professional services. If legal or any other expert assistance is required, the services of a competent person should be sought. FROM A DECLARATION OF PARTICIPANTS JOINTLY ADOPTED BY A COMMITTEE OF THE AMERICAN BAR ASSOCIATION AND A COMMITTEE OF PUBLISHERS. LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CATALOGING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Alexander-Passe, Neil. Dyslexia and creativity : investigations from differing perspectives / Neil Alexander-Passe. p. cm. Includes index. ISBN 978-1-61209-063-4 (eBook) Published by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.  New York
  5. 5. CONTENTS Preface vii Introduction ix Part I. An Academic Perspective Chapter 1 Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study of Divergent Thinking Neil Alexander-Passe 1 Dyslexia, Reasoning and the Importance of Visual-Spatial Processes Alison M. Bacon and Simon J. Handley 25 Chapter 3 Visual Thinking for the Digital Age Richard Chipps 51 Chapter 4 Artistic Talents and Dyslexia: A Genuine Connection? Ulrika Wolff 67 Chapter 5 Dyslexic Visualizations in Practice: Strengths and Forgotten Frustrations Brian O‘Keefe 79 Chapter 2 Part II. A Personal Perspective 97 Chapter 6 A Dyslexic Artist and her Gallery Environment Michelle Molyneux Chapter 7 Three Case Studies of Creative Dyslexics Neil Alexander-Passe 105 Chapter 8 How a Unique Perception of the World Enhances Creativity Clayton S. Colgin 139 Chapter 9 Dyslexia: Its Impact on my Creative Process Bonnie M. Haley 147 99
  6. 6. Contents vi Dyslexia, Visual Thinking and Lucid Dreaming - An Artist‘s Experience Mick Bean 151 Chapter 11 Approaching Dyslexia Sideways – Is it a Blessing or a Curse? Jane Graves 157 Chapter 12 How do Practicing Creative Visual Artists, who are Dyslexic, Approach Thinking and Learning in the Process of their Work? Katherine Hewlett 173 Chapter 10 Part III. An Alternative Perspective 179 Chapter 13 The Science of Creativity: Neuroaesthetics Beverley Steffert 181 Chapter 14 So near the Discovery: on not Falling Back into old and Preconceived Notions Thomas G. West 199 Index 223
  7. 7. PREFACE Dyslexia and Creativity: An Academic Perspective‘ is the first in a series to investigate under-researched areas of dyslexia. It has come from a need to investigate a much quoted but little researched and substantiated area of dyslexia, namely positive attributes or talents that have come out of having a learning disability. Whilst traditional understanding of creativity is solely concerned with the arts, wider investigation suggests it includes many other careers, from cooking to sport, business to politics. Thus creativity can be seen is all areas of society. As dyslexia is traditionally perceived to be a disability affecting reading and writing, many imagine that dyslexics are unable to attain in our word-based society. However many have, and these include world leaders and celebrities, in a range of areas. Those believed to be dyslexic, include: • Inventors (Leonardo da Vinci, Albert Einstein, Thomas Edison and Michael Faraday), • Artists (Leonardo da Vinci, David Bailey, Pablo Picasso, Andy Warhol, Auguste Rodin), • Actors (Tom Cruise, Robin Williams, Kiera Knightly, Keanu Reeves, Whoppi Goldberg), • Sports people (Mohammed Ali, Sir Steven Redgrave, Magic Johnson, Bruce Jenner, Nolan Ryan, Sir Jackie Stewart), • Political leaders (Winston Churchill, John F Kennedy, George Washington), and • Business people (Sir Richard Branson, Henry Ford, William Hewlett, Charles Schwab, Ted Turner) So how can they be dyslexic and attain to such high standards? What is that they have, in addition to their difficulties that allow them to reach international success? One explanation is that dyslexics develop compensation skills as a reaction to their difficulties; another suggests that the dyslexic brain is neurologically different, and a third sees dyslexics as part of the next stage in human evolution, with superior abilities for our modern age. However research to date has been unable to support the claim that dyslexics are creative or have visual-spatial talents in excess of the normal population. Thus this book aims to shed light on the issue, through three types of perspectives: (1) Academic Perspectives; (2) Personal Perspectives; and (3) Alternative Perspectives. ‗Dyslexia and Creativity: An Academic Perspective‘ is the collection of sixteen perspectives, from authors and artists from the US, UK, Sweden and Australia, which aim to enlighten the reader to new academic research, personal views of dyslexic artists, and an
  8. 8. viii Preface investigative interview study challenging dyslexic artists to ‗what makes the dyslexic artist unique‘. ‗Dyslexia and Creativity: An Academic Perspective‘ is an ideal reference book for researchers, educators, artists, and dyslexics who seek understanding of their creative abilities.
  9. 9. INTRODUCTION Welcome to ‗Dyslexia and Creativity: investigations from differing perspectives‘, the first of a new book series, which aims to investigate issues facing dyslexia. As the title suggests ‗from differing perspectives‘, book topics will be investigated from more than one perspective, in this case: academic, personal and alternative. The editor is an experienced researcher into dyslexia and a designer. He felt that to look at such a contentious subject as creativity, one perspective alone would not do the subject justice. The second book ‗Dyslexia and Mental Health‘ is now in production for a 2011 launch. Early on in this project, contributing authors were asked to investigate creativity in its wider context (e.g. science, business, design etc) and not just defined by the arts (e.g. painting, acting, sculpture). Before a review of the enclosed chapters, it would be useful for readers to first understand definitions of dyslexia and creativity. Dyslexia: ‗Specific developmental dyslexia is a disorder manifested by difficulty learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence, and adequate sociocultural opportunity. It is dependent upon fundamental cognitive disabilities that are frequently of constitutional origin‘ World Federation of Neurology (1968). ‗Dyslexia is evident when accurate and fluent word reading and/or spelling develops very incompletely or with great difficulty. This focuses on literacy learning at the ‗word level‘ and implies that the problem is severe and persistent despite appropriate learning opportunities. It provides the basis for a staged process of assessment through teaching‘ (British Psychological Society, 1999).
  10. 10. x Neil Alexander-Passe Creativity: ‗Creativity by individuals and teams is a starting point for innovation; the first is a necessary but not sufficient condition for the second‘ (Amabile, Conti, Coon, Lazenby & Herron, 1996). ‗Creativity is defined as the tendency to generate or recognize ideas, alternatives, or possibilities that may be useful in solving problems, communicating with others, and entertaining ourselves and others‘ (Franken, 2001, p.396). ‗Creative refers to novel products of value, e.g. the airplane was a creative invention. Creative also refers to the person who produces the work, e.g. Picasso was creative. Creativity, then refers both to the capacity to produce such works, e.g. how can we foster our employees' creativity? And to the activity of generating such products, as in Creativity requires hard work‘ (Weisberg, 1993, p.4). Taylor (1988) suggests there are more than 60 definitions of creativity, with the most widespread being the concept of creativity as manifested by the production of work that is both novel and useful. Many people associate creativity with art and literature, where originality alone is deemed sufficient for the production to be called creative, compared to other fields where both originality and appropriateness are required (Amabile, 1998). As there is no single authoritative definition of creativity, there is no single standardized means to measure it, as most measures are dependent on the personal judgement of the tester. At first glance the two ‗Dyslexia and Creativity) seem very different, however taking a second look, one could conclude they both deal with unconventional cognition – different thought processes. If both conditions deal with the unconventional, then it requires a decision on what defines conventional and unconventional: Conventional: ‗A conventional method, product, practice etc has been used for a long time and is considered the usual type‘ and ‗always following the behavior and attitudes that most people in a society consider to be normal, right, and socially acceptable, so that you seem slightly boring‘ (Longmans, 2010). ‗The terms convention and conventional are flagrantly and intricately ambiguous. On the one hand, the conventional is the ordinary, the usual, the traditional, the orthodox as against the novel, the deviant, the unexpected, and the heterodox. On the other hand, the conventional is the artificial, the invented, the optional, as against the natural, the fundamental, the mandatory‗ (Goodman, 1989, p.80).
  11. 11. Introduction xi Unconventional: ‗Very different from the way people usually behave, think, dress etc‘ (Longmans, 2010). ‗Not conforming to accepted rules or standards; her unconventional dress and hair style, not conventional or conformist; unconventional life styles, not conforming to legality, moral law, or social convention; an unconventional marriage; improper banking practices‘ (Princeton University, 2003). In both, we see that society has a part to play in their formulation. Thus it could be concluded that both dyslexics and creative people are different (due to their cognitive thought processes), to others in society. Sadly in current society difference has implications. If difference is celebrated, its ‗eccentric‘, if feared it‘s ‗odd‘ and if allowed but misunderstood its ‗alternative‘. Unfortunately in our current society the above perception comes down to class and money. If you are rich then its okay and you are called ‗eccentric‘, if poor ‗odd or weird‘ and if middle class ‗alternative‘. Being ‗alternative‘ is quite trendy at present. Compared to the UK, in America they love the eccentricness of the English way of life. Having such an accent opens doors which might usually be shut. This reminds me of an old story from my youth. In around 1990 I was in New York as a young teenager on holiday. I was walking down 5th Avenue looking at art galleries, and spotted some amazing Degas sculpture in a window. As a tourist on a scorching August day I wore shorts and a T-shirt. When I entered the private gallery the manager immediately come up to me and said ‗sorry this is a private gallery you can‘t come in‘. I thought it was a bit unfair but fair point, so said ‗okay, thank you‘. At that point the manager changed. He heard my English accent and changed his perception of me. From a scruffy and poor teenager who didn‘t fit in, to an eccentric middle-class/rich English lad on holiday with his wealthy parents. I didn‘t change, nor the environment, but his perceptions did. It is my belief that both dyslexia and creativity rely on positive perceptions of difference. This book aims to investigate such difference in three perspectives: academic, personal and alternative. The three are important, as research to date has found no strong evidence of such a correlation; however personal accounts and alternative studies have suggested a link. It is the editor‘s belief that putting the three together in one publication will aid greater understanding of the issues involved. ACADEMIC PERSPECTIVE Chapter 1 (Creativity and Dyslexia: An investigative study of divergent thinking) – This study takes the view that creativity in its wider context can be defined as divergence, as many measures of creativity rely on divergent (many solutions to problems) compared to convergent thinking (single solutions to problems). Three such measures were used in this study on a sample (N=88) of dyslexic and non-dyslexic control adults. The author used a dyslexic trait measure to investigate if creativity varied amongst mild to severe dyslexics.
