Domain Specificity in Creativity Testing: A Comparison of Performance on a General Divergent‐Thinking Test and a Parallel, Content‐Specific Test

Diakidoy, Irene‐Anna N.; Spanoudis, George

doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01055.x

Cited by 30 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The key evidence for domain-specificity derives from the low correlations among ratings of creative performance in different domains (e.g., poetry, mathematics, and drawings) (Baer, 1991(Baer, , 1994aConti, Coon, & Amabile, 1996;Kaufman & Baer, 2004;Han, 2003;Han & Marvin, 2002;Runco, 1989;Ruscio, Whitney, & Amabile, 1998) or even within the domain of verbal creativity (e.g., poetry vs. story, Baer, 1994a;painting vs. drawing, Conti et al, 1996); low correlations between creativity in specific domains and creativity assessed with measures such as TTCT (Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002) and Wallace-Kogan Creative Thinking Test (Han, 2003;Han & Marvin, 2002); a lack of transfer of learning of creativity skills across domains (Baer, 1994b(Baer, , 1996; and the small number of geniuses who excel in multiple domains (Baer, 2004;Sternberg & Lubart, 1995).…”

Section: Volume 40 Number 3 Third Quarter 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…He believed that response-bias in self-reports may have resulted in the appearance of domain-generality. The explanatory power of TTCT and other divergent thinking tests has also been challenged (Amabile, 1983;Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002;Han, 2003;Han & Marvin, 2002;Hocevar & Bachelor, 1989). Research is needed to explore new correlates that may better account for the domain-general components of creativity.…”

Section: Volume 40 Number 3 Third Quarter 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

Chen

Himsel

Kasof

et al. 2006

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study investigated correlates of domain‐general and domain‐specific components of creativity. 158 college students completed a questionnaire that assessed their motivational and personality traits (i.e., intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, creative personality, and originality in word association) as well as intellectual abilities (SAT verbal and quantitative scores). Under two different instruction conditions (standard instruction or explicit “be creative” instruction), students also took a battery of multi‐item, product‐based tests of creativity in three domains (artistic, verbal, and mathematical creativity). Factor analyses showed evidence of domain‐generality of creativity. Furthermore, results from structural equation models showed that motivational and personality traits and intellectual abilities were associated with the domain‐general component of creativity. Only one variable (SAT quantitative score) was found to be associated with the domain‐specific component of mathematical creativity under the explicit “be creative” instruction condition. These results affirm the domain‐generality of creativity and challenge researchers to identify correlates of domain‐specific components of creativity.

show abstract

Section: Volume 40 Number 3 Third Quarter 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Volume 40 Number 3 Third Quarter 2006mentioning

confidence: 99%

Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

Chen

Himsel

Kasof

et al. 2006

Journal of Creative Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Baer, 1996;Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002;Garaigordobil & Pérez, 2004;Han & Marvin, 2002;Runco, Dow & Smith, 2006;Silvia, Kaufman & Pretz, 2009), has shown a tendency to support the idea of the specificity of the creative domain, although there are some results contradicting it, which point to the existence of a general creativity as well -(e.g. Kaufman & Baer, 2004;Mohamed, Maker, & Lubart, 2012).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Runing ahead: Pensamiento divergente y sus dimensiones: ¿De qué hablamos y qué evaluamos?

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Título: Pensamiento divergente y sus dimensiones: ¿de qué hablamos y qué evaluamos? Resumen: Este artículo analiza el papel de los procesos cognitivos subyacentes en el pensamiento divergente y los contenidos sobre los que se aplican dichos procesos (verbal y figurativo). La muestra utilizada es de 260 alumnos con edades comprendidas entre los 8 y los 15 años. Para la evaluación del pensamiento divergente, se utilizó el Test Figurativo de Pensamiento Creativo de Torrance (TTCT), y la Prueba de Imaginación Creativa (PIC) de contenido verbal. Los resultados obtenidos sugieren que, aunque ambas pruebas evalúen el pensamiento divergente y tengan el referencial psicométrico de Guilford, sus puntuaciones no están significativamente correlacionadas. Los resultados de los análisis factoriales confirmatorios muestran que el modelo que mejor explica las puntuaciones en estas pruebas refleja la existencia de dos factores autónomos que se corresponden con cada una de las pruebas, por tanto, identificándose más con los contenidos, dominios y demandas de la tarea que con los procesos cognitivos que tradicionalmente se consideran en la definición y medida de la creatividad. Palabras clave: creatividad; evaluación de la creatividad; pensamiento divergente; tests de creatividad.Abstract: This paper examines the role of latent cognitive process and the contents of task (verbal and figural) in divergent thinking. The sample was composed of 260 students, attending different public and semi-public schools in the Murcia Region (Spain), with ages ranging from 8 to 15 years old. Creativity was assessed with the Torrance Test of Creativity Thinking (TTCT) and the Test of Creative Imagination (PIC). Results suggest that, even though both tests are based on the psychometric approach and Guilford´s theory of creativity, their scores are not significantly correlated. Results from confirmatory factor analysis suggest two independent factors (one for each test), more related to tasks' demands and contents than with the cognitive processes traditionally considered in the definition and measurement of creativity.

show abstract

“…There are many possible reasons to account for the low content validity of divergent thinking tests. First, the key assumption behind the development of divergent thinking tests is that creativity represents a general and identical construct across all domains, and hence the items included in these tests are relatively content-free and domain -independent (Diakidoy & Spanoudis, 2002;Weisberg, 2006). However, a growing body of research indicates that creativity may be best conceived as a domain-specific construct and that general skills or processes only have a limited contribution to creative achievement (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Said-Metwaly

Noortgate

Kyndt

2017

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

139

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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...

show abstract

Domain Specificity in Creativity Testing: A Comparison of Performance on a General Divergent‐Thinking Test and a Parallel, Content‐Specific Test

Cited by 30 publications

References 27 publications

Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

Boundless Creativity: Evidence for the Domain Generality of Individual Differences in Creativity

Runing ahead: Pensamiento divergente y sus dimensiones: ¿De qué hablamos y qué evaluamos?

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About