Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-02T00:46:16.719Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

3 - Assessment of Creativity

from The Nature of Creativity

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2019

By
Jonathan A. Plucker ,
Matthew C. Makel  and
Meihua Qian
Edited by
James C. Kaufman  and
Robert J. Sternberg
James C. Kaufman
Affiliation:
University of Connecticut
Robert J. Sternberg
Affiliation:
Cornell University, New York
Get access

Summary

This chapter provides an overview of creativity assessment, which is typically grouped into four different types or areas: creative processes, creative persons, creative products, and creative environments. The most widely used, as well as newly developed, creativity measures in each area are summarized and analyzed with regard to their reliability and validity evidence. Strengths and weaknesses of creativity assessment as a whole are also provided at the end of the chapter to help researchers and educators better understand the current state of creativity assessment and needed future research.
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity , pp. 44 - 68
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Acar, S. & Runco, M. A. (2015). Thinking in multiple directions: Hyperspace categories in divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 41–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Conti, R., Coon, H., Lazenby, J., & Herron, M. (1996). Assessing the work environment for creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 1154–1184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950–967.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., & Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: Perceived leader support. Leadership Quarterly, 15, 5–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
An, D. & Runco, M. A. (2016). General and domain-specific contributions to creative ideation and creative performance. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(4), 523–532.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bachelor, P. (1989). Maximum likelihood confirmatory factor-analytic investigation of factors within Guilford’s Structure-of-Intellect model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74, 797–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Baer, J. (1994). Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long-term stability? Roeper Review, 7(1), 7–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (2011a). How divergent thinking tests mislead us: Are the Torrance Tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 309–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (2011b). Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 316–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barron, F. & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32, 439–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M. S. & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1985). Measuring preference for ideation in creative problem-solving training. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 21, 37–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M., Graen, G. B., & Green, S. G. (1982). Training in creative problem solving: Effects on ideation and problem finding and solving in an industrial research organization. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 30(1), 41–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M. & Hausdorf, P. A. (1996). Measuring divergent thinking attitudes related to creative problem solving and innovation management. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 21–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M., Pringle, P., & Kirkland, D. (2002). Crossing cultures: Training effects on the divergent thinking attitudes of Spanish-speaking South American managers. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 395–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M., Taggar, S., & Pringle, P. (1999). Improving the measurement of divergent thinking attitudes in organizations. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 75–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Basadur, M. S., Wakabayashi, M., & Takai, J. (1992). Training effects on the divergent thinking attitudes of Japanese managers. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 16, 329–345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Batey, M. & Furnham, A. (2006). Creativity, intelligence, and personality: A critical review of the scattered literature. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 132, 355–429.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Beaty, R. E., Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2014). Does insight problem solving predict real-world creativity? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghetto, R. A. (2006). Creative self-efficacy: Correlates in middle and secondary students. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 447–457.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beghetto, R. A., Kaufman, J. C., & Baxter, J. (2011). Answering the unexpected questions: Student self-beliefs and teacher ratings of creativity in elementary math and science. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 342–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Benedek, M., Mühlmann, C., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Assessment of divergent thinking by means of the subjective top-scoring method: effects of the number of top-ideas and time-on-task on reliability and validity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Besemer, S. P. & O’Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 287–296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bossomaier, T., Harré, M., Knittel, A., & Snyder, A. (2009). A semantic network approach to the creativity quotient (CQ). Creativity Research Journal, 21, 64–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Callahan, C. M., Hunsaker, S. L., Adams, C. M., Moore, S. D., & Bland, L. C. (1995). Instruments used in the identification of gifted and talented students (Report No. RM-95130). Charlottesville, VA: National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the creative achievement questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 37–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cattell, R. B. & Butcher, H. (1968). The prediction of achievement and creativity. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill.Google Scholar
Cattell, R. B., Eber, H. W., & Tatsuoka, M. M. (1970). Handbook for the sixteen personality questionnaire (16 PF). Champaign, IL: Institute for Personality and Ability Testing.Google Scholar