  12. 12. xii Neil Alexander-Passe The study used non-visual divergent measures based on the production of quantity and quality. Non-visual measures were also chosen to highlight that many dyslexics do well in non-visual professions (e.g. business and science). Whilst the results were inconclusive of a global heightened ability in dyslexics, it was concluded that the more dyslexic traits you have the lower you scored in these divergent measures. However females with dyslexic traits scored on par with non-dyslexic males. Thus gender and severity of dyslexic traits were seen as important factors in a study of this kind. Chapter 2 (Dyslexia, reasoning and the importance of visual-spatial processes) – This chapter focused on visual cognitive processes (e.g. visual imagery and visual memory) that dyslexics use when solving logical argument problems - the sort that are found in everyday reasoning. Dyslexic and non-dyslexic control samples were used with both English and Welsh reasoning problems and visual pattern tests. Results found dyslexics scored higher than controls in reasoning problems (visual and written) which the author believes supports anecdotal accounts of dyslexics being highly creative or visual as a compensatory device. It was then argued that as academic coursework in schools generally emphasise verbal skills, and do not facilitate visual reasoning, that dyslexics are disadvantaged. However if coursework was allowed as an option in visual form, then dyslexics would be able to attain as per their peers. Chapter 3 (Visual thinking for a digital age) – This study used a number of interviews to investigate learning styles and a new problem-solving method ‗Design Thinking‘, which is more creative and holistic. ‗Design Thinking‘ was based on transferring methods used in design practice into fields outside design, especially business. Presenting complex information contained in informative magazine layout form with images and highlighted quotes was found to aid understanding and information retention. The author also suggests that it is helpful for learners to understand their unique learning profile (the best way you learn and retain information) and if you made sure you worked with rather than against this style - more success would be attained in chosen careers. To conclude, ‗Design Thinking‘ is advocated for all companies outside of design to aid their problemsolving - skills dyslexics predominately use in their everyday life. Chapter 4 (Artistic talents and dyslexia – a genuine connection?) – Three studies are detailed in this chapter to investigate dyslexia and creativity – two with measures and one interview-based. Samples included university students, comparing dyslexics to non-dyslexic controls, artbased to other subjects. In the first study (N=80) art students were compared to (N=74) economic students on word recognition (creating word chains), print exposure (how much they read and the media awareness) and a dyslexic trait measure (for diagnosis and to measure the severity of the condition). Dyslexics scored worse than controls when creating wordchains, but scored higher than controls on print exposure. The second study sought confirmation of the earlier results, using the same word recognition and dyslexic trait measures, comparing (N=194) art-based students to (N=202) students studying four other non-art courses (political science, economics, civil engineering and psychology). However, in the second study, they found no significant difference in word chains production. The author concluded in both studies, the instance of dyslexics was higher for art-based courses. The third study took a different route to investigating the topic. In-depth Interviews along with measurements of impossible visual figures and phonological skills were used with a (N-
  13. 13. Introduction xiii 40) dyslexic and (N=40) matched non-dyslexic control sample. The aim was to investigate creative skills and why participants felt they had higher creative talents, along with investigating if higher creative skills amongst dyslexics were due to genuine talent or as a compensatory device. Impossible visual figures have been identified by previous research as a visual-spatial skill dyslexics excel in; however this study did not confirm such findings. Results indicated that genuine creative skills were identified in the dyslexics before they had a chance to fail in reading and writing, thus rejecting the compensatory hypothesis. Chapter 5 (Dyslexic Visualization in Practice: strengths and forgotten frustrations) – This chapter follows a dyslexic PhD student through his art-based studies, making sense of his difficulties dealing with verbal literate teaching practices and dealing with a foreign language (Italian). He found many challenges and advantages with being dyslexic, along with recognising his strengths and limitations. The author challenges current learning practices and argues that there are strong reasons to value visual competences. As an image can speak a thousand words - the author suggests images can aid information retention without the need to read volumes of books. The concept of ‗Universal Access‘ is discussed, as used in designing computer and other systems for usability to a whole host of individuals. Where methods have limited value to some, but are of great value to others, such as multimedia technologies which are dismissed by some as adding little value, but are vital for the needs of disabled users. A number of electronic and web-based studies by the author are detailed. ‗Dyslexic Visual Literacy‘ (DVL) is suggested as a means to understand the dyslexic condition and their learning strengths, and ‗Dyslexic Prism‘ model is indicated to aid understanding of how dyslexics problem-solve. PERSONAL PERSPECTIVES Chapter 6 (A Dyslexic Artist and her Gallery Environment) – This chapter details the work of an established dyslexic artist, who specialises in photo-collage. The author details her creative journey, including childhood and other influences. She perceives her artistic creation coming from alternative neural wiring, allowing her to make creative jumps and divergent connections. Her large collage pieces reflect the chaos in her life, which are ever evolving images developing in her mind. Chapter 7 (Three Case Studies of Creative Dyslexics) –As the title suggests, three established but very different dyslexic artists were interviewed to investigate the source of their talents. Many crucial and contentious questions are posed which get to the heart of the theme of this book. Are dyslexics more creative, and why? What drives your creativity? Is creativity a form of therapy? Are creative skills a compensation for any literacy difficulty? Whilst creativity as a form of therapy was a clear theme in the interviews, what was unclear was whether art from dyslexics was different to that coming from non-dyslexics. It was interesting to note that these dyslexics relied upon randomness and playfulness in their work, rather than use of visualising skills (seeing the finished pieces in their minds eye). The process and creative path was perceived by the artists as being more important than the final pieces produced.
  14. 14. xiv Neil Alexander-Passe Chapter 8 (How a unique perception of the world enhances creativity) – The author of this chapter is an advocate of the positive and unique benefits that dyslexics can bring to the creative process. He uses examples of two well-known dyslexic artists (Picasso and Rauschenberg) to describe how their creative process was affected by their dyslexia. The author argues that Picasso used holistic techniques to create, and his invention of cubism was a perfect method to demonstrate holistic concepts of showing more than one perspective at a time - blending two differing views on one canvas. Rauschenberg is used to exemplify how dyslexic artists use lateral thinking, juxtaposing and sequential leaps of creativity. Rauschenberg has noted ‗probably the only reason I‘m a painter is because I couldn‘t read‘, and his work shows clear visual-spatial methods to combine rotation and collage. Chapter 9 (Dyslexia: its impact on my creative process) – This chapter talks about the positive attributes of being dyslexic, and how being creative can aid non-artistic professions. The ability to find creative and novel solutions is of value to science, business and marketing, as the ability to think ‗outside the box‘ is admired and sought-after. The ability to visualise alternative perspectives (as in cubism) is deemed to be of value to problem-solving processes. A ‗creative process elements‘ model is presented to aid the readers understanding. Chapter 10 (Dyslexia, Visual Thinking and Lucid Dreaming – An Artist‘s Experience) – The personal insights and experiences of a dyslexic artist are included in this chapter, to allow the reader to experience divergent thinking and the power of multiple influences from everyday life. The author details how dyslexics use unconscious thought processes to solve problems, and only being aware of the problem again when the solution has been found – as it rises to the conscious. It is suggested that to solve certain types of problems, logic should be put on hold and time should be allowed for the unconscious mind to do its magic – finding the solution. Chapter 11 (Approaching dyslexia sideways – is it a blessing or a curse?) – As a dyslexia/special needs and art lecturer in a prestigious art college in London. This chapter details her path of ‗learning by experience‘ to support dyslexic students. It was this path that made her rethink her approach to supporting art students with reading difficulties, devising new strategies which worked with not against their learning style. Counselling also came into her role to first deal with student‘s anger from constant failure in mainstream education, and focusing their energies into writing the written aspect (contextualised studies) of their university degrees. She found what worked for one, would not work with all, thus individualised strategies were needed. What was also clear was that identification of disabilities at university has changed, and students are now more willing to recognise their difficulties and see that something can be done to improve their difficulties. This is in addition to more lecturers developing the ability to recognise difficulties and make referrals to special educational units. The author is a strong advocate of dyslexics being highly creative, but does not conclude that all dyslexics are creative, or that you must be dyslexic to be creative. Chapter 12 (How do practicing creative artist, who are dyslexic, approach thinking and learning in the process of their work?) – This chapter investigates why many dyslexics choose art-based careers. It is argued to be due to such courses having higher contact teaching and less reliance of written course work and reading text books. Such courses typically value multiple problem solving skills and do not believe in single yes/no, right/wrong answers. However to gain access to such careers and courses, students must progress through
  15. 15. Introduction xv convergent lateral thinking to gain basic qualifications in mainstream educational establishments. These are areas dyslexic students struggle in and thus they experience disadvantage. Four case studies illustrate the cognitive approaches that dyslexics use in careers as visual artists. Each are different types of artists, who rely on different visualising skills, however a pattern emerged in analysis that ‗practice-reflection-practice-reflection‘ is constantly used to build reflective relationships and formulate creative pieces. ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES Chapter 13 (The Science of Creativity: Neuroasthetics) – This chapter investigates creativity. What it is, how it is created, and whether dyslexics have an advantageous edge in producing creative works. Research to date has highlighted that dyslexics have cerebral imbalance, with higher right than left hemisphere abilities. It is argued that such an imbalance allows a greater ability to deal with ambiguity, and such ability is valuable when dealing with the constant bombardment of data in our information heavy society. The ability to see, process, and code information efficiently is important. How we code and therefore store information is important, as it is through efficient and logical filing that information can be successfully retrieved. Research suggests that due to the dyslexic‘s neural imbalance, they store information in abnormal ways (the alternative wiring hypothesis). This makes them unique in their ability to find alternative combinations, but puts them at a distinct disadvantage in mainstream schools and society that relies and values sequential logical information retrieval. The author suggests ‗creative side-effects of frontal lobe inhibition‘ as reasoning why many dyslexics and those suffering frontal temporal brain damage, are highly creative. Chapter 14 (So Near the Discovery: On not falling back into old and preconceived notions) – The last chapter of this book looks at dyslexia and creativity from historical and current examples of dyslexics who have excelled in science and technology. It is argued that challenging contemporary knowledge is important and vital to make the huge leaps that science needs to provide us with the solutions needed for future generations e.g. making microchips smaller. The author is an advocate of dyslexics having the skills and abilities for the next generation of technological developments, thus industry should recognize, as creative fields do, the abilities of dyslexics and seek them out. What is clear from the examples given is the ability to visualise solutions before putting pen to paper. Having the ability to see how electrical current will use a circuit board even before putting silicon to moulds, will save huge amounts of time and money, along with bringing products to market much faster than competitors. It is also argued that dyslexics are much more suited to university level and in fact post-doctorate research than that of mainstream education, which can have implications for the ability of dyslexics to survive school and reach university. This requires both educationalists and dyslexics to recognise alternative routes in to learning.
  16. 16. xvi Neil Alexander-Passe CONCLUSION Of the thirteen chapters in this book, from a range of academic and non-academic authors, it is clear that correlations between dyslexia and creativity are inconclusive from academic perspectives, but conclusive from personal and professional accounts. But what is clear is the dyslexic‘s ability to deal with ambiguity which aids the creative or divergent problem-solving process. Measures to date have not yet identified the core source of creativity in dyslexics; however few doubt it is there. Thus Pandora‘s box is still waiting to be opened. Bibliography Amabile, T. M., R. Conti, H. Coon, Lazenby, J., Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Review 39 (5): 1154–1184. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 76 (5). British Psychological Society (1999: reprint 2005) Dyslexia, Literacy and Psychological Assessment: Report by the Working Party of the Division of Educational and Child Psychology of the British psychological Society, BPS, Leicester. Franken, R. (2001). Human motivation (5th Ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Goodman, N. (1989). Just the Facts, Ma'am! P. 80. In Relativism: Interpretation and Confrontation. Ed. Michael Krausz. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press. Longmans (2010). Dictionary of Contemporary English. Retrieved 10th March 2010. http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/conventional. Princeton University (2003). WordNet 2.0. Retrieved 10th March 2010. http://www.wordreference.com/definition Taylor, C. W. (1988). Various approaches to and definitions of creativity [Electronic version, in ed. Sternberg, R.J.: The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives. Cambridge University Press. Weisberg, R.W. (1993). Creativity - Beyond the Myth of Genius, 2nd Edition. New York: W.H. Freeman. World Federation of Neurology (1968). Report of research group on developmental dyslexia and world illiteracy. Bulletin of the Orton Society, 18, 21-22.
  18. 18. In: Dyslexia and Creativity Investigations from Differing… ISBN: 978-1-61668-552-2 Author: Neil Alexander-Passe ©2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc. Chapter 1 CREATIVITY AND DYSLEXIA: AN INVESTIGATIVE STUDY OF DIVERGENT THINKING Neil Alexander-Passe Graphic designer, Researcher and Author of ‗Dyslexia and Depression: The Hidden Sorrow‘, London, UK. As a dyslexic who experienced difficulties in school, he found alternative routines to gain his first degree in Graphic Design (dyslexics are known to excel visually) and a master‘s research degree in educational philosophy (as a mature student). He began to research dyslexia and the emotional suffering in children, teenagers and adults so that he was better prepared than his own parents, for any dyslexic children. But since none of his are dyslexic, he is drawn between being relieved that they have not suffering as he did at school, and secondly being frustrated that he they do not share the experiences of suffering with a learning disorder (so are unlike him). It‘s crazy he realises, but he is not sure if he should be thanking god that they are spared the suffering and alienation that dyslexia brings or resenting their easy flight through school? In ‗Dyslexia and Depression: The Hidden Sorrow‘, he hopes dyslexia will be seen in a new light, with greater understanding of the secondary manifestations that can come from suffering and helplessness. The author feels that depression is a real and significant manifestation from dyslexia, and notes that whilst he was seeking volunteers for ‗Dyslexia and Depression‘, there was a great influx of dyslexics with depression, thus he questions whether most dyslexics are affected by depression, to some extent, as a reaction to their suffering in mainstream education.
  19. 19. 2 Neil Alexander-Passe ABSTRACT Many self-interest groups for dyslexics suggest that dyslexics are innately creative (especially visual-spatial). Much of this claim is made from biographical and small case studies, whilst empirical investigations with visual-spatial abilities have had mixed success. This study, therefore, took the view that, as there was little empirical research to back up such a claim, there was a need to try to find empirical support, beginning by investigating what creativity actually is and how it should be measured. Interestingly, visual-spatial awareness does not feature among mainstream creativity research, so was visual-spatial ever a viable creative skill for investigation to begin with? Empirical studies of supporting evidence suggest that divergent measures are an appropriate avenue for investigation with dyslexics. Three Guilford measures were chosen (Associational Fluency, Ideational Fluency and Alternative Uses) along with a dyslexia screening/severity measure. From an adult sample, N=46 self-reported dyslexics and N=42 controls took part. Results indicate that whilst individuals with high frequencies of dyslexic traits displayed less divergent skills than controls, with dyslexic females with the same high frequency of dyslexia traits outperformed control males. Thus, a hypothesis was suggested that whilst creativity cannot be ruled out amongst dyslexics, other factors, such as gender and personality, might have an influence. INTRODUCTION This paper poses the following question: ‗Are self-reported dyslexics creative‘? It is hypothesized that self-reported dyslexics show strong divergent abilities, compared to controls, and these skills vary according to the severity of the self-reported dyslexia condition. To answer these questions, the results are investigated by: 1) 2) 3) 4) 5) Gender Diagnosis Dyslexia traits Gender and self-reported dyslexia traits Empirical comparisons Dyslexia is a widespread condition, with an estimated frequency of one dyslexic child in each mainstream school classroom (Miles, 1994). Professor Berlin of Stuttgart (1872) coined the term ‗dyslexia‘, based on case histories of adults who could read only three to five words, but were of high intelligence. Use of the term has continued to this day, with dyslexia likened to conditions with neurological abnormalities. Initially, it was thought to be purely an acquired condition from accidental brain damage, until Kussmaul (1878) found developmental cases of word blindness. Orton (1937) first noted the main aspects of developmental dyslexia as pronounced reversals (b/d, p/q, on/no and was/saw), orientation difficulties/strong left-handedness and conflicting lateral preference, which forms the basis for many definitions (see Thomson, 1996; Miles, 1994). This study uses the definition from the World Federation of Neurology (1968), which defines dyslexia as ‗a disorder manifested
  20. 20. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 3 by difficulty in learning to read despite conventional instruction, adequate intelligence and socio-cultural opportunity‘. In the UK and many countries in Europe, terms such as ‗Dyslexia‘ or ‗Specific Learning Disabilities (SpLD)‘ are used, whilst worldwide and especially in the US, ‗Learning Disabled (LD)‘ and ‗Reading Difficulties (RD)‘ are commonly used terms. ‗Dyslexia‘ and ‗SpLD‘ are more specifically concerned with difficulties that affect most situations (not just reading, e.g., co-ordination and balance) with neurological and phonological epidemiology. Reviews on dyslexia can be found in Thomson (1995) and Miles (1994). Dyslexia, on the whole, is a negative disorder that affects many life skills (reading, writing, arithmetic) as well as balance and co-ordination, with Miles (1994, p. 189) suggesting that dyslexics show ‗an unusual balance of skills‘. Individuals with dyslexia can be affected emotionally by being unable to learn as per their peers, commonly resulting in low self-image, low self-concept and even depression (Alexander-Passe 2004a, b, 2006, 2008a, b, 2009a, b, c, in press-1, 2, 3; Riddick, 1996; Edwards, 1994; Ryan, 1994). For more than a decade, a search has been carried out to identify positive attributes of this disorder; these investigations began with biographical and neurological studies. West (1991) located famous and influential individuals who had school learning difficulties yet had found alternative ways of learning and succeeding in life (e.g., Albert Einstein, Leonardo da Vinci), making correlations between these factors and dyslexia, and creativity. Thus, public perception of creativity among dyslexics has grown (e.g., 712,000 hits on Google). Since West, the use of famous names (e.g., Richard Branson, Tom Cruise, Richard Rogers etc.) has become widespread (Being Dyslexic 2006; Roehampton University, 2006; British Dyslexia Association, 2007; British Broadcasting Corporation, 2006; International Dyslexia Association, 2006; General Communication Headquarters, 2006, McLoughlin, Fitzgibbon and Young, 1994) to illustrate the career heights that dyslexics can reach. However, this could be misleading and could give false hopes to parents, as a high proportion of dyslexics leave full-time education with few or no qualifications (Grant, 2001) Neurological investigations started by Geschwind and Galaburda (1985) noting clinical and post-mortem studies indicated atypical symmetrical brains, suggesting dyslexics have larger right (visual processing) brains; however, this conclusion was based on a very small sample of brains. Galaburda (1989) also suggests an ‗alternative wiring hypothesis‘ that some abilities may be strengthened at the expense of others in the re-organisation in the brains of dyslexics. The classic measurement of dyslexia uses the WISC-R (Wechsler, 1974) measures, and the ACID profile (Thomson, 1996) indicates dyslexics show superior performance than verbal skills, in WISC-R subscales. Thus, investigations have since been made into the possibility of superior visual-spatial abilities among dyslexics, with many correlating such skills to creativity (Padgett and Steffert, 1999; Wolff and Lundberg, 2002). To date, empirical studies investigating visual-spatial abilities have had limited success and will be discussed in greater depth later in this paper. It is due to the mixed success of these investigations that this study aims to take an alternative avenue to investigate whether dyslexics are creative starting with an empirical review of what creativity is and of the journey so far. Creativity (or creativeness) is defined as a mental process involving the generation of new ideas, associations and concepts, from existing ones. The popular perception is the act of making something new. However, ‗new‘ can be seen from two aspects: new in the eyes of the
  21. 21. 4 Neil Alexander-Passe person creating it or new in the eyes of existing knowledge (Feldman, 1999; Feldman, Czikszentmihalyi and Gardner, 1994; Sternberg and Lubart, 1999). Initially, it seems a simple phenomenon, but it is in fact quite complex and subjective. To date, it has been investigated from several perspectives, ranging from behavioral psychology, social psychology, and artificial intelligence, to philosophy, history, business and management. Unlike many phenomena in science, there is no single, authoritative perspective or definition of creativity and, unlike phenomena in psychology, there is no standardized measurement technique. Taylor (1988) suggests there are more than 60 definitions of creativity, with the most widespread being the concept of creativity as manifested by the production of work that is both novel and useful. Many people associate creativity with art and literature, where originality alone is deemed sufficient for the production to be called creative, compared to other fields where both originality and appropriateness are required (Amabile, 1998). As there is no single authoritative definition of creativity, there is no single standardized means to measure it, as most measures are dependent on the personal judgement of the tester. Psychometric measures have been published and these have investigated creativity in clinical trials. Research by Guilford (1950, 1967) and Torrance (1974) has focused on four types of divergent products, namely, fluency, flexibility, originality and elaboration, as these products investigate the differences between divergent (many solutions to a problem) and convergent (a single solution to a problem, normally current knowledge) idea production. Similar measures have been created and are still in use today (Ferrando et al, 2007; Mouchiroud and Lubart, 2001; Khasky and Smith, 1999), but follow the same divergent/convergent theory. Other approaches, e.g., the social-personality approach (Sternberg, 1999; McCrae, 1987; Dacey and Lennon, 2000; Eisenman, 1997), investigate personality traits in individuals who are perceived to be creative, e.g., independence of judgement, self-confidence, risk-taking and openness to experience. Whilst creativity can be artistic in its productions, it can be found in everyday non-visual life and thus this paper is interested in everyday non-visual creative production in areas such as literature, science and business. There have been a number of studies, in addition to those mentioned earlier, that could be deemed to provide supporting evidence in the study of creativity (visual-spatial) and dyslexia. Investigation into the personality of successful dyslexics (Thomson, 1996; Wszeborowska-Lipinska, 1997; Scott, Scherman and Philips, 1992) suggest the following traits: Often under-achievers; Failing to attain their potential; Sometimes suffering a lifetime of frustration; High self-confidence; High self-esteem; Encouragement of their talents and hobbies by parents; Search for self worth; Persistence; and Stubbornness. These traits are similar to those found in creative individuals (as mentioned earlier, Sternberg etc.). They are also unlike the traits found in the majority of dyslexics (Alexander-Passe, 2006, 2008a, 2009a, 2010; Broatach, 2003). In a study of school-aged dyslexics, Grant (2001) focused on the four-stage Wallas (1926) model of creativity (preparation, incubation, illumination and verification), especially the preparation/persistence stages. He states, ‗I have been struck by the number of times they [dyslexics] have told me that they have to work harder than others at school and university in order to achieve the same mark as their peers‘. He also notes that dyslexics have a persistent work habit that is particularly beneficial in creative endeavors; he correlates this with the creativity studies by Radford (1990) and Ochse (1990). Gerber, Ginsberg and Reiff (1992), in
  22. 22. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 5 a study of successful adults with learning disabilities (an American term to cover a number of difficulties including dyslexia), noted that divergent problem-solving methods were commonly used; divergent measures have also been used successfully with dyslexics (Everatt, Steffart and Smythe 1999). Grant‘s study of (2001) school-aged dyslexics, which investigated pre-university examination results, noted the frequency of student‘s examination passes in: Art 30%, Science and Maths (20%), then English Language and English Literature (15%). These can be compared to the subjects in which they scored worst: French, German, Spanish and Latin came out as most frequently being the worst (40%), followed by Maths and English Language (20%). It was concluded that dyslexics choose subjects they can do well in, over those where they may struggle due to high reader and writing requirements. Similarly, dyslexics are known to choose art/design university courses. Studies at art colleges (Padgett and Steffert, 1999; Wolff and Lundberg, 2002) found a high percentage of dyslexic students (West 1991). Researchers also have noted a disproportionate number of dyslexics develop artistic careers (Padgett and Steffert, 1999; Wolff and Lundberg, 2002; Winner and Casey, 1993; West, 1991), mathematical careers (Bloom, 1985) and careers as inventors (Colangelo, Assouline, Kerr, Huesman, and Johnson 1993; West, 1991). A more likely answer could lie in how dyslexics cope with school subjects that rely on words and numbers. The human reaction to danger, such as fire, is to pull away; this could be true of other types of danger. Studies (Alexander-Passe, 2004, 2006, 2008a, 2009a, 2010; Riddick, 1996) suggest school-aged dyslexics, when faced with a choice of study subjects, will choose ones with fewer essays and writing in general - such avoidance is an essential part of the coping strategies found amongst dyslexics. Thus, it is no wonder that, firstly, many dyslexics choose visual and non-written subjects such as art/design and, secondly, they do well in subjects that do not rely on reading and writing skills (Alexander-Passe, 2004a, b, 2009a, in press-1, 2, 3; Gardner, 2001), skills they innately have difficulties with. However, Wolff and Lindberg (2002) argue that as places on art/design degree courses are difficult to gain, the disproportionate numbers of dyslexics taking these causes is due to talent rather than compensatory strategies. Neurological studies of creative individuals (Flaherty, 2005) suggest that abnormalities in an individual‘s temporal lobes often increase creativity. Regarding dyslexics, Galaburda, LoTurco, Ramus, Fitch and Rosen (2006) and Jenner, Rosen and Galaburda (1999) among others have noted damage to these areas of the brain; this supports Galaburda‘s (1985) theory that ‗alternative wiring‘ could heighten skills such as creativity. Everatt, Steffert, and Smythe (1999, p.30) note that, despite differing viewpoints, many of the tools used to assess creativity (visual-spatial skills) fall into three general categories: (1) those requiring the subject to respond in novel/innovative ways, (2) those involving selfreport inventories, and (3) tasks assessing the ability to find insightful solutions to complex problems (Kirton, 1994). Whilst this simplistic model ignores artistic production, it is a useful basis by which to judge recent major studies in dyslexia and visual-spatial (creative) skills. As visual-spatial and creative skills are perceived by many to be similar concepts, as noted earlier, one must ask whether visual-spatial ability is noted in creative research. Empirical reviews of creativity (Eysenck, 1996; Feldman, Czikszentmihalyi, and Gardner, 1994, Sternberg, 1999; Guilford, 1950) omitted visual-spatial ability as a creative skill; thus, it is interesting to consider why visual-spatial skills were ever correlated with creativity in dyslexics.
  23. 23. 6 Neil Alexander-Passe Three of the largest and most extensive studies to date, researching a possible correlation between dyslexia and creativity will now be reviewed, that is, Winner, von Karolyi and Malinsky (2000), Von Karolyi, Winner, Gray and Sherman (2003) and Everatt et al. (1999). Winner et al.‘s (2000) study of N=21 young adults with dyslexia compared to N=39 controls used a number of standardised creativity and visual-spatial tests with normal time limits. The dyslexics failed to excel in any of the tasks, and performed significantly worse than controls. They then studied N=15 high school students with dyslexia, compared to N=22 controls with a similar battery of tests, many with no time limits. Overall, the dyslexics performed worse than controls on half the tests and equivalently to the controls on the other half of the tests. Of all the tests, only the ‗impossible figures‘ (global visual-spatial) measure was found to show dyslexics excelling in visual spatial tasks; however, no comparison was made to norm data; thus, it is impossible to assess if the dyslexics scored superior to norms. Von Karolyi et al. (2003), continuing Winner et al.‘s (2000) investigations, suggested the reason for their inability to find superior visual-spatial skills was due to the choice of tests administered. So tests of possible and impossible black and white line drawings were used, with dyslexic (N=29) and control (N=35) high school students. Overall, the results indicated ‗individuals with dyslexia have superior global visual-spatial processing ability….based on their recognizing impossible figures more rapidly, but no less accurately than those without dyslexia‘. As per Winner et al. (2000), as no comparison was made to the norm data, it is impossible to assess whether the dyslexics‘ scores were superior to the norm data. Everatt et al.‘s (1999) study of creative thinking used both visual-spatial and divergent tests, in three studies. Study 1, with N=18 dyslexic and N=18 control college students, used a number of measures. The dyslexics performed equivalently to the controls on only half the tests, and scored higher on ‗alternative uses‘ and ‗picture production‘ measures. It should be noted that the ‗alternative uses‘ test was given orally, against manual instructions, and thus could be open to interviewer bias and prompting. Study 2, with N=14 arts-based dyslexic students and N=20 arts-based control students, used a second batch of measures. Overall, results indicated the dyslexics had higher overall ‗Kirton Adaptation-Innovation Inventory‘ scores, but weaker scores on the other measures, compared to the controls. Everatt et al. concluded that the dyslexics showed evidence ‗indicating themselves to be more innovative‘ than controls. Study 3, with N=16 dyslexic and N=23 controls attending colleges/universities, used a number of visual measures. The dyslexics were superior to the controls only on the ‗Insight Problem Test‘ and performed worse than controls on other measures. Study 4, with, firstly, N=17 dyslexic and N=16 control primary school pupils and, secondly, with N=20 dyslexic and N=25 control secondary school pupils, used a battery of measures. Results indicated little difference between dyslexics and controls in Study 2; thus, Everatt et al. concluded that any superior creativity in adults must come from post-school experiences or knowledge gained. Overall, the three studies did not find superior visual-spatial ability, but superior abilities in the divergent (alternative uses), innovative and picture production measures among the dyslexic sample; however, like the other two studies, no norm data were used and so it is impossible to assess any superiority of the dyslexic sample. Further reading suggests that the alternative uses and picture production tasks were experimental in nature. Studies by Winner et al. (2000), Von Karolyi et al. (2003) and Everatt et al. (1999) indicate a huge number of tests have been used to search for the holy grail of ‗positive abilities to dyslexia‘; unfortunately, these found only one visual-spatial task at which
  24. 24. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 7 dyslexics excelled (impossible tasks). The majority of the other successful tasks, from Everatt et al.‘s (1999) study are cognitive ‗divergent‘ or ‗innovative‘ in nature. Thus, non-visual divergent tests might be suitable avenues of investigation for this study of whether selfdiagnosed dyslexics are creative. There are a number of non-visual divergent tests from the Guilford School of thought (Guilford and Guilford, 1980); these include: 1) Word Fluency (WF) – the ability to produce rapidly a list of words; each satisfies the specific requirement that it contains a number of letters, e.g., write words containing the letter ‗O‘. 2) Ideational Fluency (IF) – the ability to evolve a large number of ideas in situations that present meaningful requirements, e.g., name fluids that ‗burn‘. 3) Associational Fluency (AF) – the ability to produce rapidly words that bear some specified, meaningful relation to a given word, e.g., write a number of synonyms for ‗hard‘. 4) Expressional fluency (EF) – the ability to produce rapidly words in connected discourses, e.g., write a different four word sentence, filling in the gaps ‗K u y i .‘ 5) Alternative uses (AU) – the ability to find rapidly divergent uses for an object, e.g., name some alternative uses for a pencil? All the above tests are judged firstly on quantity and secondly on acceptability (quality), with set time limits. The above measures have been standardised and their manuals gives clear guidelines regarding how the tests should be scored and assessed. Reviewing the range of divergent tests, e.g., taking into account possible literacy writing difficulties, IF, AF and AU look the most promising in indicating a number of skills that could be creative in nature to both dyslexics and controls. Unlike in Everatt et al. (1999), all tests must be given as per test guidelines, which would firstly allow comparison to norm controls and secondly guide participants regarding the number of responses expected. THE STUDY As noted in the aims earlier, this study will investigate the creative abilities of selfreported dyslexics, as compared to controls, using a range of standardised divergent tests and self-diagnostic dyslexia screening measures to investigate varying creative abilities among the spectrum of severity of self-reported dyslexia. This study will use three divergent measures (Guilford and Guilford, 1980; Guilford, Kettner and Christensen 1978): Associational Fluency-A (AF), Ideational Fluency-B (IF) and Alternative uses-C (AU). And one self-reporting screening measure of dyslexic traits (Vinegrad, 1994), A 20 yes/no items questionnaire correlated with dyslexia
