A Study on Psychometric Properties of Creativity Indices

References

• Acar, S., Burnett, C., & Cabra, J. F. (2017). Ingredients of creativity: Originality and more. Creativity Research Journal, 29(2), 133–144. doi:10.1080/10400419.2017.1302776
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert, A., & Kormos, J. (2004). Creativity and narrative task performance: An exploratory study. Language Learning, 54(2), 277–310. doi:10.1111/j.14679922.2011.00643.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Albert, A., & Zhang, L. (2010). A novel definition of the multivariate coefficient of variation. Biometrical Journal, 52(5), 667–675. doi:10.1002/bimj.201000030
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Amabile, T. M. (1983). A consensual technique for creativity assessment. In The social psychology of creativity (pp. 37–63). New York, NY: Springer Series in Social Psychology. doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-5533-8_3
   Google Scholar
• Arndt, S., Cohen, G., Alliger, R. J., Swayze, V. W., & Andreasen, N. C. (1991). Problems with ratio and proportion measures of imaged cerebral structures. Psychiatry Research, 40(1), 79–89. doi:10.1016/0925-4927(91)90031-K
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ayas, M. B., & Sak, U. (2014). Objective measure of scientific creativity: Psychometric validity of the Creative Scientific Ability Test. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 13, 195–205. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2014.06.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baas, M., Roskes, M., Sligte, D., Nijstad, B. A., & De Dreu, C. K. W. (2013). Personality and creativity: The dual pathway to creativity model and a research agenda. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7(10), 732–748. doi:10.1111/spc3.12062
   Google Scholar
• Batey, M., Chamorro-Premuzic, T., & Furnham, A. (2009). Intelligence and personality as predictors of divergent thinking: The role of general, fluid and crystallized intelligence. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4(1), 60–69. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.01.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2020). Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance. Behavior Research Methods, 52(1), 1–24. doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01453-w
   PubMedGoogle 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 & Cognition, 42(7), 1186–1197. doi:10.3758/s13421-014-0428-8
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53–69. doi:10.1080/13598139.2014.905247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beketayevab, K., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Semantics-based, scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with thinking problems. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12(2), 210–220. doi:10.5964/ejop.v12i2.1127
   PubMedGoogle 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(4), 341–349. doi:10.1037/a0033644
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Birney, D. P., Beckmann, J. F., & Seah, Y. Z. (2016). More than the eye of the beholder: The interplay of person, task, and situation factors in evaluative judgements of creativity. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 400–408. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2015.07.007
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cheng, Y. Y., Wang, W. C., Liu, K. S., & Chen, Y. L. (2010). Effects of association instruction on fourth graders’ poetic creativity in Taiwan. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 228–235. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.481542
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Couto, M. F., Peternelli, L. A., & Barbosa, M. H. P. (2013). Classification of the coefficients of variation for sugarcane crops. Ciência Rural, 43(6), 957–961. doi:10.1590/S0103-84782013000600003
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2013). Rating the creativity of products. In K. Thomas & J. Chan (Eds.), Handbook of research on creativity (pp. 196–211). Cheltenham: Elgar Publishing Limited. doi:10.4337/9780857939814.00025
   Google Scholar
• Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2014). The systems model of creativity: The collected works of Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi. Dordrecht: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-017-9085-7
   Google Scholar
• Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35–40. doi:10.1037/a0038688
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ding, X., Tang, Y. Y., Tang, R., & Posner, M. I. (2014). Improving creativity performance by short-term meditation. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 10(1), 1–8. doi:10.1186/1744-9081-10-9
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Dixon, J. (1979). Quality versus quantity: The need to control for the fluency factor in originality scores from the Torrance tests. The Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 2(2), 70–79.
   Google Scholar
• Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., Maio, S., & Doherty, M. (2021). Four text-mining methods for measuring elaboration. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(2), 517–531. doi:10.1002/jocb.471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (1998). Meta-analysis of the impact of personality on scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychological Review, 2(4), 290–309. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0204_5
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Feist, G. J. (2004). The evolved fluid specificity of human creative talent. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 57–83). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
   Google Scholar
• Forgas, J. P., & Laham, S. M. (2017). Halo effects. In R. F. Pohl (Ed.), Cognitive illusions: Intriguing phenomena in judgement, thinking and memory (2nd ed., pp. 276–290). London: Routledge.
   Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Leveling, M., Dong, Y., & Dumas, D. (2020b). Investigating the quantity-quality relationship in scientific creativity: An empirical examination of expected residual variance and the tilted funnel hypothesis. Scientometrics, 124(3), 2497–2518. doi:10.1007/s11192-020-03571-w
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Dumas, D. (2021a). On the conceptual overlap between the fluency contamination effect in divergent thinking scores and the chance view on scientific creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 55(1), 268–275. doi:10.1002/jocb.445
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Dumas, D. (2021b). Testing equal odds baseline in creativity research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(2), 324. doi:10.1037/aca0000294
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Holling, H. (2020a). 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
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Goff, K., & Torrance, E. P. (2002). Abbreviated torrance test for adults manual. Bensenville: Scholastic Testing Service.
   Google Scholar
• Gonthier, C., & Besançon, M. (2022). It is not always better to have more ideas: Serial order and the trade-off between fluency and elaboration in divergent thinking tasks. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/aca0000485.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444–454. doi:10.1037/h0063487
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Guilford, J. P. (1968). Intelligence, creativity, and their educational implications. San Diego, California: Robert R. Knapp.
   Google Scholar
• Hennessey, B. A., Amabile, T. M., & Mueller, J. S. (2011). Consensual assessment. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (2nd ed., pp. 253–260). San Diego: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Hocevar, D. (1979). The unidimensional nature of creative thinking in fifth-grade children. Child Study Journal, 9(4), 273–278.
   Google Scholar
• Jauk, E., Benedek, M., Dunst, B., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). The relationship between intelligence and creativity: New support for the threshold hypothesis by means of empirical breakpoint detection. Intelligence, 41(4), 212–221. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.03.003
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 96–106. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2007.04.002
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kharkhurin, A. V. (2014). Creativity.4in1: Four-criterion construct of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 26(3), 338–352. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.929424
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Klahr, D. (2000). Exploring science: The cognition and development of discovery processes. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge: The MIT Press.
   Google Scholar
• Klahr, D., & Dunbar, K. (1988). Dual space search during scientific reasoning. Cognitive Science, 12(1), l–48. doi:10.1016/0364-0213(88)90007-9
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kozbelt, A., Beghetto, R. A., & Runco, M. A. (2010). Theories of creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 20–47). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1207/s15516709cog1201_1
   Google Scholar
• Loh, K. K., & Lim, S. W. H. (2020). Positive associations between media multitasking and creativity. Computers in Human Behavior Reports, 1, 100015. doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2020.100015
   Google Scholar
• Milgram, R. M., & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68(3), 255 259. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.68.3.255
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 162(4), 382–401. doi:10.1080/00221320109597491
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mumford, M. D. (2003). Where have we been, where are we going? Taking stock in creativity research. Creativity Research Journal, 15(2–3), 107–120. doi:10.1080/10400419.2003.9651403
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nijstad, B. A., De Dreu, C. K. W., Rietzschel, E. F., & Baas, M. (2010). The dual pathway to creativity model: Creative ideation as a function of flexibility and persistence. European Review of Social Psychology, 21(1), 34–77. doi:10.1080/10463281003765323
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nunnally, J., & Bernstein, I. (1994). Psychometric theory (3th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2014). Ready, set, create: What instructing people to “be creative” reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8(4), 423–432. doi:10.1037/a0036549
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Park, N. K., Chun, M. Y., & Lee, J. (2016). Revisiting individual creativity assessment: Triangulation in subjective and objective assessment methods. Creativity Research Journal, 28(1), 1–10. doi:10.1080/10400419.2016.1125259
   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(2), 135–143. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.901023
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Plucker, J., Qian, M., & Wang, S. (2011). Is originality in the eye of the beholder? Comparison of scoring techniques in the assessment of divergent thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 45(1), 1–22. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2011.tb01081.x
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Preckel, F., Holling, H., & Wiese, M. (2006). Relationship of intelligence and creativity in gifted and non-gifted students: An investigation of threshold theory. Personality and Individual Differences, 40(1), 159–170. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2005.06.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinig, B. A., & Briggs, R. O. (2008). On the relationship between idea-quantity and idea quality during ideation. Group Decision and Negotiation, 17(5), 403 420. doi:10.1007/s10726-008-9105-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Reinig, B. A., & Briggs, R. O. (2013). Putting quality first in ideation research. Group Decision and Negotiation, 22(5), 943–973. doi:10.1007/s10726-012-9338y
   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
