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 A search of published and unpublished studies in English from 1960 to 2015 resulted in 40 studies with a total of 6,649 male and female participants, with ages ranging from childhood to adulthood.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.

BackgroundThe originality of divergent thinking (DT) production is one of the most critical indicators of creative potential. It is commonly scored using the statistical infrequency of responses relative to all responses provided in a given sample.AimsResponse frequency estimates vary in terms of measurement precision. This issue has been widely overlooked and is addressed in the current study.Sample and methodSecondary data analysis of 202 participants was performed. A total of 900 uniquely identified responses were generated on three DT tasks and subjected to a 1‐parameter logistic model with a response as the unit of measurement which allowed for the calculation of response‐level conditional reliability (and marginal reliability as an overall summary of measurement precision).ResultsMarginal reliability of response propensity estimates ranged from .62 to .67 across the DT tasks. Unique responses in the sample (the basis for the classic uniqueness scoring) displayed the lowest conditional reliability (across tasks: ≈ .50). Reliability increased nonlinearly as a function of both the frequency of occurrence predicted by the model (conditional reliability) and sample size (conditional and marginal reliability).ConclusionsThis study indicates that the common practice of frequency‐based originality scoring with typical sample sizes (e.g., N = 100 to N = 200) yields unacceptable levels of measurement precision (i.e., in particular for highly original responses). We further offer recommendations to mitigate the lack of measurement precision of frequency‐based originality scores for DT research.

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.

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.

Understanding how teachers’ implicit beliefs promote and inhibit students’ creativity has important implications for fostering creativity in the classroom. This study investigated whether the effect of teachers’ fixed creative mindset on their self‐efficacy for teaching creativity was mediated by their perceptions of students’ potential and the degree to which this indirect effect varied by level of growth creative mindset. A sample of educators (N = 119) completed an online survey containing questions regarding creative mindsets, perceptions of students’ potential, self‐efficacy for teaching creativity, and a set of relevant covariates. A moderated mediation analysis indicated that the more teachers believed creativity to be innate, the less teachers tended to perceive every student to possess creative potential. Consequently, teachers’ confidence in their ability to teach for creativity was diminished. Results from the corresponding tests of simple indirect effects indicated that this negative indirect effect of a fixed creative mindset was lessened by teachers’ growth creative mindset. Taken together, the findings suggest the likely significant role of teachers’ fixed and growth creative mindsets for fostering creativity in classroom.