  25. 25. 8 Neil Alexander-Passe Methodology A sample of N=88 adults was recruited via newsletters from two UK adult dyslexia charities, comprising N=46 adult self-reported dyslexics and N=42 adult controls. The gender split included N=21 males and N=25 females for the self-reported dyslexics and N=17 males and N=25 females for the controls. The mean age for the self-reported dyslexics was 35.64yrs (SD 11.543) and 43.41yrs (SD 8.180) for the controls. This study did not diagnose dyslexia, but relied on the subjects to indicate their own diagnosis; thus, a screening measure was introduced, firstly, to confirm diagnosis and, secondly, to screen for possible dyslexics in the control sample. All volunteers were used; thus, no exclusions were made to the possible sample. Participants completed both a general questionnaire (e.g., details such as age, gender etc.) along with the Vinegrad (1994) self-reporting dyslexia screening measure in a first mailing. Once this was received, a second mailing was dispatched with the creativity measures and instructions for another individual to time the volunteer‘s measure taking. Guidelines were given regarding types of locations conducive to test taking, and regarding how to give the tests (e.g., time keeping and avoiding helping or giving guidance). Helper information was required along with contact details from which a select number of spot checks were made. Once the data were returned using pre-paid postage envelopes, the responses were coded (to maintain confidentiality) and then inputted into Excel spreadsheets for data analysis using Excel and SPSS. All measures were scored as per the manual and the only allowance given to both groups was on spelling - if the words were spelt phonetically, they were accepted. Measures The Associational Fluency-A (AF) and Ideational Fluency-B (IF) measures have been tested on various samples, from naval air cadets/officer candidates, 9th grade boys and girls, and high IQ 9th graders, to Honour students and college students. The measures have several forms, but each has reliability statistics (Spearman-Brown) in the .56 to .72 for Associational Fluency and .68 to .77 for Ideational Fluency. C-Scores are also given for each measure. Associational fluency is the ability to produce rapidly words that bear some specified, meaningful relation to a given word. In the Structure of Intellect (SI) model (Guilford, 1967); this factor is called the divergent production of semantic relations or DMR. There is evidence for this ability (Frunter, 1948; Guilford, Kettner and Christensen, 1956; Guilford and Hoefner, 1971). Form B was used in this study. Ideational fluency is the ability to evolve a large number of ideas in situations that present meaningful requirements. The quantity of ideas produced is most important; the quality (e.g., cleverness, originality) is unimportant. In the SI model (Guilford, 1967) the ability is called the divergent production of semantic units or DMU. Evidence of this ability has been widely studied (Guilford and Christensen 1956; Taylor, 1947; Rogers 1953, Guilford and Hoefner, 1971). A detailed scoring manual is given for each measure; see Guilford and Guilford (1980). The Alternative uses-C (AU) measure has been administered to a range of samples from 5th, 6th, 7th and 9th grade students to adults and university students. This measure has three
  26. 26. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 9 forms (6, 9 and 12 items); reliability statistics (Spearman-Brown) suggest correlations in the .53 to .63 range. C-Scores are also given for each measure. Form C was used for this study. This is the second edition of this measure, the first being entitled ‗Unusual Uses‘ (Wilsen, Guilford, Christensen and Lewis, 1954). This measure uses everyday items and requires individuals to name uncommon uses of them. In the SI model (Guilford, 1967); this measure of spontaneous flexibility belongs to the divergent production of semantic classes or DMC. Evidence of such ability comes from numerous sources (McGuire, Hindsman, King and Jennings, 1961; Antasi and Schaefer, 1971; Atkins and Lyerly, 1951). A detailed scoring manual is given for this measure (see Guilford, Christensen, Merrifeld, and Wilson 1978). Glover, Ronning and Reynolds (1989) suggest taking into consideration the following: 1) Divergent tests define an ability correlated with but not identical to that defined by convergent measures. (Magnusson and Backteman, 1977, found creativity tests were highly correlated and thus seen as stable according to Eysenck, 1996). 2) Correlations can be obtained only when IQ, as measured by convergent measures, is (roughly) below 120; above that limit there is little correlation (also found by Guilford and Christensen, 1975; Schubert, 1973). 3) Different types of divergent measures define an ability that may provisionally be labeled ‗creativity‘, ‗originality‘, or ‗imagination‘, although it is clearly realized that such identification demands proof, so we cannot take validity for granted. Barron (1963) tested eight types of creativity-originality tests on 100 captains in the US air force. Results from studies suggest that divergent tests have a certain degree of both validity and reliability (Michael & Wright, 1989). Vinegrad‘s (1994) self-reporting Dyslexia screening measure is used extensively to screen for dyslexia (BDA, 2007; Dyslexia Action, 2007; Leeds and Bradford Dyslexia Association, 2007). From 20 items, N=679 norm values resulted in mean scores of 12.140 (4.096 SD) for dyslexics and 5.824 (4.637 SD) for non-dyslexics, a 6.316 mean difference with a P value of <.0001. Items include questions about completing forms, forgetting messages, and co-ordination problems etc., all of which are classic traits of dyslexia (Thomson, 1996; Miles, 1994; Morgan and Klein, 2001). The 20 items are indicated in Figure 1. The four measures were chosen as suitable for dyslexic samples for the following reasons: 1) The screening measure (Vinegrad, 1994) has been correlated as a valid screening method for dyslexics and is extensively used by established dyslexia organisations as a screening measure (as noted earlier). Thus, concerns about using a text-based measure for screening dyslexia can be reduced, as its extensive use must confirm its suitability and accessibility for the vast majority of adult dyslexics. 2) Divergent measures from the Guilford school (e.g., Alternative Uses) have been used successfully on dyslexic samples before (Everatt et al., 1999). However, as Everatt‘s results were below norm levels, due to the test being used orally, which omitted visual clues to how many answers were requested, it was decided to investigate if allowing for phonetic spelling in its original written form (with visual clues) would be advantageous for this type of population.
  27. 27. 10 Neil Alexander-Passe 3) Whilst there are few positive creativity empirical studies, those that have been carried out have suggested that dyslexics (and those with similar conditions) use divergent problem-solving skills (Gerber et al., 1992; Everatt et al., 1999). 4) A Guilford (1967) notes that since creativity is a ‗multivariate affair‘; no single test can be relied upon for the study of creativity, and so a battery of tests were chosen. 5) The measures chosen did not rely on known difficulties (e.g., sequencing), but on making divergent correlations between concepts (e.g., alternative uses for a pencil). West (1991) and Galaburda (1989) suggest that dyslexics have an ‗alternative neural wiring‘, which would allow greater divergent combinations. 6) The empirical review concerning dyslexics being superior in visual/visual-spatial tasks was inconclusive; thus, it was decided to use non-visual measures to investigate whether dyslexics are superior in word-based creativity. Allowances were made to accept words spelt phonetically and to not discount poorly spelt words. 7) Dyslexics are known to excel in both visual and non-visual creative and non-creative professions (West 1991); thus, non-visual skills cannot be excluded from an investigation into the abilities of diagnosed dyslexics. Yes 1. Do you find difficulty telling left from right? 2. Is map reading or finding your way to a strange place confusing? 3. Do you dislike reading aloud? 4. Do you take longer than you should to read a page of a book? 5. Do you find it difficult to remember the sense of what you have read? 6. Do you dislike reading long books? 7. Is your spelling poor? 8. Is your writing difficult to read? 9. Do you get confused if you have to speak in public? 10. Do you find it difficult to take messages on the telephone and pass them on correctly? 11. When you say a long word, do you sometimes find it difficult to get all the sounds in the right order? 12. Do you find it difficult to do sums in your head without using your fingers or paper? 13. When using the telephone, do you tend to get the numbers mixed up when you dial? 14. Do you find it difficult to say the months of the year forwards in a fluent manner? 15. Do you find it difficult to say the months of the year backwards? 16. Do you mix up dates and times and miss appointments? 17. When writing cheques do you frequently find yourself making mistakes? 18. Do you find forms difficult and confusing? 19. Do you mix up bus numbers like 95 and 59? 20. Did you find it hard to learn your multiplication tables at school? Figure 1. Self-reporting dyslexia screening measure (Vinegrad‘s 1994). No
  28. 28. 11 Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study Results Table 1 indicates the results of Spearman‘s rho analysis to confirm correlation coefficients between the three divergent measures; these indicate a .563 to .627 correlation with a high significance of 0.01. Thus, the three divergent measures are all measuring similar attributes/abilities, but in slightly different ways. Table 1. Correlations Coefficient between the three divergent measures, using Spearman’s rho, as found in this study. Measures Ideational Fluency-A Ideational Fluency-A Associational Fluency-B Alternative Uses- C 1.000 .597(**) .563(**) Associational Fluency-B .597(**) 1.000 .627(**) Alternative Uses- C .563(**) .627(**) 1.000 ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed). 2 tailed. N=89 The results of this study (see Histogram 1 and Table 5) indicate significant differences between males and females, with females scoring higher; the largest differences were in Ideational Fluency, followed by Associational Fluency and lastly Alternative Uses. Gordon (1972), Olive (1972), Butler (1965) among others noted higher female scores in the Ideational Fluency and Associational Fluency measures. However, Anderson (1968) found no gender differences with the Associational Fluency among 180 8th grade students (yr 9 in the UK, 12-year old children). There are no gender norm data to allow comparisons with the Alternative Uses measure. Therefore, the results are to be expected and would suggest this sample is statistically normal. 70 Ideational-A 60 Association-B Uses-C 50 40 30 20 10 0 FEMALE Histogram 1. Gender data ((N=groups & Y=Scores). MALE
  29. 29. 12 Neil Alexander-Passe 80 Ideational-A 70 Association-B Uses-C 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 CONTROL DYSLEXIC PROBABLE Histogram 2. Control, Dyslexic and Probable Dyslexic data (N=groups & Y=Scores). Initial comparison of trait data suggested that there was not as high a mean difference as expected by the author between self-diagnosed dyslexics and the controls (see Table 2), and in the three divergent measures (see Table 5). Thus, it was decided to use the Vinegrad screening data to screen for a sub-group of probable non-dyslexics amongst the controls scoring 9+ traits. Results shown in Table 3 indicate a wider difference (to the control group) in mean trait scores and a much larger differential in the three divergent measure scores (see Table 5 and Histogram 2) with this filtered probable dyslexic sub-group. A gender split of the three trait groups (self-claimed dyslexics, probable dyslexics and controls) is shown in Table 4 indicating little difference in gender trait mean scores, which suggests insignificant differences in traits experienced by both genders Table 2. Dyslexic traits for self-claimed dyslexics and controls. Samples Non-dyslexics Self-claimed dyslexics N 42 46 Mean 7.04 11.98 Std. Deviation 4.943 4.170 Table 3. Dyslexic traits for self-claimed dyslexics, possible dyslexics and controls. Samples Non-dyslexics (9+ traits) Probable dyslexics (0-8 traits) Self-claimed dyslexics N 16 26 46 Mean 12.73 3.75 12.09 Std. Deviation 2.154 2.405 4.191 The differences are significant in the divergent measures between the dyslexic and probable dyslexic groups, and the controls and indicate that self-claimed diagnosed dyslexics and probable dyslexics do far worse in the three divergent tasks than pure controls. Histogram 3 indicates that breaking down the results by a second variable (gender) reveals significant differences (see Table 5) The data suggest slight differences between ‗probable‘ and ‗diagnosed‘ dyslexics in trait scores. Gender data with the three groups (see Table 5 and Histogram 3) suggest initial gender differentials in the three divergent measures, especially with non-dyslexics being superior in Ideational and Associational Fluency, as compared to
  30. 30. 13 Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study the two dyslexic groups. Overall, these initial results indicate it is unlikely that self-claimed and probable dyslexics have superior divergent (creative) skills compared to controls. Table 4. Dyslexic traits for self-claimed dyslexics, possible dyslexics and controls, with gender splits. Samples Non-dyslexics (0-8 traits) Non-dyslexics (0-8 traits) Probable dyslexics (9+ traits) Probable dyslexics (9+ traits) Self-claimed dyslexics Self-claimed dyslexics Gender Female Male Female Males Female Male N 19 7 6 10 25 21 Mean 3.50 3.20 12.50 12.10 12.25 11.89 Std. Deviation 2.088 2.775 1.871 3.247 3.915 4.618 80 Ideational-A 70 Association-B 60 Uses-C 50 40 30 20 10 0 FemaleControl FemaleDyslexic FemaleProbable Male-Control MaleDyslexic MaleProbable Histogram 3. Control, Dyslexic and Probable with gender data (N=groups & Y=Scores) Looking again at the differences between the probable and the self-claimed dyslexics, differences in scores may be explained by unidentified dyslexics having a lower academic self-image than have dyslexics who are aware they are not just ‗stupid‘ or ‗lazy‘. The whole sample was then split into four trait groups to try to understand the processes and issues involved. From the N=88 sample, four groups were formed according to the number of dyslexia traits scored: 1-4 traits (N=18, 20.5%), 5-9 traits (N=26, 29.5%), 10-14 traits (N=29, 32.9%) and 15-19 traits (N=18, 20.5%). Histogram 4 and Table 5 look at the total scores by dyslexia traits; results suggest that those with fewer traits, especially the ‗1-4‘ group scored highest on all three divergent measures. Interestingly, the ‗5-9‘ and ‘10-14‘ trait groups scored comparably in the
  31. 31. 14 Neil Alexander-Passe Table 5. Table indicating how this sample compares to others. Ideational Fluency-A 51.9 (11.1) 55.6 (12.8) 49.1 (13.7) 56.2 (12.3) Associationa Fluency-B Alternative Uses-C 26.0 (6.2) 19.0 (4.7) 19.1 (4.8) 15.21 (4.2) Measure/Sample Naval Officers (1) High IQ 9th grade (1) 9th grade Boys (1) 9th grade girls (1) College honor student (1) Entering college students (1) College students (2) N= 219 206 229 228 200 951 42 Dyslexic college students (3) Control college students (3) 18 18 Females Males 51 37 66.2 (24.4) 47.7 (19.3) 25.7 (10.9) 18.9 (8.21) 19.6 (6.3) 15.8 (6.1) Self-claimed dyslexics Non-dyslexics 46 42 56.0 (24.1) 61.7 (24.1) 21.42 (10.2) 24.26 (11.0) 17.78 (18.1) 18.4 (6.9) Self-claimed dyslexics Non-dyslexics (0-8 traits) Probable dyslexics (9+ traits) 46 26 16 55.3 (24.5) 71.1 (22.4) 51.8 (22.2) 21.4 (10.0) 28 (9.4) 20.3 (11.2) 17.7 (6.0) 21.3 (5.8) 15.4 (6.9) Non-dyslexics (0-8 traits)-FEMALE Non-dyslexics (0-8 traits)-MALE Probable dyslexics (9+ traits)-FEMALE Probable dyslexics (9+ traits)-MALE Self-claimed dyslexics-FEMALE Self-claimed dyslexics-MALE 19 7 6 10 25 21 71.3 (22.4) 63.5 (19.1) 63.0 (27.5) 43.7 (18.9) 64.3 (25.9) 44.5 (18.0) 27.6 (9.9) 21.8 (8.7) 24.5 (16.4) 18.3 (9.5) 24.1 (10.7) 18.2 (8.4) 20.3 (6.0) 21.0 (7.3) 15.3 (8.3) 15.3 (7.2) 20.1 (5.9) 14.8 (4.7) 1-4 Traits 5-9 Traits 10-14 Traits 15-19 traits 18 26 29 18 69.1 (19.4) 59.1 (26.1) 59.6 (25.5) 48.4 (23.4) 28.5 (9.6) 19.8 (9.5) 23.7 (11.0) 19.9 (11.1) 21.0 (6.1) 18.2 (5.9) 18.1 (6.1) 15.0 (7.6) 1-4 Traits-FEMALE 1-4 Traits-MALE 5-9 Traits-FEMALE 5-9 Traits-MALE 10-14 Traits-FEMALE 10-14 Traits-MALE 15-19 traits-FEMALE 15-19 traits-MALE Standard Deviations in brackets. 11 7 13 10 18 11 9 9 72.6 (19.5) 62.5 (19.1) 70.9 (23.4) 41.1 (21) 67.1 (26.0) 47.4 (10.4) 57.3 (27.8) 39.6 (15.1) 31.9 (9.1) 22.2 (7.6) 22.38 (10.0) 16.1 (7.9) 27.2 (10.5) 18 (9.9) 21.4 (8.5) 18.4 (8.5) 20.5 (6.0) 22 (6.7) 20.2 (6.7) 15.4 (3.0) 19.8 (5.7) 15.2 (5.7) 18.4 (8.6) 11.6 (5.1) 10.83 (4.25) 8.33 (3.01)
  32. 32. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 15 (1) Guilford and Guilford, 1980 (2) Murray and Russ, 1981 (3) Everatt et al, 1999 ‗Ideational Fluency-A‘, and the ‗Alternative Uses-C‘ measures, and the ‘10-14‘ trait group scored higher in ‗Associational Fluency-B‘ than did those with ‗5-9‘ traits. This would suggest it is not quite clear-cut that all dyslexics are poorer at divergent tasks. It may be the case that moderate dyslexics with ‗10-14‘ traits are divergent superior. Overall, it could be concluded that the higher the frequency of dyslexic traits exhibited, the lower the divergent score will be in these measures. However, it is unclear whether literacy deficiencies commonly found in dyslexics are to blame; further investigation into gender may reveal whether all the self-diagnosed dyslexics in this sample follow the same pattern or if another explanation exists. 80 1-4 Traits 70 5-9 Traits 10-14 Traits 60 15-19 traits 50 40 30 20 10 0 Ideational Fluency-A Associational Fluency-B Alternative Uses-C Histogram 4. Grouping by Dyslexic trait data (N=groups & Y=Scores). From the N=88 sample, eight groups were formed according to the number of traits scored and gender data: males, 0-4 traits (N=7) and females 0-4 traits (N=11); males, 5-9 traits (N=10) and females 5-9 traits (N=13); males, 10-14 traits (N=11) and females 10-14 traits (N=18); males, 15-19 traits (N=9) and females 15-19 traits (N=9). Histogram 5 and Table 5 investigate the data split using traits and gender. The results suggest that, overall, whilst female divergent scores decrease with the frequency of dyslexia traits; they do not decrease to the same extent as they do in males. It could be hypothesised that females deal with dyslexic difficulties and literacy deficiencies in different ways, which may explain why more males than females are perceived as needing help in mainstream school (Alexander-Passe 2006, 2008a, 2009b, c, d, e, 2010a, and b). It is hypothesised that whilst dyslexic females exhibit literacy difficulties at school, they still score educationally on a par with non-dyslexic males; thus, they are not perceived to be educationally in need. Looking again at Histogram 5, whilst the female data follow an overall decreasing pattern of scores for both the Ideational Fluency and Alternative Uses measures, this is not the case with the Associational Fluency data. Looking at the male data, there is no real pattern to the scores, except for data for Alternative Uses where scores decrease with the increase in frequency of dyslexic traits. The other two measures (Ideational Fluency and Associational Fluency) are erratic, but all generally decrease with the increase in frequency of dyslexic traits. Overall, for both male and female groups with 10-14 traits, there seems to be a surge of scores, which may suggest that moderate dyslexics are better able to cope with literacy difficulties than are those with slight and severe frequency of dyslexic traits. See Alexander-
  33. 33. 16 Neil Alexander-Passe Passe (2006, 2008a, 2009a, c, 2010a, b) for a review of gender-based coping strategies for dyslexics. 80 Ideational Fluency-A 70 Associational Fluency-B 60 Alternative Uses-C 50 40 30 20 10 0 1-4 TraitsFEMALE 5-9 TraitsFEMALE 10-14 TraitsFEMALE 15-19 traitsFEMALE 1-4 TraitsMALE 5-9 TraitsMALE 10-14 TraitsMALE 15-19 traits-MALE Histogram 5. Grouping by Dyslexic traits with gender data (N=groups & Y=Scores). Discussion This study set out to investigate the creative abilities of self-reported dyslexics, as compared to those of controls, using a range of standardised divergent tests. The test results have been analysed in three ways: gender, dyslexic traits, gender and dyslexic traits combined groups. The results suggest that: 1) gender differences are evident suggesting that males and females can have different creative/divergent abilities. 2) females on the whole are more creative/divergent than are males. 3) the data strongly indicated that there were un-identified dyslexics in the control sample, thus using the screening measure a sub-control group was created (those with more than 9 out of 20 dyslexic traits). Both control groups (probable dyslexics and pure controls) scored differently, with the ‗probable‘ dyslexic group scoring similar to the self-claimed dyslexic group. This interesting finding suggests that many dyslexics might be unaware that they are dyslexic and may have journeyed through life just thinking they were a bit different and that their learning problems, however slight they might be, were down to laziness and lack of motivation. Such a group of individuals would have been stressed as teenagers and have low self-esteem (see Alexander-Passe 2004a, b, 2006, 2008a, b, 2009a, b, c, 2010a, b). The review of the three main studies (Winner et al., 2000; Von Karolyi et al., 2003; and Everatt et al., 1999) showed that each lacked a comparison to standardised data. Whilst they used standardised measures, in their findings, each study ignored how assessment of their samples compared to norms. This study aimed to be a fairer investigation and thus, where
