Measuring creativity change and development.

Abstract

Creativity is not a static entity. It develops as people mature, and it can be trained and nurtured. Most applications of creativity research are in fact geared toward this end. However, the study of creativity as it changes and develops, whether under "natural" or "treatment" conditions (program effectiveness), faces a number of measurement and research-design challenges that have, thus far, greatly limited the conclusions that can possibly be made about this phenomenon. After a brief overview of research in this line of work, this review article emphasizes the enduring issues of practice effects, alternate-form reliability, and measurement equivalence in the study of creativity change and development. These issues serve as the general thread of this paper to discuss pitfalls and recommendations regarding (1) the definition and operationalization of constructs, (2) research designs, (3) issues of statistical power in repeated-measurement settings, and (4) other important measurement, methodological, and statistical issues for the accurate study of creativity change and development.

How Times of Crisis Serve as a Catalyst for Creative Action: An Agentic Perspective

“…Depending on the particular aims and focus of such studies (e.g., testing the model at group vs. individual levels), researchers likely will need to modify and even develop new measures that are tailored to particular goals and contexts of their studies. Using more dynamic and micro-longitudinal methodologies ( Barbot, 2019 ; Beghetto and Corazza, 2019 ), such as diary-based methods ( Conner and Silvia, 2015 ; Bartlett and Milligan, 2020 ), and related experience sampling methods ( Shiffman et al, 2008 ; Conner et al, 2009 ) seem particularly promising approaches for this work.…”

A longitudinal study of the relation between creative potential and academic achievement at an engineering university in Korea

“…To date, no performance‐based measure has had an alternative form similar enough to be used as a repeat measurement. Therefore, this design has been criticized for stimulus dependence in that participants demonstrate somewhat different performances for similar tasks, suggesting this design is likely to exhibit low internal validity (Barbot, 2019).…”

The Moderating Role of Agreeableness in the Relationship between Experiencing Anger and Creative Performance

“…Whether the observed moderation would generalize to other components of creative performance (e.g., elaboration; Guilford, 32; Torrance, 65) is worthy of future investigations. The fluency, flexibility, and originality outcomes of the AUT are usually highly correlated (Barbot, Hass & Reiter‐Palmon, 7; Reiter‐Palmon, Forthmann, & Barbot, 6). In fact, the AUT should be considered as a measure of creative cognition/process because responses to the AUT are not creative products but rather creative ideas (Piffer, 53).…”

“…According to the principle of congruency between emotion and trait construal (Higgins, 33; Leung et al., 43; Tamir, 64), agreeable people may find anger taxing, distracting, or a kind of cognitive load. The possible mechanisms (e.g., cognitive factors, Barbot, 6; trait or goal congruence, Strick & Papies, 62) underlying the interaction between anger and agreeableness in creative performance should be further investigated.…”