A New Perspective on the Multidimensionality of Divergent Thinking Tasks

Abstract

In the presented work, a shift of perspective with respect to the dimensionality of divergent thinking (DT) tasks is introduced moving from the question of multidimensionality across DT scores (i.e., fluency, flexibility, or originality) to the question of multidimensionality within one holistic score of DT performance (i.e., snapshot ratings of creative quality). We apply IRTree models to test whether unidimensionality assumptions hold in different task instructions for snapshot scoring of DT tests across Likert-scale points and varying levels of fluency. It was found that evidence for unidimensionality across scale points was stronger with be-creative instructions as compared to be-fluent instructions which suggests better psychometric quality of ratings when be-creative instructions are used. In addition, creative quality latent variables pertaining to low-fluency and high-fluency ideational pools shared around 50% of variance which suggests both strong overlap, and evidence for differentiation. The presented approach allows to further examine the psychometric quality of subjective ratings and to examine new questions with respect to within-item multidimensionality in DT.

Assessing Raters: What Factors Predict Discernment in Novice Creativity Raters?

“…Aside from the easy‐to‐score quantitative aspects of DT performance (e.g., ideational fluency), DT tasks typically also aim to score the creative quality of responses (Forthmann, Szardenings, Dumas, & Feist, 2020), but there is no objective creativity criterion (Shapiro, 1970). Thus, the creative quality may actually refer to different qualities including originality, remoteness, cleverness, appropriateness, or a holistic combination of them (Forthmann, Bürkner, Bürkner, Szardenings, Benedek, & Holling, 2019; Forthmann et al., 2020; Reiter‐Palmon et al., 2019). Established DT tests commonly focus on originality or uncommonness (e.g., Runco et al., 2016; Torrance, 1974), because this aspect can be assessed in a largely objective way in terms of the infrequency of responses.…”

“…combination of them (Forthmann, Bu ¨rkner, Bu ¨rkner, Szardenings, Benedek, & Holling, 2019;Forthmann et al, 2020;Reiter-Palmon et al, 2019). Established DT tests commonly focus on originality or uncommonness (e.g., Runco et al, 2016;Torrance, 1974), because this aspect can be assessed in a largely objective way in terms of the infrequency of responses.…”

Dopamine supports idea originality: the role of spontaneous eye blink rate on divergent thinking

“…Second, this procedure works only when the sample size is sufficiently large (Forthmann et al, 2020). Last, the frequency estimates for scoring responses as "uncommon" inevitably involve subjective evaluations and adaptations in order to identify whether certain responses are actually the same as or different from each other (Forthmann, Bürkner, et al, 2019;Forthmann, Oyebade, et al, 2019;Reiter-Palmon et al, 2019). In conclusion, Rater-Based (RB) originality measurement is recommended instead of FB methods for smaller samples (e.g., Hass, Rivera, & Silvia, 2018;Silvia et al, 2008), and furthermore is able to capture both remoteness and cleverness indicators of originality besides uncommonness (Forthmann et al, 2017;Silvia et al, 2008), i.e., qualitative indicators of ideas beside quantitative ones.…”

Design Training and Creativity: Students Develop Stronger Divergent but Not Convergent Thinking

“…The creative process can be divided into two stages, with divergent thinking being prominent early in the process and convergent thinking being prominent later in the process. First, in the idea generation stage, the designer uses mostly divergent thinking to put forward as many abstract ideas, forms, and design schemes as possible ( Forthmann et al, 2019 ). During this first stage, distraction is beneficial and creative generation may depend on the availability of unfiltered, low-level perceptual information ( Weinberger et al, 2017 ).…”