  34. 34. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 17 possible, comparison data are shown (see Table 5); in fact, it was one of the criteria in the measure selection process. The three measures are discussed below. Looking at the Ideational Fluency measure, we see from comparing the Guilford and Guilford (1980) data: 1) confirmation of gender differences, with females scoring higher than males, as was also found in this study. 2) all trait groups except for 15-19 traits score on a par with the norm group. 3) whilst all females in this study in all dyslexic trait groups score in excess of the norms, only the 1-4 trait non-dyslexic control group score as per norm levels, with the remainder scoring far below norm levels, especially males with 15-19 traits. Comparing Associational Fluency scores from Murray and Russ (1981) and Guilford and Guilford (1980), they indicate: 1) as there are no gender norms, we are unable to comment on gender differences. 2) all males and females and trait groups score either on a par with the norm data or far in excess of the college student honour norms. 3) the real differences are exhibited when we compare the trait and gender data, with 1-4 trait females scoring far in excess of norm data and 5-9 trait males scoring far below the norm data. Overall, this measure exemplifies the huge differences between genders with varying frequency of dyslexic traits. Lastly, we compare ‗Alternative uses‘ scores from Murray and Russ (1981) and Everatt et al. (1999). Such comparison suggests: 1) all this sample score in excess of the Everatt et al. data, (their measures were given orally) even males with 15-19 traits, and as they are also incomparable with the Murray and Russ data norm data one could conclude they are questionable, a view that is supported by Everatt et al. not naming the source of their measure, which suggests it was experimental. 2) all males scored on a par with the college students of Murray and Russ, with females scoring in excess of the norm data. 3) large differences are exhibited in the gender data, with males (5-9, 10-14 and 15-19 traits) scoring below or on a par with norm data for college students, with their comparable females scoring far in excess of the norm data. 4) such gender differences were not found among the 1-4 trait sub groups, with the males scoring slightly higher in this measure. Again, we see that, overall, huge gender and severity differences exist and this important finding has implications for how future support is given to dyslexics. The Everatt et al. (1999) data is interesting; one could postulate that there are significant differences between giving such a test orally to giving it how it was designed, that is, as a written measure. Looking at the test in detail, each of the six questions has six lines to be completed. The volunteer taking the test would therefore have an idea of how many words, at least 4 or more, were expected; this cannot be easily be relayed orally without the test
  35. 35. 18 Neil Alexander-Passe becoming open to bias and guidance given to the volunteer. Thus, this author concludes that Everatt et al. might have disadvantaged dyslexics by making such an effort to compensate for their reading/writing difficulties. This study took the view that allowing for phonetic spelling was a fairer allowance and might suggest that giving a written examination orally for dyslexics might disadvantage them, as it would remove any vital visual clues given This study set out to ask ‗Are self-reported dyslexics creative?‘ The overall data suggest that it is unclear whether dyslexics are innately creative; however, it does seem evident that not only did the females in this population have superior creative/divergent skills, but the females with moderate (10-14 traits) or severe (15-19 traits) scored on a par to males with few of no traits of dyslexia. This would suggest that factors other than dyslexia might be responsible. The data, however, were clear in concluding that the more dyslexic traits someone exhibits, the less creative/divergent they will be in these measures. This would support the concept that writing fluency may be significant in understanding the result. This study chose not to give the measures orally as in Everatt et al. (1999), as this would have been a double handicap to the self-claimed/self-diagnosed dyslexic sample. However, if measures are not given orally (due to the lack of visual clues) and not given on paper (due to dyslexic deficiencies of reading and writing), what could be the solution to examination measurement? One solution would be to give the paper in its standard form to give the visual clues, but to allow oral answers to be given. CONCLUSION This paper began by investigating the claim in many dyslexia websites and in public perception that dyslexics are visual-spatial and creative. Empirical research so far on visualspatial skills have had mixed success, despite a number of large studies in prestigious institutions, with numerous types of samples, using many standardised measures. Evidence supporting the claim of creativity to date is based either on biographical data from possible dyslexic geniuses or on the frequency of diagnosed dyslexics passing art examinations, taking art degrees and working in art professions. However, recent studies (Riddick, 1999; Alexander-Passe, 2006, 2008a, 2009a, b, c, d, e, 2010a, b) support a hypothesis that dyslexics might choose and excel in such subjects as a form of avoidance, such as by choosing school subjects to avoid writing, which leads to them focusing on career paths to degrees and employment in such artistic and visual subjects. It was felt that to build a solid hypothesis supporting dyslexics being creative (visualspatial), it would be necessary to go back to basics to understand what creativity is, and to try to find any empirical evidence to support a creativity/visual-spatial/dyslexia correlation. From the psychometric approach to creative measurement, Guilford‘s divergent range of tests seemed to be the most suitable for this purpose and three were chosen (Associational Fluency, Ideational Fluency and Alternative Uses) and tested on an adult sample of selfdiagnosed dyslexics and controls. A screening measure was introduced to investigate correlations of the severity of dyslexic traits and creative/divergent abilities. Results found that divergent abilities were affected by gender and the severity of dyslexic traits, with the conclusion that overall, the more severe the symptoms of dyslexia, the less
  36. 36. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 19 divergent someone will be, at least with these measures, even allowing for phonetic spelling. However, gender was an important factor, with dyslexic females even with high frequencies of dyslexia traits scoring on a par with control males with few (if any) dyslexia traits. Thus, an important finding was that creative abilities in dyslexics might be controlled by factors other than dyslexia traits, e.g., age/experience, gender or personality. However, this study did not find conclusive evidence to prove that dyslexics are innately creative; thus, the search must continue to find evidence that supports the hypothesis. To date, studies have been made using visual-spatial measures but have had only mixed success; studies requiring novel productions have had some success; and now in this study, divergent production has had some success, with females showing clear superior skills compared to controls Suggestions for Further Research This study suggests that gender and other variables (e.g., personality and age) combined; with the severity of dyslexia traits would be a valid way to continue the work of this study. It would begin to explain why self-diagnosed dyslexic females display more creative/divergent skills than do self-diagnosed dyslexic males. Limitations There were several limitations to this study: (1) the samples were dyslexia by selfdiagnosis rather than diagnosis by educational psychologists. This required a screening to take place among a control sample; the screening found a number of individuals unaware of their dyslexic traits, which might highlight the numbers of individuals that go through mainstream school unaware their difficulties could be helped, rather than thinking of themselves as ‗stupid‘ or ‗lazy‘; (2) The choice of measures of creativity is always questionable as no single measure can confirm creative skill, Guilford notes that creativity is a collection of skills and due the multitude of possible answers, manuals require a certain amount of subjectivity from the individual marking; the best course is to use a single person to mark all the documents produced, which happened in this study; and (3) It was decided to use non-visual measures of creativity; this may have given a bias to the type of creativity investigated. BIBLIOGRAPHY Alexander-Passe, N. (2004a). How Children with Dyslexia Experience School: Developing an Instrument to Measure Coping, Self-Esteem and Depression. Unpublished MPhil Thesis. The Open University Alexander-Passe, N. (2004b). A Living Nightmare: An investigation of how dyslexics cope in school. Paper presented at the 6th British Dyslexia Association International Conference.
  37. 37. 20 Neil Alexander-Passe Retrieved 10th January 2006 from: www.bdainternationalconference. org/2004/presentations/mon_s6_d_12.shtml. Alexander-Passe, N. (2005). Pre-school unidentified Dyslexics: Progression, Suppression, Aggression, Depression and Repression. Downloaded 20th January 2009. http://www.spld-matters.com/article8.html (English version). Alexander-Passe, N. (2006). How Dyslexic Teenagers Cope: An investigation of self-esteem, coping and depression. Dyslexia, 12: 4, 256-275. Alexander-Passe, N. (2008a).The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school aged dyslexics, compared to sibling controls. Dyslexia, 14: 4, 291-313. Alexander-Passe, N. (2008b).The sources and manifestations of stress amongst school aged dyslexics, compared to sibling controls. Paper presented at the 7th British Dyslexia Association International Conference. Alexander-Passe, N. (2009a). Dyslexic teenagers: How they cope at school and could a new measure be helpful in screening those in difficulty? In Larson, J.E. (Ed.) Educational Psychology: Cognition and Learning, Individual Differences and Motivation (pp. 1-80). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Alexander-Passe, N. (2009b). Dyslexia, Gender and Depression: Research Studies. In Hernandez, P & Alonso, S (Eds.) Women and Depression (pp. 15-74). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Alexander-Passe, N. (2009c). Dyslexia, Gender and Depression: Dyslexia Defence Mechanisms (DDMs). In Hernandez, P & Alonso, S (Eds.) Women and Depression (pp. 75-140). New York: Nova Science Publishers Alexander-Passe, N. (2009d). Dyslexia, Children and Depression: Empirical Evidence. In Taylor, B.T. (Ed.) Depression in Children. (pp. 41-89). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Alexander-Passe, N. (2009e). Dyslexia, Children and Depression: Research Evidence. In Taylor, B.T. (Ed.) Depression in Children. (pp. 1-40). New York: Nova Science Publishers. Alexander-Passe, N. (2010a). Dyslexia and Depression: The Hidden Sorrow. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Alexander-Passe, N. (2010b). Three Case Studies of Creative Dyslexics. In Alexander-Passe, N. (Ed.) Dyslexia and Creativity: investigations from differing perspectives. New York: Nova Science Publishers. Amabile, T. M. (1998). How to kill creativity. Harvard Business Review 76 (5). Anderson, C. C. (1968). Psychology of the scientist: Speculations on nonverbal creativity. Percept Mot Skills, Dec, 27(3), 883-9. Antasi, A., & Schaefer, C. E. (1971). Note on the concepts of creativity and intelligence. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 5, 113-116. Atkins, D. C., & Lyerly, S. B. (1951). Factor analysis of reasoning tests. Chapel Hill N.C.: University of North Carolina Press. Augur, J. (1995). Early help means a better future. In Hales, G. (ed.) Dyslexia Matters (pp. 151). London: Whurr. Barron, F. (1963). The disposition towards originality, in Taylor, CW and Barron, F (Eds.) Scientific Creativity: it‘s recognition and development (pp. 139-52). Being Dyslexic (2006). Famous Dyslexics. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.beingdyslexic.co.uk/information/famous-dyslexics.php.
