Revisiting Individual Creativity Assessment: Triangulation in Subjective and Objective Assessment Methods

Park, Namgyoo K.; Chun, Monica Young-Shin; Lee, Jinju

doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125259

Cited by 84 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 81 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…University of Leuven, Belgium E-mail address: wim.vandennoortgate@kuleuven.be * This research was supported by a grant from the Government of Egypt Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/11/18 5:43 PM 239 ferent aspects of creativity, ranging from cognitive processes to environmental factors (Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007;Park et al, 2016).…”

Section: Wim Van Den Noortgatementioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the most controversial issues in creativity research is the measurement of this construct (Baer & McKool, 2009;Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011;Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001;Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016;Zeng et al, 2011). The growing body of creativity research has devoted considerable attention to the development of numerous instruments assessing dif-ferent aspects of creativity, ranging from cognitive processes to environmental factors (Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007;Park et al, 2016).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Accordingly, understanding the nature and determinants of creativity is of great importance to enhance its development. However, although much research has been devoted to such understanding, some controversial issues have not yet been settled.One of the most controversial issues in creativity research is the measurement of this construct (Baer & McKool, 2009; Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011; Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001;Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016;Zeng et al, 2011). The growing body of creativity research has devoted considerable attention to the development of numerous instruments assessing dif-…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Said-Metwaly

Noortgate

Kyndt

2017

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a review of the literature on the measurement of creativity. Creativity definitions are discussed as a starting point for understanding the nature of this construct. The four major approaches to measuring creativity (process, person, product and press) are reviewed, pointing out commonly used instruments as well as the advantages and weaknesses of each approach. This review reveals that the measurement of creativity is an unsettled issue, and that the existing instruments purporting to measure creativity suffer from serious conceptual and psychometric shortcomings. Research gaps and suggestions for future research are discussed. INTRODUCTIONCreativity is considered as a precious asset for solving individual, organizational and social problems and achieving sustainable development (Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2015;Lubart, Zenasni, & Barbot, 2013;Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011). Accordingly, understanding the nature and determinants of creativity is of great importance to enhance its development. However, although much research has been devoted to such understanding, some controversial issues have not yet been settled.One of the most controversial issues in creativity research is the measurement of this construct (Baer & McKool, 2009; Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011; Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001;Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016;Zeng et al., 2011). The growing body of creativity research has devoted considerable attention to the development of numerous instruments assessing dif- Wim Van den NoortgateUniversity of Leuven, Belgium E-mail address: wim.vandennoortgate@kuleuven.be * This research was supported by a grant from the Government of Egypt Unauthenticated Download Date | 5/11/18 5:43 PM 239 ferent aspects of creativity, ranging from cognitive processes to environmental factors (Kaufman, Lee, Baer, & Lee, 2007;Park et al., 2016).The most prominent characteristic of this body of instruments is their diversity, indicating the complexity of defining and measuring creativity (Hocevar, 1981). In addition, these instruments have limitations, such as measuring trivial aspects of creativity or lacking adequate psychometric properties (Baer & McKool, 2009;Kaufman et al., 2007). Hence, researchers seeking to measure creativity face a number of unsolved issues, including how creativity should be defined, what particular aspects of this construct need to be valued and measured, and what the most appropriate instruments are, for measuring these aspects (Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014;Treffinger, Young, Selby, & Shepardson, 2002). In this regard, this paper aims to shed light on these issues through answering these questions:1. How is creativity defined and described in the literature? 2. What are the approaches to measuring creativity? 3. What are the most commonly used instruments in each approach? 4. What are the advantages and weaknesses of the existing approaches for measuring creativity?We try to answer these questions through systematically reviewin...

show abstract

Section: Wim Van Den Noortgatementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Said-Metwaly

Noortgate

Kyndt

2017

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

146

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…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).…”

Section: Domain-generality/ Specificity Of Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The measurement of creativity is one of the focal topics in creativity research (Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008;Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016;Plucker & Makel, 2010). Hocevar (1981) stated that creativity is probably more difficult to measure than any other psychological construct.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Said-Metwaly

Noortgate

Kyndt

2017

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing body of creativity research has raised several challenging issues with regard to the measurement of this construct. This paper aims to provide a review of current challenging methodological issues related to measuring creativity. Five methodological issues are discussed: selecting measurement instruments, sampling, testing conditions, psychometric properties and domain-generality/specificity of creativity. This paper reveals that there remain a number of unresolved issues and serious questions surrounding the measurement of creativity. Research gaps and suggestions for future research are discussed.

show abstract

Creative Subprocess Frequencies and Their Relation to Personal Characteristics and Product Creativity: Insights from a Drawing Task Think Aloud Study

Boldt,

Kaufman

2023

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Most research on the creative process has focused on idea generation, and the prevalence and influence of many other creative subprocesses remain poorly understood. To clarify different subprocesses' respective roles in creative work, this study investigated their frequencies and associations with creativity‐related personal characteristics and product creativity. Undergraduate students (n = 266) articulated their creative thought processes via the think aloud method while completing an open‐ended drawing task and completed questionnaires assessing creativity‐relevant personal characteristics. Drawings were rated for creativity by quasi‐expert judges. Transcripts were coded using an a priori coding scheme informed by models of the creative process, including generation (14%), elaboration (26%), association (9%), selection (4%), evaluation (13%), anchoring (13%), metacognition (7%), and filler (14%). Subprocess frequencies correlated minimally with measures of personal characteristics, although several significant, albeit weak, relationships emerged. A hierarchical regression analysis indicated that the best predictors of drawing creativity were aesthetic fluency, the frequency of anchoring, time spent on task, and, marginally, the frequency of generation. Together, these results provide insight into how relevant personal characteristics and subprocess engagement contribute to drawing creativity and highlight the particular importance of anchoring, which involves monitoring and refining task‐related goals and constraints, throughout the creative process.

show abstract

Revisiting Individual Creativity Assessment: Triangulation in Subjective and Objective Assessment Methods

Cited by 84 publications

References 81 publications

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Creative Subprocess Frequencies and Their Relation to Personal Characteristics and Product Creativity: Insights from a Drawing Task Think Aloud Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About