Chand, I. & Runco, M. A. (1992). Problem finding skills as components in the creative process. Personality and Individual Differences, 14, 155–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chen, S. A. & Michael, W. B. (1993). First-order and higher-order factors of creative social intelligence within Guilford’s Structure-of-Intellect Model: A reanalysis of a Guilford data base. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiaans, H. H. C. M. (2002). Creativity as a design criterion. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 41–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, M. M. (1996). The construct validity of divergent scores in the Structure-of-Intellect Learning Abilities Test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 287–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clapham, M. M., Cowdery, E. M., King, K. E., & Montang, M. A. (2005). Predicting work activities with divergent thinking tests: A longitudinal study. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colangelo, N., Kerr, B., Hallowell, K., Huesman, R., & Gaeth, J. (1992). The Iowa inventiveness inventory: Toward a measure of mechanical inventiveness. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 157–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9, 385–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cooper, E. (1991). A critique of six measures for assessing creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 194–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cramond, B. (1993). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: From design through establishment of predictive validity. In Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 229–254). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Society, culture, and person: A systems view of creativity. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 325–339). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Davidovitch, N. & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Creative thinking as a predictor of teacher effectiveness in higher education. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 385–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. A. (1992). Creativity is forever (3rd edn). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.Google Scholar
DeYoung, C. G. (2015). Cybernetic big five theory. Journal of Research in Personality, 56, 33–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, S. J., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 91–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dollinger, S. J., & Shafran, M. (2005). Note on Consensual Assessment Technique in creativity research. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 100, 592–598.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dollinger, S. J., Urban, K. K., & James, T. A. (2004). Creativity and openness: Further validation of two creative product measures. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Domino, G. (1994). Assessment of creativity with the ACL: An empirical comparison of four scales. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 21–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fodor, E. M. & Carver, R. A. (2000). Achievement and power motives, performance feedback, and creativity. Journal of Research in Personality, 34(4), 380–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forbes, J. B., & Domm, D. R. (2004). Creativity and productivity: Resolving the conflict. SAM Advanced Management Journal, 69(2), 4–11.Google Scholar
Gagné, F. (1994). Are teachers really poor talent detectors? Comments on Pegnato and Birch’s (1959) study of the effectiveness and efficiency of various identification techniques. Gifted Child Quarterly, 38, 124–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gardner, H. (1993). Creating minds. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Getzels, J. W. & Jackson, P. W. (1962). Creativity and intelligence: Explorations with gifted students. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy: A theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Academy of Management Review, 17, 183–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glăveanu, V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A’s framework. Review of General Psychology, 17(1), 69–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, L. R. (1999). International Personality Item Pool: A scientific collaboratory for the development of advanced measures of personality and other individual differences (website). https://ipip.ori.org/Google Scholar
Gough, H. G. (1979). A creative personality scale for the Adjective Check List. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1398–1405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-HillGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. New York: Robert R. Knapp.Google Scholar
Hall, W. & MacKinnon, D. W. (1969). Personality inventory correlates of creativity among architects. Journal of Applied Psychology, 53, 322–326.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hass, R. W. (2015). Feasibility of online divergent thinking assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 85–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heausler, N. L. & Thompson, B. (1988). Structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48, 463–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hébert, T. P., Cramond, B., Spiers-Neumeister, K. L., Millar, G., & Silvian, A. F. (2002). E. Paul Torrance: His life, accomplishments, and legacy. Storrs, CT: The University of Connecticut, National Research Center on the Gifted and Talented.Google Scholar
Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The Consensual Assessment Technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49, 234–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocevar, D. (1979). The development of the Creative Behavior Inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 170 350).Google Scholar
Hocevar, D. & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In Glover, J. A., Ronning, R. R., & Reynolds, C. R. (eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). New York: Plenum Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hocevar, D. & Michael, W. B. (1979). The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 39, 917–921.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Gorsky, H. (1995). Original thinking as a predictor of creative performance in young children. Roeper Review, 18, 147–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, J. L. & Knapp, J. R. (1973). On the subjective character of the empirical base of Guilford’s structure of intellect model. Psychological Bulletin, 80, 33–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, D. & Salvendy, G. (2006a). Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 16, 155–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, D. & Salvendy, G. (2006b). Product creativity: Conceptual model, measurement and characteristics. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 7, 395–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, D. & Salvendy, G. (2009). Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction and purchasability. Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing, 19, 223–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hu, W. & Adey, P. (2002). A scientific creativity test for secondary school students. International Journal of Science Education, 24, 389–403.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunsaker, S. L. & Callahan, C. M. (1995). Creativity and giftedness: Published instrument uses and abuses. Gifted Child Quarterly, 39, 110–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunter, S. T., Bedell, K. E., & Mumford, M. D. (2007). Climate for creativity: A quantitative review. Creativity Research Journal, 19(1), 69–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isaksen, S. G. & Treffinger, D. J. (1985). Creative problem-solving: The basic course. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.Google Scholar
