The Measurement of Creativity: From Definitional Consensus to the Introduction of a New Heuristic Framework

Abstract

The scientific study of creativity has proven a difficult undertaking. Researchers have employed a diversity of definitions and measurement methods. As a result, creativity research is underrepresented in the literature and the findings of different studies often prove difficult to draw into a coherent body of understanding. A heuristic framework to explicate the different methods by which creativity may be studied forms the basis of this article. Drawing upon existing conceptions of the creativity construct and previous efforts to provide structure to creativity research, the new taxonomic framework examines creativity from 3 primary perspectives in the form of a 3-dimensional matrix. The implications of the taxonomic framework for creativity research are examined. The new taxonomic framework contributes to the understanding of creativity research through the introduction of a comprehensive heuristic to guide future research and the interpretation of previous studies.

Notes

¹Unfortunately, many of the tests or assessments of creativity do not assess creative potential using novelty and utility as criteria (e.g., Remote Associates Test; Mednick & Mednick, 1967; and the Barron-Welsh Art Scale; Welsh & Barron, 1963).

²It is important to note that the framework presented is a heuristic, rather than an exact representation of how creativity can be assessed.

³The types of data considered to be objective are likely to be open to considerable debate. In particular, it may be argued that personality inventory data are objective, in that a personality inventory is “independent of the subjective judgment of the particular examiner” (Anastasi & Urbina, 1997, p. 7). However, the data are still based on self-report.

^a A fluency score is calculated by counting the number of responses provided to an open-ended question. An example being the questions posed by Hargreaves (1927).