While neither the notion of personality being related to creativity, nor the idea that the diverse conceptions and measures of creativity can cloud the field are new, the 2 thoughts are rarely combined. Using a systematic review methodology, 1 overarching question was examined: Do differential creativity-personality relationships exist based on different creativity conceptions or measurement schemes? In the review, 188 reported relationships of creativity to personality across 96 peer-reviewed, empirical studies were examined and coded for definitions and measurements of creativity. Results support standing beliefs regarding openness and extraversion as strong positive predictors. However, the amount of creativity variance explained differed as much as 8 times depending on the type of assessment. Production measures and self-reported measures were more related to personality than ideation and externally rated measures. The 4 elements of divergent thinking also demonstrated differential relationships to personality. The results of this analysis encourage subsequent research that is more discerning when interpreting the relationships between creativity and personality.

Approximately 9.6 million (20%) K-12 students in the United States are enrolled in rural school districts. Rural school districts are found in every state, and while they make up 20% of the total student population, rural school districts constitute 33% of the schools in the nation. In some states, the proportion of rural school districts is as low as 6% and in others the proportion of rural districts reaches as high as 78%. In Mississippi, Vermont, and Maine, more than 50% of the students are enrolled in rural districts (Strange, Johnson, Showalter, & Klein, 2012). Rural school districts and the student population attending them may exhibit qualitative and quantitative differences making them unique educational environments deserving of attention from both policy makers and practitioners (Cromartie & Bucholtz, 2008; Plucker, 2013). Unfortunately, a number of studies have documented potential challenges for rural school districts to provide gifted education (Azano et al., 2011; Cross & Burney, 2005; Hébert & Beardsley, 2001). Though 32 (64%) of the states in the United States have policy mandates to either identify or provide services for gifted students (National Association for Gifted Children, 2013), inequities in gifted education services continue to exist even under state mandates (Baker, 2001; Baker & Friedman-Nimz, 2004). Furthermore, studies have found consistent underfunding of gifted education programs in rural school districts (Baker & McIntire, 2003; Howley, Rhodes, & Beall, 2009). Inequity of opportunity has been an ongoing concern for the broader field of gifted education (Esquierdo & Arreguín-Anderson, 2012; Stephens, 2011; Swanson, 2007). Educational opportunities for gifted students vary by socioeconomic status and race/ethnicity (Ford, Harris, Tyson, & Trotman, 2002) and by locale (Cross & Burney, 2005; Kettler, Russell, & Puryear, 2015). Generally, rural schools and schools with a preponderance of low-socioeconomic students provide fewer resources and opportunities for identified gifted students than their counterparts in other locales and socioeconomic conditions (Baker & McIntire, 2003). It is not surprising then that gifted students in rural settings tend to be underrepresented in the research literature of both gifted education and rural education (Arnold, Newman, Gaddy, & Dean, 2005; Azano, 2014). Despite the relative lack of attention, studies have found locale to be associated with variance in educational opportunities-including gifted education programs and services (Lawrence, 2009). In particular, students in rural settings are less likely to be identified as gifted and generally have fewer opportunities for gifted education services (Lawrence, 2009; Pendarvis & Wood, 2009). Similarly, Howley et al. (2009) found that gifted programs in rural areas across the United States were consistently underfunded due to three common 690229G CQXXX10.

This study examined discrepancies in educational opportunity for gifted students at the program services level. School districts in the study (N = 1,029) varied in expenditures for gifted education and the allocation of faculty for gifted education. The relationships of variables representing funding and staffing gifted education and school contextual variables such as locale (city, suburban, town, rural) were examined. Pairwise comparisons among locales revealed effect sizes as high as 0.31 with respect to funding and staffing variables. Multiple regression analyses and bivariate correlations were examined to estimate the relative strength of the predictor variables on the funding and staffing variables. Data in this study indicated that locale, school size, and economic disadvantage were the strongest predictors of variance in funding and staffing gifted education programs. Rural schools, small schools, and schools with larger economically disadvantaged populations allocate proportionally less fiscal and human resources to gifted education services. Racial/ethnic diversity, property wealth, and overall expenditures per student accounted for relatively little of the variance in funding and staffing gifted programs.

Creativity is a complex construct that is conceptualized and measured in multiple ways. This study examined the relationship between creativity and personality taking this into account. It was hypothesized that applying different conceptions and measures would cause variation in the creativity–personality relationship. The participants (N = 224) were undergraduate students and completed six creativity measures, a personality inventory, and a demographic questionnaire. Personality predicted more creative production (R2 = .277) than creative potential (R2 = .176) and more self‐reported creativity (R2 = .348) than that which was externally rated (R2 = .149). Openness was most consistently and strongly related to creativity, but other personality factors varied in their influence and some demonstrated suppression effects. Overall, the results suggest that despite relatively small effects of personality on creativity, there appear to be meaningful differences in the relationships depending on conception and measurement. Implications for educational settings and future research are discussed.

Definitions of rurality in education research are inconsistent, making generalization across studies difficult at best. We review published research in rural education between 2005 and 2015 ( n = 17) and characterize the way each defined rural. A common technique for classifying rural schools is the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES) locale code. We argue that the NCES locale codes fall short of most conceptual understandings of rural. We recommend a school size filter to address the mismatch between the NCES codes and conceptual understandings of rurality. We compare non-rural districts with rural districts using NCES codes for grouping with and without the school size filter. Observed effects vary depending on whether the school size filter was used. We argue that the school size filter along with NCES codes better captures the concept of rural education and could improve research design and generalization across studies involving rural schools.