Dealing with the Criterion Problem by Measuring the Quality and Quantity of Creative Activity and Accomplishment

REFERENCES

• Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 229–238. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901095
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2015). Thinking in multiple directions: Hyperspace categories in divergent thinking. Psychology of Art, Creativity, and Aesthetics, 9, 41–53. doi:10.1037/a0038501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• An, D., & Runco, M. A. (2016). General and domain-specific contributions to creative ideation and creative performance. Europe's Journal of Psychology, 12, 523–532.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anderson, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling in practice: A review and recommended two-step approach. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 411–423.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity in creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 173–177. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beketayev, K., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Scoring divergent thinking tests with a semantics-based algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 210–220. doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products—Three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 333–346. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1104_7
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• 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. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1204_6
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropley, A. J. (2016). The myths of heaven-sent creativity: Towards a perhaps less democratic but more down-to-earth understanding. Creativity Research Journal, 28, 238–246. Doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1195614.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dixon, J. (1979). Quality versus quantity: The need to control for the fluency factor in originality scores from the torrance tests. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2, 70–79.
   Google Scholar
• Dollinger, S., Burke, P. A., & Gump, N. W. (2007). Creativity and values. Creativity Research Journal, 19, 91–103. doi:10.1080/10400410701395028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. (1997). Quantity, quality, and depth of research as influences on scientific eminence: Is quantity most important! Creativity Research Journal, 10, 325–335. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1004_4
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ghiselin, B. (1963). Ultimate criteria for two levels of creativity. In C. W. Taylor, & F. Barron (Eds.), Scientific creativity: Its recognition and development (pp. 30–43). New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: RR Knapp.
   Google Scholar
• Hass, R. (2015). Feasibility of online divergent thinking assessment. Computers in Human Behavior, 46, 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.056
   Web of Science ®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. doi:10.1080/10400419409534524
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. (1999). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco, & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 347–359). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. (1979a). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191–196. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.71.2.191
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. (1979b). The development of the creative behavior inventory. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Rocky Mountain Psychological Association. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED170350).
   Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25–40. doi:10.1016/0160-2896(80)90004-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. (1981). Measurement of creativity: Review and critique. Journal of Personality Assessment, 45, 450–464. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4505_1
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
   Google Scholar
• Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic achievement among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 52, 136–147. doi:10.1037/h0044058
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kenny, D. A. (1979). Correlation and causality. New York, NY: Wiley.
   Google Scholar
• Kinney, D. K., Richards, R. L., & Southam, M. (2012). Everyday creativity, its assessment, and the lifetime creativity scales. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Creativity research handbook (Vol. 3, pp. 285–320). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Lau, S., & Cheung, P. C. (2010). Creativity assessment: Comparability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach and Kogan creativity tests. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 5, 101–107. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.09.004
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ludwig, A. M. (1992). The creative achievement scale. Creativity Research Journal, 5, 109–119. doi:10.1080/10400419209534427
   Google Scholar
• Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232. doi:10.1037/h0048850
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1999). Creative out-of-school activities in intellectually gifted adolescents as predictors of their life accomplishment in young adults: A longitudinal study. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 77–87. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_1
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255–258. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.3.255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1102_8
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., Holden, J., & Neustadter, D. (2008). The criterion problem and creativity in film: Psychometric characteristics of various measures. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 190–196. doi:10.1037/a0012839
   Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., Kaufman, J. C., Temple, J. S., & Qian, M. (2009). Do experts and novices evaluate movies the same way? Psychology & Marketing, 26, 470–478. doi:10.1002/mar.v26:5
   Web of Science ®Google 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, 135–143. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., & Zabelina, D. (2009). Creativity and interdisciplinarity: One creativity or many creativities? ZDM: the International Journal on Mathematics Education, 41, 5–12. doi:10.1007/s11858-008-0155-3
   Google Scholar
• Policastro, E., & Gardner, H. (1995). Naive judgment and expert assessment: A critique of the attributional perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 391–395. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0804_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (1987). The generality of creative performance in gifted and nongifted children. Gifted Child Quarterly, 31, 121–125. doi:10.1177/001698628703100306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19, 177–189.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Acar, S., Kaufman, J. C., & Halliday, L. R. (2016). Changes in reputation and associations with fame and biographical data. Journal of Genius and Eminence, 1, 52–60.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (Ed.). (2013). Divergent thinking and creative potential. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Albert, R. S. (1985). The reliability and validity of ideational originality in the divergent thinking of academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483–501. doi:10.1177/001316448504500306
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537–546. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Reiter-Ralmon, R. (2005). Explicit instructions to be creative and original. International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 15, 5–15.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., McCarthy, K. A., & Svensen, E. (1994). Judgments of the creativity of artwork from students and professional artists. Journal of Psychology, 128, 23–31. doi:10.1080/00223980.1994.9712708
   Web of Science ®Google 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. doi:10.1177/001316449205200126
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Noble, E. P., & Luptak, Y. (1990). Agreement between mothers and sons on ratings of creative activity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 50, 673–680. doi:10.1177/0013164490503025
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Turkman, B., Acar, S., & Nural, M. V. (in press). Idea density and the creativity of written works. Journal of Genius and Eminence.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, R. J. (1970). The criterion problem. In P. E. Vernon (Ed.), Creativity: Selected readings (pp. 257–269). Middlesex, England: Penguin.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1977). Creative productivity, age, and stress: A biographical time-series analysis of 10 classical composers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 791–804. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.35.11.791
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2015) On praising convergent thinking: Creativity as blind variation and selective retention. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 262–270, DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2015.1063877
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. W. (1964). Creativity: Progress and potential. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Taylor, C. W., & Holland, J. (1964). Predictors of creative performance. In C. W. Taylor (Ed.), Creativity: Progress and potential (pp. 15–48). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
   Google Scholar
• Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. (1969). The talented student. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
   Google Scholar