本研究擬發展以中文部件組字為基礎的《中文部件組字遠距聯想測驗》（Radical Remote Associates Test, RRAT），期能形成針對華人遠距聯想之創造力進行測量的完整系統。在測驗編製上，首先挑選出60組具有同樣的部件之三個衍生字組，編成RRAT預試題本計60題。接著以196名大學生進行預試，依項目分析結果挑選出30題做為正式試題，並區分為難度、鑑別度相近的甲、乙兩式題本（各15題）。其次甲式以173名、乙式以187名大學生進行正式施測及信效度研究。結果發現，本測驗在信度方面，甲、乙兩版本內部一致性係數分別為.706與.685；在效度方面，兩版本皆與「中文遠距聯想測驗（Chinese Remote Associates Test, CRAT）」（任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲，2004）有顯著相關（r值分別為.317與.375），與「中文詞彙遠距聯想測驗（Chinese Word Remote Associates Test, CWRAT）」（黃博聖、陳學志、劉政宏，2012）有顯著相關（r值別為.585與.350），與「頓悟性問題測驗」（邱發忠，2005）亦有顯著正相關存在（r值分別為.417與.448）。另外本測驗與「新編創造思考測驗」（吳靜吉，1998）各指標皆無相關存在（r介於-.103與.151之間），顯示本測驗具有良好的聚斂效度與區辨效度。其次，本研究擬針對國內現存三種中文遠距聯想測驗（RRAT、CWRAT、CRAT）進行解題認知成分之探究。研究參與者為36位大專院校學生。研究參與者須完成由三種測驗挑選之各5道題目所組成的作業試題，並於答題後進行主觀頓悟感受評等，最後接受「頓悟性問題測驗」。結果發現參與者在三種中文遠距聯想作業型態之正確率與解題前的嘗試次數為無相關或負相關，顯示三種作業型態與解題前的嘗試次數無關聯。其中以CWRAT最為符合聯結理論之假設；其次在頓悟成分方面，RRAT與客觀的「頓悟性問題測驗」有最高的相關，且參與者的主觀頓悟感受亦最高。顯示RRAT的作業型態與頓悟思考的關聯較高。最後研究者依據研究結果針對遠距聯想及頓悟思考之測量與研究提出建議。

The purpose of this study was to develop “Radical Remote Associates Test” (RRAT) with radical combinations, hoping to build the system of Chinese remote associates test for Chinese. To develop RRAT, the researcher first formed a 60-item pretest by choosing sixty radicals and their three derivative characters, and deleted the same component of derivative characters. This pretest was administrated to 196 college students, and 30 items of the pretest were selected as formal scale according to the item analysis of preparing research. The researcher then divided these items into two versions, version A and B, with the same difficulty and discrimination, and each of them included 15 questions. Next, the formal scale, including version A and B, was distributed to college students, and 173 (version A) and 187 (version B) data were collected respectively. As to reliability, the coefficient of internal consistency of the two RRAT versions was .706 and .685 each. As to validity, each of the two versions of RRAT was significantly positively correlated (r = .317, r = .375) with “Chinese Remote Associates Test” (CRAT) (Chun-Hui Jen, Hsueh-Chih Chen, Hung-Chu Lien, Shu-Ling Cho, 2004); each of the two versions of RRAT and “Chinese Word Remote Associates Test” (CWRAT) (Po-Sheng Huang, Hsueh-Chih Chen, Cheng-Hong Liu, 2012) had a significant positive correlation (r = .585, r = .350); still, each of the two versions of RRAT and “Insight Problems” were also significantly positively correlated (r are .417 and .448). Besides, the two RRAT versions and all the index of “New Creativity Test” had no significant correlation, demonstrating the good Convergent validity and discriminant validity of RRAT. Another purpose of this study is to analyze the cognitive components during answering process of the three Chinese remote associates tasks (RRAT, CWRAT, & CRAT) in Taiwan. 36 college students were participated in this study. Each of them first had to complete a task consisting of 15 items, respectively selected 5 items from the three Chinese remote associates tests with the same average difficulty. After finishing the task, they had to rate their subjectively insight feeling, and then an “Insight Problems” assessment was administered to them in the end. The result showed that no significant correlation or significant negative correlation was found between the three Chinese remote associates task and the trial frequency before answering, indicating that there was no relationship between these two variables. Among the three Chinese remote associates tests, CWRAT was the one being most consistent with the hypothesis of associative theory. As to the part of insight, RRAT and objective "Insight Problems" held the highest correlation, and the rating of subjectively insight feeling was also the highest, showing that there was a stronger relationship between the type of RRAT and insight thinking. In the last, the researcher would make some suggestions for the measurement of remote association and insight thinking based on the research conclusion.

