Assessment of creativity

• TYPE OF PSYCHOLOGY: Intelligence and intelligence testing
• Creativity is the ability to make something new that is widely valued. Various methods have been developed to assess this quality.

Introduction

The study of creativity has undergone many changes and developments, particularly since the early 1960s, and it has received recognition as a field in its own right. Creativity has traditionally been assessed via the finished products of the artist, musician, writer, poet, or inventor. The general consensus of the public has usually served as the final criterion of creativity. Any distinction between creativity and talent could be difficult to ascertain. The assessment of talent has usually been the province of people within a particular field. Musicians, artists, writers, and others in specific fields have assessed the skills of their students or protégés, either formally or informally; in some fields, specific tests do exist.

One generally accepted regarding creativity is . People who are considered creative seem to think in a more divergent mode. They see possibilities and options that are not perceived by less creative people. If most people were asked the possible uses for a brick, they might list a few: to build a house, for example, or to use as a doorstop. Divergent thinkers may indicate that it could be used as a weapon, hammer, paperweight, bookend, or supportive device.

Commonly assessed components of divergent thinking include fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality. Fluency refers to the number of ideas a person can generate to solve a given problem or produce a certain result. Flexibility is the ability to generate a number of different kinds of ideas. The amount of detail that one can supply for one’s ideas is known as the amount of elaboration. Originality refers to the novelty or statistical infrequency of each idea. This concept has often been used as a synonym for creativity. If one person out of a hundred has an idea that no one else has, for example, that idea may be termed original. It might be strange, even bizarre, but it might also be positive.

Some theorists view creative thinking as a process or a series of stages. Finding a problem might be one stage, developing possible solutions would be another, and choosing a “best” solution would be another. Things may go wrong in any stage along the way. When difficulties are encountered, it is often effective to defer conscious thought for a period of time; often, this enables one to achieve a new insight into a problem. If one becomes fatigued, it is often best to rest and return to the problem when one is refreshed.

Some researchers have described different types of creativity. For example, Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi, in his 1997 book Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention, distinguished between everyday (little “c”) creativity and extraordinary (big “C”) creativity that transforms a domain. Little “c” creativity might be used to find a way to get to work faster, while big “C” creativity further develops a domain of knowledge or skill, often leading to eminence of the individual in that field. Other researchers have studied the relationship between creativity and talent. Howard Gardner, in Creating Minds (1993), emphasized the role that specific aptitudes play in making something that is both new and valued. In his view, creativity can develop independently in one of eight “intelligences”: linguistic, logical-mathematical, musical, spatial, bodily-, interpersonal, intrapersonal, and naturalistic. A creative writer (with linguistic intelligence) is not necessarily a creative musician, even if the writer also plays music.

Another aspect of creativity is validation. After one has created or invented something, one attempts to ascertain whether the idea, music, poem, or other creative endeavor truly has merit. The “test of time” is perhaps the ultimate element of validation. Sometimes, an invention or creation is valued only for a time, then discarded; sometimes, it is changed or improved on. On the other hand, works such as the symphonies of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, the plays of William Shakespeare, and the artwork of Leonardo da Vinci have stood the test of time and are still held in high esteem.

Intelligence has been thought to be an important aspect of creativity; a certain minimal amount of intelligence is certainly necessary, but the relationship is not linear. People with intellectual disabilities are, in general, less creative than their average peers, but there are also few people with very high intelligence quotient (IQ) scores who are exceedingly creative. They appear to be preoccupied with finding the “right” answer. As previously noted, divergent thinking is a crucial aspect of creativity. If one is extremely intelligent, one may, therefore, need to make radical changes to think in divergent ways. Alternatively, intelligence, as traditionally conceived and measured, may not relate closely to domains (such as music or movement) where creativity emerges.

Personality has also been examined in terms of creativity. Research indicates that creative people generally have a greater range of knowledge and interests than noncreative people. They are open to new experiences, willing to try new things, and value independence and complexity. A good sense of humor is also noted. The creative personality is persistent and is willing to take risks. Some creative people have high energy and activity levels. Organization and abstraction skills are well developed. Creative people can tolerate ambiguity better than less creative people; they function well in ill-defined settings or situations and employ nontraditional problem-solving strategies.

Sample Assessment Practices

A number of tests have been developed that attempt to measure creativity in school-age children. E. Paul Torrance became a leading figure in the field of creativity in the 1950s. His tests of divergent thinking have been used and researched extensively. There are two parts to the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; formerly the Minnesota Tests of Creative Thinking), a verbal section and a “figural” section. There are several subtests in each area. In the verbal test, seven activities must be performed, including asking, guessing causes, guessing consequences, product improvement, unusual uses, unusual questions, and “just suppose.” In the figural realm, there are three activities: picture construction, picture completion, and circles. There are complete manuals for administrative, scoring, and illustrative purposes. A number of organizations offer computerized scoring services. Teachers or others who have not had special training are able to score the tests fairly reliably if they have invested the time to study the scoring guides carefully. The TTCT has been periodically updated based on test result data.

A test developed by Frank Williams, another researcher in the field of creativity, is the Exercises in Divergent Thinking and Divergent Feeling. The creative thinking part of the test offers a total score as well as subscores in fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration. On the creative feeling test, scores are offered on curiosity, imagination, complexity, and risk taking; again, a total score is offered. These tests represent the variables thought by Williams to be most important in creativity.

