Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods.

Abstract

Abstract:Divergent thinking is central to the study of individual differences in creativity, but the traditional scoring systems (assigning points for infrequent responses and summing the points) face well-known problems. After critically reviewing past scoring methods, this article describes a new approach to assessing divergent thinking and appraises its reliability and validity. In our new Top 2 scoring method, participants complete a divergent thinking task and then circle the two responses that they think are their most creative responses. Raters then evaluate the responses on a 5-point scale. Regarding reliability, a generalizability analysis showed that subjective ratings of unusual-uses tasks and instances tasks yield dependable scores with only 2 or 3 raters. Regarding validity, a latent-variable study (n = 226) predicted divergent thinking from the Big Five factors and their higher-order traits (Plasticity and Stability). Over half of the variance in divergent thinking could be explained by dimensions of personality. The article presents instructions for measuring divergent thinking with the new method.

Creative ability, creative ideation and latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality?

“…One hand, these results emphasize the complex, multifarious nature of creativity and creative competence (e.g. Mumford, 2003;Silvia et al, 2008), and stress on the other that any single psychometric test will inevitably fail to adequately operationalize creativity and its true scope.…”

“…Beyond the realm of psychosis-related traits, Openness to Experience from the Big Five has been repeatedly found to positively relate to creativity across domains and measurements (e.g. Feist, 1998;Feist & Barron, 2003;Silvia et al, 2008;. Openness comprises facet scales of fantasy, imagination and ideas, all of which tap core characteristics of creative individuals.…”

A dimensional analysis of creativity and mental illness: Do anxiety and depression symptoms predict creative cognition, creative accomplishments, and creative self-concepts?

“…To date, research has provided solid evidence for the validity of this approach: the creativity scores predict dimensions of personality (e.g., openness to experience; Silvia et al, 2008;Silvia, Nusbaum, Berg, Martin, & O'Conner, in press), fluid intelligence (Silvia, 2008a), and whether students have declared a creative college major or a conventional major .…”

“…Creativity can be viewed in terms of everyday -little c‖ creative behaviors, -Big C‖ creative accomplishments, creative cognitive styles and thought processes, creative beliefs, creative personality traits, and creative contexts and cultures (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009;Richards, 2007;Sawyer, 2006;Weisberg, 2006). We measured several of these facets, including creative cognition (assessed with divergent thinking tasks; Silvia et al, 2008), everyday creative behaviors (Dollinger, 2007), creative accomplishments in different domains (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, 2005), and creative self-beliefs (whether people viewed themselves as creative people; Kaufman & Baer, 2004). By casting a broad net, we hoped to give each side in the debate a fair shot.…”

Creative Storytelling In Childhood Is Related To Exam Performance At Age 16

“…The Torrance Tests may measure divergent thinking ability in certain specific domains, but they should not be interpreted as measures of http://dx.doi.org/10.15405/epsbs.2017.12.40 Corresponding Author: Yulia Kovas Selection and peer-review under responsibility of the Organizing Committee of the conference eISSN: 377 creativity in general (Baer, 2011). As the score is based on frequency of the answers, it can be considered a measure of verbal fluency, not necessarily of creativity (Silvia et al, 2008). Overall, divergent thinking tasks measure only a very limited aspect of creativity, and therefore their relevance in education has been questioned (Barbot, Besancon, & Lubart, 2015;Zeng, Proctor, & Salvendy, 2011).…”