  38. 38. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 21 Berlin, R. (1872). Eine Besondere Art der Wortblindheit (Dyslexia). Wiesbaden. Bloom, B. (1985). Developing talent in young people. New York: Ballantine. British Broadcasting Corporation (2004). Dyslexia. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.cbeebies/grownups/special_needs/dyslexia/teacher/index.shtml?article_page3. British Dyslexia Association (2006). What is Dyslexia? Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/whatisdyslexia.html#difficulties. British Dyslexia Association (2007). Adult Checklist. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from http://www.bdadyslexia.org.uk/adultchecklist.html. Broatach, L. (2003). Learning Disabilities and Psychological Problems — An Overview. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.asp?r=746andf=search. Brugger, P., Gamma, A., Muri, R., Shafer, M., & Taylor, K. (1993). Functional hemisphere asymmetry and belief in ESF. Personality and Individual Differences, Percept Mot Skills. December, 77(3 Pt 2), 1299-308 Butler, M. J. (1965). Criteria for creativity in counseling. Unpublished PhD Thesis University of Pittsburg, 27:977B. Colangelo, N., Assouline, S., Kerr, B., Huesman, R., & Johnson, D. (1993). Mechanical inventiveness: A three-phase study. In G. R. Bock and K. Ackrill (Eds.), The origins and development of high ability (pp. 160-174). New York: Wiley. Dacey, J., & Lennon, K. (2000). Understanding creativity: the interplay of biological, psychological and social factors, Buffalo, NY: Creative Education Foundation. Dyslexia Action (2007). Dyslexia Checklist. Retrieved April 16, 2007, http://www.dyslexiainst.org.uk/pdffiles/checklist.pdf. Edwards, J. (1994). The scars of dyslexia: Eight case studies in emotional reactions. London: Cassell. Eisenmann, R. (1997). Mental illness, deviance and creativity in M.A.Runco (Ed.) The creative research handbook, vol.1, Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Everatt, J., Steffert, B., & Smythe, I. (1999). An eye for the Unusual: Creative Thinking in Dyslexics. Dyslexia, 5, 28-49. Eysenck, H. (1996). Genius: The natural history of creativity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Feldman, D. H., Czikszentmihalyi, M., & Gardner, H. (1994). Changing the world, a framework for the study of creativity, London: Praeger Publishers. Feldman, D. H. (1999). The Development of Creativity, in ed. Sternberg, R.J.: Handbook of Creativity [Electronic version]. Cambridge University Press. Ferrando M., Ferrandiz C., Bermejo M. R., Sanchez C., Parra J., & Prieto M. D. (2007). Internal structure and standardised scores of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking [Electronic version]. Psicothema. Aug, 19(3), 489-96. Spanish. Flaherty, A. W. (2005) Frontotemporal and dopaminergic control of idea generation and creative drive. Journal of Comparative Neurology 493 (1): 147-153. Frunter, B. (1948). The nature of verbal fluency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 8, 33-47. Galaburda A. M., LoTurco J., Ramus F., Fitch R. H., & Rosen G. D. (2006). From genes to behavior in developmental dyslexia. Nat Neurosci., October, 9(10):1213-7. Galaburda, A. M. (1989). Ordinary and extra-ordinary brain development: Anatomical variation in developmental dyslexia. Annals of Dyslexia, 39, 67-80.
  39. 39. 22 Neil Alexander-Passe General Communication Headquarters (2006). GCHQ disabilities toolkit leads the way. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.gchq.gov.uk/press/pdf/disabilities_toolkit.pdf. Gerber, P. J., & Reiff, H. B. (1991). Speaking for themselves: Ethnographic interviews with adults with learning disabilities. The University of Michigan Press. Gerber, P. J., Ginsberg, R., & Reiff, H. B. (1992). Identifying alterable patterns in employment success for highly successful adults with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 475-87. Geschwind, N., & Galaburda, A. M. (1985). Cerebral lateralization: Biological mechanisms, association, and pathology. Archives of Neurology, 42, 428-654. Geschwind, N., & Levitsky, W. (1968). Human brain: Left-right asymmetries in temporal speech region. Science, 161, 188-7. Glover, J. A, Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (Eds.). (1989). Handbook of Creativity. New York: Plenum Press. Grant, D. (2001). That‘s the way I think – Dyslexia and creativity. Paper at 5th BDA International Conference, University of Warwick, UK. Gray, J. A., Feldon, J., Rawlins, J. P., Hemsley, D. R., & Smith, A. D. (1991). The neuropsychology of schizophrenia. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 1-84. Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1956). A factor-analytic study of verbal fluency. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, 17. Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1975). The one-way relation between creative potential and IQ. Journal of Creative Behaviour, 7, 247-52. Guilford, J. P., & Guilford, J. S. (1980). Christensen-Guilford Fluency Tests: Manual if instructions and Interpretation. Orange CA: Sheridan Psychological Services Inc. Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity, American Psychologist, 5, 444-445. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P., & Hoefner, R. (1971). The analysis of intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill. Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifeld, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1978). Alternative Uses: Permission Set Manual. Orange CA: Sheridan Psychological Services Inc. Guilford, J. P., Kettner, N. W., & Christensen, P. R. (1956). A factor-analytic study across the domains of reasoning, creativity, and evaluation, II. Administration of tests and analysis of results. Reports from the Psychological Laboratory, 16, Los Angeles: University of Southern California. Hales, G. (Ed.). (1995). Dyslexia Matters. London: Whurr. International Dyslexia Association. (2006). Other well-known people thought to have dyslexia or other learning disabilities, Retrieved December 26, 2006, from http://www.interdys.org/well-known.html. Jenner A. R., Rosen G. D., & Galaburda A. M. (1999). Neuronal asymmetries in primary visual cortex of dyslexic and non-dyslexic brains [Electronic version]. Ann Neurol., Aug, 46(2), 189-96. Khasky A. D., & Smith J. C. (1999). Stress, relaxation states, and creativity [Electronic version]. Percept Mot Skills. April; 88(2), 409-16. Kirton, M. J. (1994). Adaptors and Innovators, 2nd Ed, London: Routledge. Kussmaul, A. (1878). Word-deafness and word-blindness. In von Ziemssen, H. (Ed.) Cyclopaedia of the Practice of Medicine, Vol. 14, Diseases of the nervous system and disturbances of speech. London: Sampson Row, Maston, Searle and Rivington.
  40. 40. Creativity and Dyslexia: An Investigative Study 23 Leeds and Bradford Dyslexia Association. (2007). Adult Dyslexia Checklist. Retrieved April 16, 2007, from http://www.labda.org.uk/. Magnusson, D. & Backteman, G. (1977). Longitudinal stability of person characteristics: intelligence and creativity. Reports from the Department of Psychology, The University of Stockholm, 511. McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, Divergent Thinking, and Openness to Experience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52(6), 1258-1265. McGuire, C., Hindsman, E., King, F. J., & Jennings, E. (1961) Dimensions of talented behaviour. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 21, 3-38. McLoughlin, D., Fitzgibbon, G., & Young, V. (1994). Adult Dyslexia: Assessment, Counselling and Training. London: Whurr. Michael, W. B., & Wright, C. R. (1989). Psychometric issues in the assessment of creativity. In Glover, JA; Ronning, RR and Reynolds, CR (Eds) Handbook of Creativity, (pp. 3352). New York: Plenum Press. Miles, T. R. (1994). Dyslexia: The pattern of difficulties. London: Whurr. Morgan, E., & Klein, C. (2001). The dyslexic adult in a non-dyslexic world. London: Whurr. Mouchiroud C., & Lubart T. (2001). Children's original thinking: an empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks [Electronic version]. Journal of Genet Psychol. December, 162(4):382-401. Murray, J., & Russ, S. (1981). Adaptive regression and types of cognitive flexibility. Journal of Personality Assessment, February, 45(1), 59-65. Ochse, R. (1990). Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Olive, H. (1972). A note on sex differences in adolescent divergent thinking. Journal of Psychology, 82, 39-42. Orton, S. T. (1937). Reading, writing and speech problems of children. New York: Norton. Osborn, A. F (1953). Applied Imagination. New York: Scribner. Padgett, I., & Steffert, B. (Eds.) (1999). Visual Spatial Ability and Dyslexia, a research project [Electronic version]. London: Central St Martin‘s College of Art and Design. Radford, J. (1990). Child prodigies and exceptional early achievers. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf. Reiff, H. B., Gerber, P., & Ginsberg, R. (1997). Exceeding expectations: Successful adults with learning disabilities. Austin, Texas: Pro-Ed. Riddick, B. (1996). Living with dyslexia: The social and emotional consequences of specific learning difficulties. London: Routledge. Riddick, B., Sterling, C., Farmer, M., & Morgan, S. (1999). Self-esteem and anxiety in the educational histories of adult dyslexic students. Dyslexia, 5, 227-48. Roehampton University (2006). Famous Dyslexics. Retrieved December 16, 2006, from http://www.roehampton.ac.uk/dyslexia/famous-dyslexics.asp. Rogers, C. A. (1953). The structure of verbal fluency. British Journal of Psychology, 44, 368380. Russeler, J., Scholz, J., Jordan, K., & Quaiser-Pohl, C. (2005). Mental Rotation of letters, pictures and three-dimensional objects in German dyslexic Children. Child Neuropsychology, December, 11(6), 497-512. Ryan, M. (1994). Social and emotional problems related to dyslexia. The Journal of Adventist Education. Perspectives, Spring, 20(2).