Jaussi, K. S., Randel, A. E., & Dionne, S. D. (2007). I am, I think I can, and I do: The role of personal identity, self-efficacy and cross-application of experiences in creativity at work. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 247–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jeffries, K. K. (2017). A CAT with caveats: Is the Consensual Assessment Technique a reliable measure of graphic design creativity? International Journal of Design Creativity and Innovation, 5, 16–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karwowski, M. (2014). Creative Mindsets: Measurement, correlates, consequences. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 62–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karwowski, M. & Lebuda, I. (2015). The Big Five, the Huge Two, and creative self-beliefs: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10, 214–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman-Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 298–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C. & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D. H., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Gentile, C. A., & Baer, J. (2005). Do gifted student writers and creative writing experts rate creativity the same way? Gifted Child Quarterly, 49, 260–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Kaufman, S. B. (2016). Opening up openness to experience: A four-factor model and relations to creative achievement in the arts and sciences. Journal of Creative Behaviors, 47, 233–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2011a). The APA 2009 Division 10 debate: Are the Torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 302–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kim, K. H. (2011b). Proven reliability and validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5, 314–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, L. A., McKee Walker, L., & Broyles, S. J. (1996). Creativity and the five-factor model. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirton, M. J. (2006). Adaptation-innovation in the context of diversity and change. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Lee, J., Day, J. D., Meara, N. M., & Maxwell, S. (2002). Discrimination of social knowledge and its flexible application from creativity: A multitrait-multimethod approach. Personality and Individual Differences, 32, 913–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lucas, G. J. M., van der Wijst, A., Curşeu, P. L., & Looman, W. M. (2013). An evaluation of alternative ways of computing the creativity quotient in a design school sample. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 348–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: The Creative Education Foundation.Google Scholar
Makel, M. C. & Plucker, J. A. (2014). Creativity is more than novelty: Reconsidering replication as a creativity act. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 27–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McClain, M. C. & Pfeiffer, S. (2012). Identification of gifted students in the United States today: A look at state definitions, policies, and practices. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 28, 59–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCrae, R. R. & Costa, P. T. (1997). Personality trait structure as a human universal. American Psychologist, 52, 509–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McKay, A. S., Karwowski, M., & Kaufman, J. C. (2017). Measuring the muses: Validating the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 11, 216–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meeker, M. & Meeker, R. (1982). Structure-of-intellect learning abilities test: Evaluation, leadership, and creative thinking. El Segundo, CA: SOI Institute.Google Scholar
Milgram, R. M. & Hong, E. (1994). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow-up study after 18 years. In Subotnik, R. F. & Arnold, K. D. (eds.), Beyond Terman: Contemporary longitudinal studies of giftedness and talent (pp. 212–228). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.Google Scholar
Pegnato, C. W. & Birch, J. W. (1959). Locating gifted children in junior high schools: A comparison of methods. Exceptional Children, 25, 300–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1999a). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal study data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (1999b). Reanalyses of student responses to creativity checklists: Evidence of content generality. Journal of Creative Behavior, 33, 126–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A. (2004). Generalization of creativity across domains: Examination of the method effect hypothesis. Journal of Creative Behavior, 38, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way? Psychology and Marketing, 26, 470–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent thinking. Journal of Creative Behavior, 45, 1–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Schmalensee, S. L. (2014). Is what you see what you really get? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of real-world divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A., & Lim, W. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 55–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Priest, T. (2006). Self-evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music, 34, 47–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pyryt, M. (2004). Pegnato revisited: Using discriminant analysis to identify gifted children. Psychology Science, 46, 342–347.Google Scholar
Qian, M., Plucker, J. A., & Shen, J. (2010). A model of Chinese adolescents’ creative personality. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 62–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Randel, A. E. & Jaussi, K. S. (2003). Functional background identity, diversity, and individual performance in cross-functional teams. Academy of Management Journal, 46, 763–774.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reis, S. M. & Renzulli, J. S. (1991). The assessment of creative products in programs for gifted and talented students. Gifted Child Quarterly, 35, 128–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (1976). New directions in creativity. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S. (1994). Schools for talent development: A practical plan for total school improvement. Mansfield Center, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., Hartman, R. K., & Callahan, C. M. (1981). Teacher identification of superior students. In Barbe, W. B. & Renzulli, J. S. (eds.), Psychology and education of the gifted (3rd edn, pp. 151–156). New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