The parts of this test, in conjunction with the Williams scale, can help to identify children with creative potential. The Williams scale asks parents and teachers to rate children on a three-point scale in terms of their fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, curiosity, complexity, imagination, and risk taking. There are also four open-ended questions that allow parents and teachers to express specific concerns and offer salient information about the child. There is considerable specificity to the Williams scale, but there is also a ceiling effect in that some students can earn only a certain number of points; this may give a limited vision of the test taker’s skills and creative potential.

The Group Inventory for Finding Talent (GIFT), which allows children to rate their preferences for various activities, is also available. The GIFT has subscales for imagination, independence, and many interests. This test is computer-scored by the company rather than by the examiner or teacher. This test was developed by Gary Davis and Sylvia Rimm, two well-known experts in the field of gifted education. A major cross-cultural effort to study creative thinking was undertaken by Hans Jellen and Klaus Urban. Their test, the Test for Creative Thinking and Drawing Production (TCT-DP), was administered to subjects in eleven countries.

Other psychological inventories commonly used to evaluate creativity include Guilford’s Alternative Uses Test (AUT), developed by J. P. Guilford, and the Remote Associates Test (RAT), developed by Sarnoff Mednick.

These tests can help to estimate the creative potential of children. Using multiple tests or combining a creativity inventory with another creativity assessment method provides a better prediction than any single test. One alternative developed by Teresa Amabile is the consensual assessment technique, in which expert judges independently evaluate children’s creative products. The assumption is that experts in a domain know what is creative when they see it. Other assessment alternatives offer more guidance by training judges to score products or portfolios according to subjective dimensions (such as aesthetic appeal or originality) or a scoring guide.

By adulthood, creativity has generally identified itself through a history of creative performances or products, so the problem of identifying creative talent is often not as acute as it was during the school years. Nevertheless, economic conditions may force a person to work at a job that provides no avenues or extra time to maximize creativity. Without help, some people may never find an outlet for their talents and skills. For this reason, adult personality assessments and interest inventories often include subscales that attempt to measure creativity, originality, or some similar construct. Scores on these measures can be used to develop self-understanding, find a suitable job placement, or increase work satisfaction.

Developing Creativity

Everyone has some creative potential, but it may be difficult to discern exactly how much potential one has or in what field or domain it may lie. Creativity remains an elusive concept but one of great interest to many researchers; journals, conferences, and organizations are devoted to the subject.

Some psychologists and educators have been concerned with ways of enhancing creativity; one method is the idea of brainstorming. In this strategy, people offer ideas and suggestions regarding the clarification of or solution to a problem. All options are accepted, and no negativism is allowed; this enhances the climate of the group. Only later do the group members focus on which ideas are reasonable or possible. Some researchers have attempted to use behavioral principles and procedures to promulgate creative responses; others have examined the effectiveness of creativity training. Methods have focused on either short-term or long-term programs.

Creativity in the classroom is another area that has been of concern. Some educators have worried, in particular, that educational reform movements may ultimately stifle creativity in the classroom. Psychologists John Glover and Roger Bruning have offered suggestions for enhancing classroom creativity. Teachers, they suggest, should “try to find something positive in all ideas.” Strange or unusual questions from students should not be discounted. Creativity should be rewarded systematically; it should also be expected. Creativity should be rewarded with extra credit when grades are given, and creative behaviors should be modeled by teachers. Teacher educator Alane Starko suggests in Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight (2009) that students should be allowed to find problems, rather than simply devising creative solutions. Content and lessons should expect students to question, answer, investigate, and comprehend. Because creative people must ultimately identify new problems as well as provide new answers to problems, creativity must be investigated, assessed, and nurtured.

Bibliography

Csikszentmihalyi, Mihaly. Creativity: Flow and the Psychology of Discovery and Invention. Harper, 1997.

Dawson, Patrick, and Constantine Andriopoulos. Managing Change, Creativity and Innovation. 4th ed., SAGE, 2021.

DiLiello, Trudy C., et al. “Narrowing the Creativity Gap: The Moderating Effects of Perceived Support for Creativity.” The Journal of Psychology, vol. 145, no. 3, 2011, pp. 151–72, doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2010.548412. Accessed 19 Dec. 2024.

Fishkin, Anne S., et al., editors. Investigating Creativity in Youth: Research and Methods. Hampton, 1999.

Gardner, Howard. Creating Minds. Basic, 1993.

Kaufman, James C., and Robert J. Sternberg. Creativity: An Introduction. Cambridge UP, 2021.

Kozbelt, Aaron. “Theories of Creativity.” Encyclopedia of Creativity, edited by Steven Pritzker and Mark Runco, 3rd, ed., Academic Press, 2020, pp. 632-39, doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-809324-5.23698-5. Accessed 5 Jan. 2025.

Precourt, G. “What We Know about Creativity.” Journal of Advertising Research, vol. 53, no. 3, 2013, pp. 238–39.

Runco, Mark A., and Selcuk Acar. Handbook of Creativity Assessment. Edward Elgar Publishing, 2024

Russ, Sandra Walker, et al. The Cambridge Handbook of Lifespan Development of Creativity. Cambridge UP, 2022.

Sawyer, R. Keith, and Danah Henriksen. Explaining Creativity: The Science of Human Innovation. 3rd ed., Oxford UP, 2024.

Starko, Alane Jordan. Creativity in the Classroom: Schools of Curious Delight. 7th ed., Routledge, 2022.

Sternberg, Robert J., and James C. Kaufman. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. 2nd ed., Cambridge UP, 2019.