This study examined the relationship between problem finding (PF) and creativity. A search of published and unpublished studies in English from 1960 to 2015 resulted in 40 studies with a total of 6,649 male and female participants, with ages ranging from childhood to adulthood. Accordingly, this meta-analysis estimated the population correlations between PF and creativity within the 40 studies; it examined whether the correlations varied according to the sample characteristics or other aspects of the individual investigations. We also examined how various labels are used in PF literature and how the terms differ from one another. Using the random-effects model, the results showed that PF and creativity were significantly correlated, r = .22 (95% confidence interval [.11, .32], p = < .001), but with high heterogeneity. Moreover, 3 of 5 moderators were significant and explained the variation in the mean effect size: (a) the various indices of divergent thinking, (b) the PF domain, and (c) participants’ age. An analysis of variance showed that using different labels in PF and creativity research did not significantly alter study results. Still, the findings suggest that PF consists of various processes that evolve when individuals discover, identify, or define problems. This study also calls for measures that can assess ill-defined problems to complement existing divergent thinking measures that assess presented problems.

Divergent thinking (DT) tests are probably the most commonly used measures of creative potential. Several extensive batteries are available but most research relies on one or two specific tests rather than a complete battery. This may limit generalizations because tests of DT are not equivalent. They are not always highly inter-correlated. Additionally, some DT tests appear to be better than others at eliciting originality. This is critical because originality is vital for creativity. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine which test of DT elicits the most originality. Seven measures of DTwere administered on a sample of 611 participants in eight Arabic countries. The tests were Figural, Titles, Realistic Presented Problems, Realistic Problem Generation, Instances, Uses, and Similarities. The Quick Test of Convergent Thinking, Runco's Ideational Behavior Scale, and a demographic questionnaire were also administered. A linear mixed model analysis confirmed that the originality scores in the DT tests differed by test. Post-hoc tests indicated that the Titles and Realistic Problem Generation tests produced the highest mean originality scores, whereas the Realistic Presented Problems test produced the lowest mean originality scores. These differences confirm that research using only one DT test will not provide generalizable results.Creative behaviour has being recognized as among the most important forms of human capital. Its role in innovation, invention, design and advance in a wide range of domains is now broadly recognized. Efforts to enhance creative skills are on the rise, as are efforts to accurately assess creative potential and creative behaviour.

Level I, systematic review and meta-analysis.

Silver Nanoparticles (AgNPs), an epitome of nanotechnology, appear in everyday products such as water filters, printer ink, toothpaste, food packaging and cosmetics mostly due to their bactericidal properties. Given this high level of public exposure, the safety of AgNPs has never been fully established. The unsafe use of AgNPs could pose a real threat, not only to public health but also to economic growth in many industries. In this paper, we tested the effect of AgNPs on memory, learning, social behaviour and motor function of BALB/C mice. Outcomes of the present study suggested an impairment of these functions in AgNPs treated groups. Overall, obtained data support the evidence that the systemic exposure to AgNPs may result in alteration of the cerebral cognition and warrants further consideration on the impact of the AgNPs on human health with respect to their potential neurotoxicity.

There is a long-standing controversy over the relationship between psychopathology and creativity. Yet there is a lack of evidence regarding the relationship between common psychopathologies and indicators of little-c, or every day, creativity among laypeople. To make sense of this connection, we conducted a meta-analysis using 89 studies to reveal the overall relationships between the most common psychopathologies and little-c creativity and uncover the source of variance in the relationships. The 89 studies involved 35,271 participants and the common psychopathologies: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, anxiety, and depression. Results indicated that the overall mean effect size was not different from zero (r = −.06, k = 261, 95% confidence interval [−.15, .02]) with substantial heterogeneity. Variability of effect sizes was examined by five moderators: assessment of psychopathology, assessment of creativity, age, gender, and intelligence of participants. Specifically, the moderator analyses showed that effect sizes varied by assessment of both psychopathology and creativity as well as level of intelligence.