• Rietzschel, E. F., Nijstad, B. A., & Stroebe, W. (2006). Productivity is not enough: A comparison of interactive and nominal brainstorming groups on idea generation and selection. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(2), 244–251. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2005.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. (1999). Divergent thinking. In M. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity (pp. 577–582). San Diego, California: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2004). Creativity. Annual Reviews of Psychology, 55(1), 657–687. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.141502
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2010). Divergent thinking, creativity, and ideation. In J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 413–446). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/cbo9780511763205.026
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A. (2014). Creativity: Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. 2nd. New York: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/c2012-0-06920-7
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15(5), 537–546. doi:10.1016/0191-8869(93)90337-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Illies, J. J., & Eisenman, R. (2005). Creativity, originality, and appropriateness: What do explicit instructions tell us about their relationships? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 35(2), 137–148. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2005.tb01255.x
   Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92–96. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5(2), 149–156. doi:10.1177/073428298700500206
   Google Scholar
• Sak, U., & Ayas, B. (2013). Creative Scientific Ability Test (C-SAT): A new measure of scientific creativity. Psychological Test and Assessment Modeling, 55(3), 316–329.
   Google Scholar
• Sak, U., & Maker, C. J. (2006). Developmental variation in children’s creative mathematical thinking as a function of schooling, age, and knowledge. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 279–291. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma, N. K., & Rastogi, D. (2009). A multicriteria approach to creativity for realistic divergent thinking problems. The Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(1), 9–16.
   Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J. (2008). Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan (1965). Creativity Research Journal, 20(1), 34–39. doi:10.1080/10400410701841807
   Web of Science ®Google 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(2), 79–85. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2009.06.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2015). Old or new? Evaluating the old/new scoring method for divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 216–224. doi:10.1002/jocb.101
   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 Art, 2(2), 68–85. doi:10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1986). Popularity, content, and context in 37 Shakespeare plays. Poetics, 15(4–6), 493–510. doi:10.1016/0304-422X(86)90008-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1997). Creative productivity: A predictive and explanatory model of career trajectories and landmarks. Psychological Review, 104(1), 66–89. doi:10.1037/0033-295x.104.1.66
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (1999). Creativity as blind variation and selective retention: Is the creative process Darwinian? Psychological Inquiry, 10(4), 309–328.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475–494. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2010). Creative thought as blind-variation and selective retention: Combinatorial models of exceptional creativity. Physics of Life Reviews, 7(2), 156–179. doi:10.1016/j.plrev.2010.02.002
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012a). Combinational creativity and sightedness: Monte Carlo simulations using three-criterion definitions. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 22(2), 5–17.
   Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2012b). Taking the U.S. patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 97–106. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676974
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 52(1), 80–90. doi:10.1002/jocb.137
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Bossomaier, T., & Pallier, G. (2004). The creativity quotient: An objective scoring of ideational fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 415–419. doi:10.1080/10400410409534552
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stefanic, N., & Randles, C. (2015). Examining the reliability of scores from the consensual assessment technique in the measurement of individual and small group creativity. Music Education Research, 17(3), 278–295. doi:10.1080/14613808.2014.909398
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1993). Investing in creativity. Psychological Inquiry, 4(3), 229‐ 232. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0403_16
   Google Scholar
• Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1999). The concept of creativity: Prospects and paradigms. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3–15). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511807916.003
   Google Scholar
• Storme, M., Lubart, T., Myszkowski, N., Cheung, P. C., Tong, T., & Lau, S. (2017). A cross‐cultural study of task specificity in creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 51(3), 263–274. doi:10.1002/jocb.123
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walberg, H. J., Strykowski, B. F., Rovai, E., & Hung, S. S. (1984). Exceptional performance. Review of Educational Research, 54(1), 87–112. doi:10.2307/1170399
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124. doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1411432
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yamamoto, K. (1964). Threshold of intelligence in the academic achievement of highly creative students. The Journal of Experimental Education, 32(4), 401–405. doi:10.1080/00220973.1964.11010849
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zenasni, F., & Lubart, T. (2011). The pleasantness of creative tasks and creative performance. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 6(1), 49–56. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2010.10.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar