Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards

Baptiste Barbot, Richard W. Hass, Roni Reiter-Palmon

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

This commentary discusses common relevant themes that have been highlighted across contributions in this special issue on "Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards." We first highlight the challenges of operationalizing creativity through the use of a range of measurement approaches that are simply not tapping into the same aspect of creativity. We then discuss pitfalls and challenges of the three most popular measurement methods employed in the field, namely divergent thinking tasks, productbased assessment using the consensual assessment techniques, and self-report methodology. Finally, we point to two imperative standards that emerged across contributions in this collection of articles, namely transparency (need to accurately define, operationalize, and report on the specific aspect[s] of creativity studied) and homogenization of creativity assessment (identification and consistent use of an optimal "standard" measure for each major aspect of creativity). We conclude by providing directions on how the creativity research community and the field can meet these standards.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)233-240
Number of pages8
JournalPsychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
Volume13
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2019

Fingerprint

Creativity
Psychology
Research
Psychological Research
Self Report

Keywords

  • Creativity assessment
  • Creativity measurement
  • Reliability
  • Standards of assessment
  • Validity

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Developmental and Educational Psychology
  • Visual Arts and Performing Arts
  • Applied Psychology

Cite this

Creativity assessment in psychological research : (Re)setting the standards. / Barbot, Baptiste; Hass, Richard W.; Reiter-Palmon, Roni.

In: Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 13, No. 2, 05.2019, p. 233-240.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{eb2dc6fe60e44933a738c595e4b0fa6f,
title = "Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards",
abstract = "This commentary discusses common relevant themes that have been highlighted across contributions in this special issue on {"}Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards.{"} We first highlight the challenges of operationalizing creativity through the use of a range of measurement approaches that are simply not tapping into the same aspect of creativity. We then discuss pitfalls and challenges of the three most popular measurement methods employed in the field, namely divergent thinking tasks, productbased assessment using the consensual assessment techniques, and self-report methodology. Finally, we point to two imperative standards that emerged across contributions in this collection of articles, namely transparency (need to accurately define, operationalize, and report on the specific aspect[s] of creativity studied) and homogenization of creativity assessment (identification and consistent use of an optimal {"}standard{"} measure for each major aspect of creativity). We conclude by providing directions on how the creativity research community and the field can meet these standards.",
keywords = "Creativity assessment, Creativity measurement, Reliability, Standards of assessment, Validity",
author = "Baptiste Barbot and Hass, {Richard W.} and Roni Reiter-Palmon",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1037/aca0000233",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "13",
pages = "233--240",
journal = "Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts",
issn = "1931-3896",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Creativity assessment in psychological research

T2 - (Re)setting the standards

AU - Barbot, Baptiste

AU - Hass, Richard W.

AU - Reiter-Palmon, Roni

PY - 2019/5

Y1 - 2019/5

N2 - This commentary discusses common relevant themes that have been highlighted across contributions in this special issue on "Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards." We first highlight the challenges of operationalizing creativity through the use of a range of measurement approaches that are simply not tapping into the same aspect of creativity. We then discuss pitfalls and challenges of the three most popular measurement methods employed in the field, namely divergent thinking tasks, productbased assessment using the consensual assessment techniques, and self-report methodology. Finally, we point to two imperative standards that emerged across contributions in this collection of articles, namely transparency (need to accurately define, operationalize, and report on the specific aspect[s] of creativity studied) and homogenization of creativity assessment (identification and consistent use of an optimal "standard" measure for each major aspect of creativity). We conclude by providing directions on how the creativity research community and the field can meet these standards.

AB - This commentary discusses common relevant themes that have been highlighted across contributions in this special issue on "Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards." We first highlight the challenges of operationalizing creativity through the use of a range of measurement approaches that are simply not tapping into the same aspect of creativity. We then discuss pitfalls and challenges of the three most popular measurement methods employed in the field, namely divergent thinking tasks, productbased assessment using the consensual assessment techniques, and self-report methodology. Finally, we point to two imperative standards that emerged across contributions in this collection of articles, namely transparency (need to accurately define, operationalize, and report on the specific aspect[s] of creativity studied) and homogenization of creativity assessment (identification and consistent use of an optimal "standard" measure for each major aspect of creativity). We conclude by providing directions on how the creativity research community and the field can meet these standards.

KW - Creativity assessment

KW - Creativity measurement

KW - Reliability

KW - Standards of assessment

KW - Validity

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064317980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064317980&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/aca0000233

DO - 10.1037/aca0000233

M3 - Article

AN - SCOPUS:85064317980

VL - 13

SP - 233

EP - 240

JO - Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

JF - Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts

SN - 1931-3896

IS - 2

ER -