Assessing Creativity in the Classroom

Barbot, Baptiste

doi:10.2174/1874920801104010058

Cited by 118 publications

(92 citation statements)

References 54 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…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%

“…On the contrary, many concerns have been raised about the validity of these instruments in measuring creativity (Barbot et al, 2011;Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989;Torrance & Haensly, 2003;.…”

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Furthermore, most of these instruments regard creativity as a general construct, without considering the specific characteristics of the domain or task of interest (Barbot et al, 2011). Accordingly, Zeng et al (2011) questioned the content validity of creativity instruments, suggesting that these instruments might be more appropriate for measuring children's creativity as their domain-specific expertise has not yet been developed or become evident.…”

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Cramond, Matthews-Morgan, Bandalos, & Zuo, 2005;Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2016;Plucker, 1999a;Runco, Millar, Acar, & Cramond, 2010). Besides the conflicting evidence concerning validity, most creativity instruments lack updated and developmentally and culturally appropriate norms for interpreting the performance of different groups (Barbot et al, 2011).…”

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Generally, the domain-generality view has prevailed in creativity research for several decades (Baer, 2015;Plucker, 2004). However, creativity researchers have started to shift their focus towards the domain-specificity view due to the existing evidence that goes against the domain-generality view, such as the notion that the work of eminent creative individuals throughout history is almost exclusively restricted to a single domain (Barbot et al, 2016;Chen et al, 2006;Zeng et al, 2011), the low correlations among creativity ratings in different domains (Chen et al, 2006), the limited power of general creativity instruments in predicting real-life creative achievement (Ayas & Sak, 2014) and the low transferability of the effect of task-specific creativity training programs to other tasks (Baer, 1994a;Barbot et al, 2011;Dow & Mayer, 2004).…”

Section: Domain-generality/specificity Of Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

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

Section: Domain-generality/ Specificity Of Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…On the contrary, many concerns have been raised about the validity of these instruments in measuring creativity (Barbot et al, 2011;Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989;Torrance & Haensly, 2003;.…”

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Psychometric Propertiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Domain-generality/specificity Of Creativitymentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

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

show abstract

Creativity Doesn't Develop in a Vacuum

Baer

2016

New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The skills, knowledge, attitudes, motivations, and personality traits that lead to creative thinking and creative behavior do not exist-and do not develop-in a vacuum. They are inextricably tied to content, to domains, in particular, and they therefore vary by domains. The more we learn about creativity, the more we discover how domain specific creativity is. This means we cannot nurture creativity, or any of the skills or attributes that contribute to creativity, without thinking about content. One cannot become physically fit by doing just one kind of exercise that trains a single set of muscles; all-around fitness requires diverse exercises that use and train many different sets of muscles. So it is with creativity. Different domains require different creativity-relevant skills, knowledge, attitudes, motivations, and personality traits. If we want to help children and adolescents become more creative, then we need to attend to the domains we use in the development of creativity.

show abstract

A Cross-Cultural Study of Task Specificity in Creativity

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study provides new evidence concerning task specificity in creativity—examining through a cross‐cultural perspective the extent to which performance in graphic versus verbal creativity tasks (domain specificity) and in divergent versus convergent creativity tasks (process specificity) are correlated. The relations between different creativity tasks in monocultural and multicultural samples of Chinese and French children were compared. Electronic versions of the Wallach and Kogan Creativity Test (WKCT, Wallach & Kogan, 1965; Lau & Cheung, 2010) and the Evaluation of Potential Creativity (EPoC; Lubart, Besançon, & Barbot, 2011; Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011) were used. Both measures showed satisfactory psychometric properties and cross‐cultural structural validity. The results showed that culture has an impact on the structure of creative ability: It appeared that correlation patterns were different across Chinese and French groups and across monocultural and multicultural groups. Such results show that it is crucial to take task specificity into account when investigating the effect of culture on creativity. Indeed, our study implies that cultural differences that are found using one specific creativity task might not be automatically generalizable to all sorts of creativity tasks. Limitations are discussed and perspectives for future research on culture and task specificity in creativity are proposed.

show abstract

Assessing Creativity in the Classroom

Cited by 118 publications

References 54 publications

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Methodological Issues in Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Creativity Doesn't Develop in a Vacuum

A Cross-Cultural Study of Task Specificity in Creativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About