中文遠距聯想測驗係任純慧、陳學志、練竑初、卓淑玲（2004）根據Mednick（1962）發展的遠距聯想測驗，並考量華人使用中文字之情形編製而成。其題目包含三個中文刺激字，如：生、天、溫，要求受試者找出一個能與這三個刺激字各自組成合法雙字詞的目標字，如：氣。然而，截至目前為止，中文遠距聯想測驗所依循的Mednick聯結理論，後續研究對於該理論檢驗結果並不一致（李秀瓊，1999；林緯倫、連韻文、任純慧，2005；Coney & Serna，1995；Gough，1976；Milgram & Rabkin，1980；Ward，1969），且現今亦沒有以中文單字為刺激材料所建立的聯想反應階層，便無從得知中文遠距聯想測驗的理論基礎是否與Mednick所述者相同。除此之外，黃博聖、陳學志（2003）針對個體於中文遠距聯想測驗解題時的內在歷程提出假設，認為個體在本測驗的解題歷程蘊含與創造性思考歷程相同的要素。然而，此說法卻同樣缺乏實徵研究加以支持，導致現有中文遠距聯想測驗的效度普遍不高（任純慧等人，2004；黃博聖等人，2003）卻不得其解。倘若研究者能對於中文遠距聯想測驗的理論基礎以及解題歷程有更深入的瞭解，或許便能改善目前中文遠距聯想測驗效度普遍不佳的現況。因此，本論文便透過三項研究檢驗中文遠距聯想測驗所依循理論，以及分析個體於中文遠距聯想測驗解題時的內在歷程。研究一採用研究參與者於中文字詞聯想作業的聯想反應檢驗Mednick聯結階層概念的三項效果假說，結果顯示強度與順序兩項效果與假設相符，而比例效果則否。研究二先建立以聯想反應詞彙出現頻次及其順逆向關係預測詞彙聯結強度之迴歸方程式，再探討參與者在不同目標詞彙聯結強度之中文遠距聯想測驗試題表現會否與其在其他創造力測驗分數之相關值有所差異，藉以瞭解詞彙聯結強度對中文遠距聯想測驗效度之影響。結果符合預期，低目標詞彙聯結強度（即遠距概念）之試題其與效標作業的相關值顯著大於高目標詞彙聯結強度（即近距概念）者。研究三則探討個體進行中文遠距聯想測驗解題時，於解題之初及詞彙聯想與搜尋階段時的可能情形。結果發現個體在解題之初，挑選刺激字進行聯想時，最容易受到刺激字擺放位置所影響，其次為目標詞頻；在詞彙聯想與搜尋階段，個體會分別採用類疊式、循序式及跳躍式等聯想方式進行詞彙搜尋。其中，循序式與跳躍式聯想所使用比率愈高，觸接到正確答案的機率愈高；反之，類疊式聯想則否。此結果與假設相符，表示個體於本測驗的解題歷程確實與創造性思考相仿。綜合本論文的發現，除了為中文遠距聯想測驗本身效度研究累積相關實徵證據，並提供往後研究在試題編製的參考，以期使中文遠距聯想測驗的發展更加完善。

Chinese Remote Association Test (CRAT) was developed by Ren, Chen, Lian, & Jhuo based on Mednick’s (1962) Remote Association Test. There are three Chinese cue words in each Chinese remote association item and the participant must find a target Chinese word that can connect the three Chinese cue words respectively. There has been many researches testing Mednick’s Associate Theory but the results are inconsistent with the theory (Lee, 1999; Lin, Lian, & Ren, 2005; Coney & Serna, 1995; Gough, 1976; Milgram & Rabkin, 1980; Ward, 1969). Besides, the evidence that tests Mednick’s “associative hierarchy” hypothesis of Chinese words is insufficient. Moreover, Huang & Chen assumed that there is something in common between the internal process involved in solving the CRAT and the creative thinking, but the evidence to support the hypothesis is still not enough. Therefore, the purpose of the thesis is to study the theory basis of CRAT and the internal process involved in solving the CRAT so that the validity of CRAT can be improved. We proposed three hypotheses: (1) the “associative hierarchy” of Chinese words is similar to the one of English words. (2)The strength of association between words could affect the validity of CRAT. (3) The internal process in CRAT is similar to the one in creative thinking.
In research 1, the three effects from Mednick’s “associative hierarchy” hypothesis established by Chinese words was tested. The result showed that the “order effect” and the “strength effect” was supported, but the “probability effect” was not.
In research 2, we tested whether we can predict the strength of the association of every word in each item or not. Moreover, we explored whether the strength of the association between words influences the validity of CRAT or not. The results demonstrated that the validity of CRAT was diverse in two versions which was composed of different strength.
In research 3, we discussed how the participants choose cue words to solve each item and analyzed the internal process of which they associate cue words and target words. And we found that the internal process involved in solving the CRAT was similar to the one involved in creative thinking. The results of this study provided valuable evidence for researches related to CRAT and help people realize the internal process in CRAT much better.