一、中文部分
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲（2004）。創造力測量的輔助工具：中文遠距聯想量表的編製。應用心理研究，21，195-218。
邢璐（2007）。现代汉语新词语及其特点探析。太原大学教育学院学报，25（3），76-81。
吳靜吉（1998）。新編創造思考測驗研究。教育部輔導工作六年計畫研究報告。
周有光（1978）。現代漢字聲旁的表音功能問題。中國語文，146，172-177。
林幸台、王木榮（1994）。威廉斯創造力測驗指導手冊。台北：心理出版社。
林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計學。臺北市：東華書局。
邱皓政、丁興祥等譯（2008）。創造力：當代理論與議題。台北：心理出版社。
邱發忠（2005）。創造力認知運作機制之探究。國立臺灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。
邱發忠、陳學志、徐芝君、吳相儀、卓淑玲（2008）。內隱與外顯因素對創造作業表現的影響。中華心理學刊，50（2），125-145。
教育部（2007）。重編國語辭典修訂本。取自教育部重編國語辭典修訂本網站：http://dict.revised.moe.edu.tw/，2014年7月1日。
陳怡潔、陳學志、劉浩敏（2002）。中文遠距聯想量表之修訂︰如何避免知識與策略因素之介入。行政院國家科學委員會大專生研究計畫（計畫編號：90-2815-C-003-018-H）。
陳奕全、葉素玲（2009）。漢字辨識理論模型中的部件表徵。應用心理研究，43，177-205。
陳學志（1999）。認知及認知的自我監控：中文詞聯想常模的建立。行政院國家科學委員會專題研究計畫成果報告（計畫編號：NSC 87-2418-H-030-006）。
陳學志、彭淑玲、吳清麟（2011）。純頓悟與假中文遠距聯想測驗之創造力解題歷程。創造學刊，2（2），25-51。
陳學志、吳清麟（2014）。以線性對數潛在特質模式探討中文遠距聯想測驗試題成份對於試題難度之影響。創造學刊，5（1），51-63。
陳學志、張瓅勻、邱郁秀、宋曜廷、張國恩（2011）。中文部件組字與形構資料庫之建立及其在識字教學的應用。教育心理學報，43，269-290。
黃沛榮（2003）。漢字教學的理論與實踐。台北：樂學。
黃博聖、陳學志（2003）。新版中文遠距聯想測驗（CRAT）之效度研究與作答認知歷程之分析。行政院國家科學委員會大專生研究計畫（計畫編號：91-2815-C-003-035-H）。
黃博聖、陳學志、劉政宏（2012）。「中文詞彙遠距聯想測驗」之編製及其信效度報告。測驗學刊，59（4），581-607。
蘇秀慧（2006）。中文遠距聯想作業之構成要素難度分析暨其與擴散性及頓悟性思考之關聯。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文。
二、英文部分
Akbari Chermahini, S., Hickendorff, M., & Hommel, B. (2012). Development and validity of a Dutch version of the Remote Associates Task: An item-response theory approach. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 7, 177–186.
Alexander, J. K., Hillier, A., Smith, R. M., Tivarus, M. E., & Beversdorf, D. Q. (2007). Beta-adrenergic modulation of cognitive flexibility during stress. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19(3), 468-478.
Andrews, F. M. (1975). Social and psychological factors which influence the creative process. In I. A. Taylor & J. W. Getzels (Eds.), Perspectives in creativity (pp. 117-145). Chicago: Aldine.
Ansburg, P. I. (2000). Individual differences in problem solving via insight. Current Psychology, 19(2), 143–146.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Cognition. NJ: Prentice Hall.
Baba, Y. (1982). An analysis of creativity by means of the remote associates test for adults revised in Japanese (Jarat Form-A). Japanese Journal of Psychology, 52, 330–336.
Beeman, M. J., & Bowden, E. M. (2000). The right hemisphere maintains solution-related activation for yet-to-be-solved problems. Memory and Cognition, 28, 1231-1241.
Belcher, T. L., & Davis, G. A. (1971). Interrelationships among three standardized creativity tests and IQ. Annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York, NY.
Ben-Zur, H. (1989). Automatic and directed search processes in solving simple semantic-memory problems. Memory and Cognition, 17, 617-626.
Bowden, E. M., & Beeman, M. J. (1998). Getting the right idea: Semantic activation in the right hemisphere may help solve insight problems. Psychological Science, 9, 435-440.
Bowden, E.M. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003a). Aha! Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 10, 730-737.
Bowden, E.M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003b). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavioral Research, Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 634-639.
Bowden, E.M. & Jung-Beeman, M. (2007). Methods for investigating the neural components of insight. Methods, 42, 87-99.
Chen, Y.-P., Allport, D. A., & Marshall, J. C. (1996). What are the functional orthographic units in Chinese word recognition: The stroke or the stroke pattern? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Experimental Psychology, 49(4), 1024–1043.
Chen, M. J., & Weekes, B. S. (2004). Effects of semantic radicals on Chinese character categorization and character decision. Chinese Journal of Psychology, 46, 181-196.
Chen, Y. C., & Yeh, S. L. (2009). Radical representation in models of Chinese character recognition. Research in Applied Psychology, 43, 177-205.
Collins, A. M., and Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407-428.
Cunningham, J. B., MacGregor, J. N., Gibb, J., & Haar, J. (2009). Categories of insight and their correlates: An exploration of relationships among classic‐type insight problems, rebus puzzles, remote associates and esoteric analogies. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(4), 262-280.
Dominowski, R. L., & Dallob, P. (1995). Insight and problem solving. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 33-62). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Estrada, C. A., Isen, A. M., & Young, M. J. (1994). Positive affect improves creative problem solving and influences reported source of practice satisfaction in physicians. Motivation and Emotion, 18, 285–299.
Eysenck, H. J. (2003). Creativity, Personaility and the Convergent-Divergent Continuum. In Runco, M. A. (ed.), Critical Creative Processes (pp. 95-114). Hampton Press, Cresskill, NJ.
Feldman, L. B., & Siok, W. W. T. (1997). The role of component function in visual recognition of Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 23, 776-781.
Ferguson, G. A. (1971). Statistical analysis in psychology and education (3rd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Gardiner, J.M., & Richardson-Klavehn, A. (2000). Remembering and knowing. In E. E. Tulving, E. Fergus, & I. M. Craik (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of memory (pp. 229–244). New York: Oxford Univ. Press.
Gold, B. T., Balota, D. A., Jones, S. J., Powell, D. K., Smith, C. D., & Andersen, A. H. (2006). Dissociation of automatic and strategic lexical-semantics: Functional magnetic resonance imaging evidence for differing roles of multiple frontotemporal regions. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 6523-6532.
Guilford, J. P. (1956). The structure of intellect. Psychological Bulletin, 53, 267-293.
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Hamilton, M. A. (1982). Jamaicanizing the Mednick Remote Associates Test of creativity. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 55, 321–322.
Ho, C. S. H., Ng, T. T., & Ng, W. K. (2003). A “radical” approach to reading development in Chinese: The role of semantic radicals and phonetic radicals. Journal of Literacy Research, 35, 849-878.
Hsu, K., Lin, W., & Chen, H. (2011, January). Personality correlates of different creative processes: Perceptual sensitivity and effortful control as major constructs. Paper presented at the 12th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, San Antonio, USA.
Isen, A. M., Labroo, A. A., & Durlach, P. (2004). An influence of product and brand name on positive affect: Implicit and explicit measures. Motivation and Emotion, 28(1), 43-63.
Knoblich, G., Ohlsson, S., Haider, H., & Rhenius, D. (1999). Constraint relaxation and chunk decomposition in insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 25, 1534 -1555.
Knott, L. M., Threadgold, E., & Howe, M. L. (2014). Negative mood state impairs false memory priming when problem-solving. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 26(5), 1-8.
Kohler, W. (1929). Gestalt psychology. New York, NY: Liveright.
Kounios, J., Frymiare, J. L., Bowden, E. M., Fleck, J. I., Subramaniam, K., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2006). The prepared mind neural activity prior to problem presentation predicts subsequent solution by sudden insight. Psychological Science, 17(10), 882-890.
Lee, C. S., & Therriault, D. J. (2013). The cognitive underpinnings of creative thought: A latent variable analysis exploring the roles of intelligence and working memory in three creative thinking processes. Intelligence, 41(5), 306-320.
Matsumoto, A., Iidaka, T., Haneda, K., Okada, T., & Sadato, N. (2005). Linking semantic priming effect in functional MRI and event-related potentials. NeuroImage, 24, 624-634.
Mednick, M. T. (1963). Research creativity in psychology graduate students. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 27(3), 265-266.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44(2), 220-232.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213–214.
Mednick, S. A., & Mednick, M. T. (1967). Examiner’s manual, Remote Associates Test: College and adult forms 1 and 2. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Bowden, E. M., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2003). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 35(4), 634-639.
Metcalfe, J. (1986). Premonitions of insight predict impending error. Journal of Experi mental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12, 623-634.
Nevo, B., & Levin, I. (1978). Remote Associates Test: Assessment of creativity in Hebrew. Megamot, 24, 87–98.
Ohlsson, S. (1984). Restructuring revisited: A summary and critique of the gestalt theory of problem solving. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 25, 67-78.
Osborn, A. (1963). Applied imagination. New York: Scribner’s.
Parnes, S. J. (1967). Creative behavior guidebook. New York: Scribner’s.
Perea, M., & Rosa, E. (2002). The effects of associative and semantic priming in the lexical decision task. Psychological Research, 66, 180-194.
Perkins, D. (2000). The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. Norton & Company.
Plucker, J. A., & Renzulli, J. S. (1999). Psychometric approaches to the study of human creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 35-61). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Rissman, J., Eliassen, J. C., & Blumstein, S. E. (2003). An event-related fMRI investigation of implicitsemantic priming. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 15, 1160-1175.
Runco, M. (2004). Creativity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 657–687.
Schooler, J. W., & Melcher, J. (1995). The ineffability of insight. In S. M. Smith, B. T. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp. 249–268). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Spearman, C. D. (1931). Creative mind. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 74(6), 783.
Sternberg, R. J., & Davidson, J. E. (1995). The nature of insight. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubert, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of Creativity (pp. 3-15). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Storm, B. C., Angello, G., & Bjork, E. L. (2011). Thinking can cause forgetting: Memory dynamics in creative problem solving. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition. Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0023921.
Subramaniam, K., Kounios, J., Parrish, T. B., & Jung-Beeman, M. (2009). A brain mechanism for facilitation of insight by positive affect. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 21(3), 415-432.
Taft, R., & Rossiter, J. R. (1966). The Remote Associates Test: divergent or convergent thinking? Psychological reports, 19(3), 1313-1314.
Taft, M., & Zhu, X. (1997). Submorphemic processing in reading Chinese. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 23(3), 761.
Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Prinecton, NJ: Personnel Press.
Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem-solving skills and the art orientation. NJ: Norwood.
Ward, J., Thompson-Lake, D., Ely, R., & Kaminski, F. (2008). Synaesthesia, creativity and art: What is the link? British Journal of Psychology, 99, 127-141.
Weisberg, R. W. (1995). Prolegomena to theories of insight in problem solving: a taxonomy of problems. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. E. Davidson, (eds.), The nature of insight (pp. 157-196). Boston, MA: MIT Press.
Yeh, S. L., & Li, J. L. (2002). Role of structure and component in judgments of visual similarity of Chinese characters. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 28, 933-947.