Diverse Perspectives of Creativity Testing

Abstract

Although it is important to include creative potential in the criteria for gifted programs, a review of the literature reveals creativity testing for this purpose to be a controversial topic. As creativity is a complex, multifaceted construct difficult to measure and operationalize, instruments purporting to measure creative abilities may lead to inaccurate assessments. The purpose of this article is to present and clarify some of the many conflicting perspectives of creativity testing in order for educators involved in gifted programs to make informed decisions about their use. Suggestions for measurement selection and alternative methods of assessing creative potential are offered.

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

“…In addition, these instruments are often used separately, and each instrument has its specific limitations (Horn & Salvendy, 2006;Kaufman et al, 2007;Lemons, 2011). The isolation of the four aspects of creativity may give the impression that these aspects are independent (Batey, 2012;Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015); however, the four aspects are mutually related (Batey, 2012).…”

“…The isolation of the four aspects of creativity may give the impression that these aspects are independent (Batey, 2012;Soroa, Balluerka, Hommel, & Aritzeta, 2015); however, the four aspects are mutually related (Batey, 2012). Given the multidimensional nature of creativity and the interrelationships among its different aspects, no single instrument can comprehensively capture this construct (Cropley, 2000;Fishkin & Johnson, 1998;Hennessey & Amabile, 2010;Lemons, 2011;Treffinger et al, 2002). Therefore, measuring creativity using single or isolated instruments may be considered as an extreme and somewhat misleading over -simplification.…”

“…There have been increasing calls for the use of a multidimensional approach for measuring creativity (Ambrose & Machek, 2015;Barbot et al, 2011;Lemons, 2011) by applying different instruments that exemplify various sources of information (Ambrose & Machek, 2015;Feldhusen & Goh, 1995;Fishkin & Johnson, 1998;Nakano, Primi, Ribeiro, & Almeida, 2016;Park et al, 2016;Treffinger et al, 2002). Triangulation of information sources provides an advantage to the measurement of creativity by compensating for the limitations in a single instrument through the parallel strengths of the other instruments (Jick, 1979).…”

“…Triangulation of information sources provides an advantage to the measurement of creativity by compensating for the limitations in a single instrument through the parallel strengths of the other instruments (Jick, 1979). However, before making decisions regarding the instruments that will be included in creativity measurement, it is first important to reach a consensus on what "creativity" is and which creativity aspects need to be measured (Lemons, 2011).…”

“…There has been a great deal of research on the optimal conditions for administering creativity instruments (see Chen et al, 2005;Hattie 1977;Lemons, 2011). This body of research has been concerned with comparing different testing conditions, including atmosphere (test-like vs. game-like), time limit (timed vs. untimed), setting (individual vs. group) and instruction (explicit "be creative" vs. standard) (Plucker & Renzulli, 1999).…”