Is the Reliability of Objective Originality Scores Confounded by Elaboration?

References

• Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 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 Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 41–53. doi:10.1037/a0038501
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2019). Divergent thinking: New methods, recent research, and extended theory. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 153–158. doi:10.1037/aca0000231
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaty, R. E., Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., Jauk, E., & Benedek, M. (2014). The roles of associative and executive processes in creative cognition. Memory and Cognition, 42(7), 1186–1197. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0428-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14(3), 257–274. doi:10.1016/0361-476X(89)90014-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, D. (2018). Relational reasoning and divergent thinking: An examination of the threshold hypothesis with quantile regression. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 1–14. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, D., & Dunbar, K. N. (2014). Understanding fluency and originality: A latent variable perspective. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 14, 56–67. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.09.003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Doherty, M. (2020). Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and semantic network algorithms: A psychometric comparison of methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. doi:10.1037/aca0000319
   Google Scholar
• Dumas, D., & Runco, M. (2018). Objectively scoring divergent thinking tests for originality: A re-analysis and extension. Creativity Research Journal, 30(4), 466–468.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forster, E. A., & Dunbar, K. N. (2009). Creativity evaluation through latent semantic analysis. In N. A. Taatgen & H. van Rijn (Eds.), Proceedings of the 31st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 602–607). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.
   Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Gerwig, A., Holling, H., Çelik, P., Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The be-creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency. Intelligence, 57, 25–32. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2016.03.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Holling, H., Çelik, P., Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2017). Typing speed as a confounding variable and the measurement of quality in divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 29(3), 257–269. doi:10.1080/10400419.2017.1360059
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Oyebade, O., Ojo, A., Günther, F., & Holling, H. (2019a). Application of latent semantic analysis to divergent thinking is biased by elaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 559–575. doi:10.1002/jocb.240
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Holling, H. (2020). Understanding the confounding effect of fluency in divergent thinking scores: Revisiting average scores to quantify artifactual correlation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 94–112. doi:10.1037/aca0000196.supp
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Wilken, A., Doebler, P., & Holling, H. (2019b). Strategy induction enhances creativity in figural divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 18–29. doi:10.1002/jocb.159
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gray, K., Anderson, S., Chen, E. E., Kelly, J. M., Christian, M. S., Patrick, J., … Lewis, K. (2019). “Forward flow”: A new measure to quantify free thought and predict creativity. American Psychologist, 74(5), 539–554. doi:10.1037/amp0000391
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1967). The Nature of Human Intelligence. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
   Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence, and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: EDITS/Knapp.
   Google Scholar
• Günther, F., Dudschig, C., & Kaup, B. (2015). LSAfun-An R package for computations based on Latent Semantic Analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 47(4), 930–944. doi:10.3758/s13428-014-0529-0
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harbison, J. I., & Haarmann, H. (2014). Automated scoring of originality using semantic representations. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Eds.), Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (COGSCI) (pp. 2337). College Park, MD. Retrieved from https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/papers/405/paper405.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43(3), 434–454. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1975.tb00715.x
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heinen, D. J. P., & Johnson, D. R. (2018). Semantic distance: An automated measure of creativity that is novel and appropriate. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 12(2), 144–156. doi:10.1037/aca0000125
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K. (2007). LSA as a Theory of Meaning. In T. K. Landauer, D. S. McNamara, S. Dennis, & W. Kintsch (Eds.), Handbook of latent semantic analysis (pp. 3–34). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
   Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., & Dumais, S. T. (1997). A solution to Plato’s problem: The latent semantic analysis theory of acquisition, induction, and representation of knowledge. Psychological Review, 104(2), 211. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.104.2.211
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25(2–3), 259–284. doi:10.1080/01638539809545028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Organisciak, P. (2016). Term Weights for 235k Language and Literature Texts [Data set]. Retrieved from https://www.ideals.illinois.edu/handle/2142/89691
   Google Scholar
• Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. (2014). Glove: Global vectors for word representation. Proceedings of the 2014 conference on empirical methods in natural language processing (EMNLP) (pp. 1532–1543). Stanford, CA. Retrieved from https://nlp.stanford.edu/pubs/glove.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Re-analyses of Torrance’s (1958 to present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103–114. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J. A., & Makel, M. C. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/du/reader.action?docID=585336
   Google Scholar
• Prabhakaran, R., Green, A. E., & Gray, J. R. (2014). Thin slices of creativity: Using single-word utterances to assess creative cognition. Behavior Research Methods, 46(3), 641–659. doi:10.3758/s13428-013-0401-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rakib, R. H., Islam, A., & Milios, E. (2018). Improving text relatedness by incorporating phrase relatedness with word relatedness. Computational Intelligence, 34(3), 939–966. doi:10.1111/coin.12152
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Raykov, T. (1997). Estimation of composite reliability for congeneric measures. Applied Psychological Measurement, 21(2), 173–184. doi:10.1177/01466216970212006
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152. doi:10.1037/aca0000227
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 66–75. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.652929
   Web of Science ®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(3), 483–501. doi:10.1177/001316448504500306
   Web of Science ®Google 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(2), 68–85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
   Google Scholar
• White, H. A., & Shah, P. (2016). Scope of semantic activation and innovative thinking in college students with ADHD. Creativity Research Journal, 28(3), 275–282. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1195655
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zarnegar, Z., Hocevar, D., & Michael, W. B. (1988). Components of original thinking in gifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 48(1), 5–16. doi:10.1177/001316448804800103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar