Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Abstract

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...

Looking at the Process: Examining Creative and Artistic Thinking in Fashion Designers on a Reality Television Show

“…Additional categories include personality and press [or environment], constituting the 4 Ps (Fishkin and Johnson, 1998; Barbot et al, 2011; Said-Metwaly et al, 2017). But in psychology, even those approaches to creativity assessment that are “process” based are essentially dependent upon what educators would think of as products.…”

“…Within the 4 Ps of approaches in psychology (Fishkin and Johnson, 1998; Barbot et al, 2011; Said-Metwaly et al, 2017), each category has benefits and drawbacks.…”

“…While process-focused psychological approaches described above are generally accepted as reliable (Cropley, 2000), their validity is debated (for discussions of validity, see Hocevar and Bachelor, 1989; Cropley, 2000; Simonton, 2003; Clapham, 2004; Said-Metwaly et al, 2017). This issue is put plainly by Glãveanu (2014, p. 16), who writes: “How is [the] experiential and ontological richness of creativity as a phenomenon ever contained in tasks like ‘please generate as many uses as possible for a brick’?” As Said-Metwaly et al (2017) note, process-focused approaches (and all other currently accepted approaches) suffer from a limited scope in what they measure; therefore the use of only one approach will fail to capture the complexity of creative behavior.…”

“…This issue is put plainly by Glãveanu (2014, p. 16), who writes: “How is [the] experiential and ontological richness of creativity as a phenomenon ever contained in tasks like ‘please generate as many uses as possible for a brick’?” As Said-Metwaly et al (2017) note, process-focused approaches (and all other currently accepted approaches) suffer from a limited scope in what they measure; therefore the use of only one approach will fail to capture the complexity of creative behavior.…”

“…In CAT, a social psychological perspective is taken – a team of judges who are experts within the domain independently determine whether and to what degree a product is “creative.” This approach is generally highly reliable and valid (Baer et al, 2004; Kaufman et al, 2007; Said-Metwaly et al, 2017). However, this approach can be time-consuming and expensive, requiring skilled judges.…”