中文部份
任純慧、陳學志、練竑初（2001）。中文遠距聯想量表的編製：新策略的嘗試。國科會大專生研究計畫。
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。
何偉雲、葉錦燈（2003），RAT-like測驗中的發散性思考分析，科學教育學刊，11，195-210。
吳清麟、陳學志、彭淑玲、胡中凡（2008）。中文遠距聯想測驗之解題歷程分析。2008心理與教育測驗學術研討會：台北。
吳靜吉、陳甫彥、郭俊賢、林偉文、劉士豪、陳玉樺（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。
李秀瓊（1999）。高低創造力者在詞彙連結型態上有否差異？──檢驗Mednick的「連結層級」假說。台灣大學心理學研究所碩士論文。
林清山（1992）。心理與教育統計學。台北：東華。
林緯倫、連韻文、與任純慧（2005）。想得多是想得好的前提嗎？探討發散性思考能力在創意問題解決的角色。中華心理學刊，47，211-227。
邱發忠（2005）。創造力認知運作機制之探究。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系博士論文。
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。國科會大專生研究計畫。
陳學志（1999）。認知及認知的自我監控─中文詞聯想常模的建立。國科會研究結案報告。
陳學志、吳清麟、陳柏熹、林耀南（2008）。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試題難度之影響。第八屆海峽兩岸心理與教育測驗學術研討會：雲南。
陳學志、徐芝君、邱發忠、林耀南（2007）。以眼球追蹤儀器探討在閱讀不同刺激材料的首次凝視位置傾向及時間序列效果 。台灣心理學會第46屆年會，台南。
陳學志、彭淑玲、曾千芝、邱皓政（2008）。藉由眼動追蹤儀器探討平均掃視幅度大小與創造力之關係內隱與外顯測量之相關：以情緒臉孔之眼球移動軌跡型態為例。教育心理學報，39，127-149。
陳龍根（2002）。智力遊戲集錦。香港：讀者文摘社。
黃博聖（2006）。詞彙聯想策略測驗的發展。國立台灣師範大學教育心理與輔導學系碩士論文。
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。國科會大專生研究計畫。
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。

西文部份
Ansburg, P. & Hill, K. (2003). Creative and analytic thinkers differ in their use of attentional resources. Personality and Individual Differences, 34, 1141-1152.
Ansburg, P. (2003). Individual Differences in Problem Solving via Insight. Current Psychology, 19, 143-146.
Ashcraft, M. H. (2002). Cognition. New jersey: Prentice Hall.
Bear, J. & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 19, 143-146.
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.
Ben-Zur, H. (1989). Automatic and directed search processes in solbing 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., & Beeman, M. J. (2003a). Normative data for 144 compound remote associate problems. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers, 35, 634-639.
Bowden, E. M. & Beeman, M. J. (2003b). Aha！Insight experience correlates with solution activation in the right hemisphere. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 10, 730-737.
Brown, J. D., Dutton, K. A. & Cook, K. E. (2001). From the top down: Self-esteem and self-evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 615-631.
Coney, J. & Serna, P. (1995). Creative thinking from an information processing perspective: a new approach to Mednick’s theory of associative hierarchies. Journal of Creative Behavior, 29, 109-132.
Fischer, G. H. (1973). The linear logistic test model as an instrument in educational research. Acta Psychologica, 37,59-374.
Fodor, E. M. (1999). Subclinical inclination toward manic-depression and creative performance on the Remote Associates Test. Personality and Individual Differences, 27, 1273-1283.
Forbach , G. B. Evans, R. G. (1981). The Remote Associates Test as a Predictor of Productivity in Brainstorming Groups. Applied Psychological Measurement, 5, 333-339.
Friedman, R. S., Fishbach, A., Foster, J. ＆ Werth, L.(2003)Attentional Priming Effects on Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 15, 277-286.
Gianotti, R. R., Mohr, C., Pizzagalli, D., Lehmann, D. & Brugger, P. (2001). Associative processing and paranormal belief. Psychiatry and Clinical Neurosciences, 55, 595-603.
Gough, H. G. (1976). Studying creativity by means of word association tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. 61, 348-353.
Heatherton, T. F. & Vohs, K. D. (2000). Interpersonal evaluations following threats to self: Role of self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 725-736.
Kaufmann, D. (2003). What to measure? A new look at the concept of creativity. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47, 235-251.
Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. NY: Guilfords Press.
Martindale, C. (1981). Cognition and consciousness. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
Martindale, C. (1995). Creativity and connectionism. In S. M. Smith, T. B. Ward, & R. A. Finke (Eds.), The creative cognition approach (pp.249-268). Cambridge, MA: Bradford.
Martindale, C., Hines, D., Mitchell, L. & Covello, E. (1984). EEG alpha asymmetry and creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 5, 77-86.
Mednick, S. A. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 44, 220-232.
Mednick, S. A. (1968). The Remote Associates Test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 2, 213-214.
Milgram, R. M. & Rabkin, L. (1980). Developmental test of Mednick’s associative hierarchies of original thinking. Developmental Psychology, 16, 157-158.
Perkins, D. (2000). The art and logic of breakthrough thinking. Norton & Company.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappa, 42, 305-310.
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospect and Paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp.3- 15). Cambridge Press.
Vohs, K. D. & Heatherton, T. F. (2001). Self-esteem and threats to self: Implications for self-construals and interpersonal perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology., 81, 1103-1118.
Wakefield, J. F. (1992). Creative thinking: Problem Solving Skills and the Art Orientation.Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace.
Weinstein, S. & Graves, R. E. (2001). Creativity, schizotypy, and laterality. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry 6. 131-46.
Weinstein, S. & Graves, R. E. (2002). Are creativity and schizotypy products of a right hemisphere bias? Brain and Cognition, 49. 138-51.