Renzulli, J. S., Smith, L. H., White, A. J., Callahan, C. M., Hartman, R. K., & Westberg, K. L. (2002). Scales for rating the behavioral characteristics of superior students. Technical and administration manual (rev. edn). Mansfield, CT: Creative Learning Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1075–1081.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1986). Divergent thinking and creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 46, 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177–189.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A. (1999) Divergent thinking. In Runco, M. A. & Pritzker, S. (eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Vol. 1, pp. 577–582). San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., Acar, S., & Cayirdaga, N. (2017). A closer look at the creativity gap and why students are less creative at school than outside of school. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 24, 242–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Basadur, M. (1993). Assessing ideational and evaluative skills and creative styles and attitudes. Creativity and Innovation Management, 2, 166–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Chand, I. (1994). Problem finding, evaluative thinking, and creativity. In Runco, M. A. (ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (pp. 40–76). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svenson, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. The Journal of Psychology, 128, 23–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Smith, W. R. (1992). Interpersonal and intrapersonal evaluations of creative ideas. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 295–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runco, M. A. & Vega, L. (1990). Evaluating the creativity of children’s ideas. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 439–452.Google Scholar
Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M., & Tripp, S. (2014). The incremental validity of a short form of the ideational behavior scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 185–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruscio, J., Whitney, D. M., & Amabile, T. M. (1998). Looking inside the fishbowl of creativity: Verbal and behavioral predictors of creative performance. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 243–263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawyer, K. (2015). A call to action: The challenges of creative teaching and learning. Teachers College Record, 117(10), 1–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schenkel, M. T., Farmer, S. M., & Maslyn, J. M. (2015). From harmonious passion to innovation: Examining the roles of creative self-efficacy and leadership. Academy of Management Proceedings, 1, 12909–12909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J. (2011). Subjective scoring of divergent thinking: Examining the reliability of unusual uses, instances, and consequences tasks. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6, 24–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Berg, C. Martin, C., & O’Conner, A. (2009). Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, higher-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 1087–1090.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6, 19–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., … Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Bossomaier, T., & Pallier, G. (2004). The creativity quotient: An objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 415–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2000). Making school reform work: A “mineralogical” theory of school modifiability. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation.Google Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2016). What universities can be: A new model for preparing students for active concerned citizenship and ethical leadership. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. (2018). A triangular theory of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(1), 50–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Bonney, C. R., Gabora, L., & Merrifield, M. (2012). WICS: A model for college and university admissions. Educational Psychologist, 47(1), 30–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Grigorenko, E. L. (2001). Guilford’s Structure of Intellect model and model of creativity: Contributions and limitations. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 309–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2001). The propulsion model of creative contributions applied to the arts and letters. Journal of Creative Behavior, 35, 75–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sternberg, R. J. & Lubart, T. I. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (1963). Preface. In Taylor, C. W. & Barron, F. (eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. xiii–xix). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
Thompson, B. & Anderson, B. V. (1983). Construct validity of the divergent production subtests from the structure-of-intellect learning abilities test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 43, 651–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2002). Creative self-efficacy: Its potential antecedents and relationship to creative performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1137–1148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tierney, P. & Farmer, S. M. (2011). Creative self-efficacy development and creative performance over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 277–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Torrance, E. P. (1974). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1981). Thinking creatively in action and movement. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1982). Misperceptions about creativity in gifted education: Removing the limits on learning. In, S. N. Kaplan, A. H. Passow, P. H. Phenix, S. M. Reis, J. S. Renzulli, I. S. Soto, L. H. Smith, E. P. Torrance, & V. S. Ward, (eds.), Curriculum for the gifted: Selected proceedings of the first national conference on curricula for the gifted/talented (pp. 59–74). Ventura, CA: Office of the Ventura County Superintendent of Schools.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (1988). The nature of creativity as manifest in its testing. In Sternberg, R. J. (ed.), The nature of creativity: Contemporary psychological perspectives (pp. 43–75). New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. (2008). Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms-technical manual, verbal forms A and B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.Google Scholar
Torrance, E. P. & Safter, H. T. (1989). The long range predictive validity of the just suppose test. Journal of Creative Behavior, 23, 219–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vartanian, O. (2014). Toward a cumulative psychological science of aesthetics, creativity, and the arts. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 15–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
Weisberg, R. W. (1993). Creativity: Beyond the myth of genius. New York: W. H. Freeman and Company.Google Scholar
Williams, F. E. (1980). Creativity assessment packet. Buffalo, NY: DOK Publishers.Google Scholar
Yamada, H. & Tam, A. Y.-W. (1996). Prediction study of adult creative achievement: Torrance’s longitudinal study of creativity revisited. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 144–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×