Comparison of Competing Theories about Ideation and Creativity

• Authors: Ivonne Chand O’Neal , Sue Hyeon Paek , Mark A. Runco
• Languages of publication: EN

Abstracts

EN

A measure of ideational behaviour, often used to estimate the potential for creative thinking, was administered to 796 children and their parents and teachers. Correlations among groups were explored. The data provided an opportunity to (a) compare four theories of creativity (a one-factor theory, 2 two-factor theories, and a three-factor theory) and (b) determine empirically how the measure of ideation should be scored (based on its empirical structure). Results of confirmatory factor analyses indicated that one of the twofactor theories (Process and Product) best fit the data and was useful for comparisons of the children and their parents and teachers. Practical implications of the differences between parents and teachers are explored. Any effort to fulfil creative potentials, for example, would probably be the most likely to succeed if children, parents, and teachers agreed, and just as probable are difficulties if the three groups disagreed or considered different things when judging creative potential. Limitations of the study are also discussed.

Keywords

EN

Ideas; Ideation; Creativity; Creativity Testing; Creative Process; Creative Product; Originality; Fluency; Flexibility

• Publisher: Sciendo
• Journal: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
• Year: 2015
• Volume: 2
• Issue: 2
• Pages: 145-164

Dates

published

2015-11-01

received

2015-02-16

revised

2015-04-18

accepted

2015-08-11

online

2015-11-26

Contributors

author

Ivonne Chand O’Neal

• Creativity Testing Services, LLC, Washington, DC USA

author

Sue Hyeon Paek

• University of Georgia, Athens, GA USA

author

Mark A. Runco

• Torrance Creativity Center, University of Georgia, Athens, 323 Aderhold Hall, Athens, GA 30602

References

• Abedi, J. (2002). A latent‑variable modeling approach to assessing reliability and validity of a creativity instrument. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 267-276.
• Akaike, H. (1974). A new look at the statistical model identification. IEE Transactions on Automatic Control, 19, 716-23.
• Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23-39.
• Bentler, P.M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-46.
• Byrne, B. M. (1998). Structural equation modeling with LISREL, PRELIS, and SIMPLIS: Basic concepts, applications, and programming. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
• Chand O'Neal, I., Schulz Begle, A., Runco, M. A. (2014, August). The Effects of Arts Integrated Instruction on Ideational Behavior in 4th and 5th Grade Students. Presentation at the 122nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Washington, DC.
• Chen, N., Roth, R. K. & Todhunter, J. E. (in press). I can do it! The effect of belief in stable luck on employee creativity. Business Creativity and the Creative Economy.
• Cheung, G. W. & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233-255.
• Cropley, D. & Cropley, A. (2012). A psychological taxonomy of organizational innovation: Resolving the paradoxes. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 29-40.
• DaVia Rubenstein, L., McCoach, D. & Siegle, D. (2013). Teaching for Creativity Scales: An instrument to examine teachers’ perceptions of factors that allow for the teaching of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 324‑334.
• Finney, S. J. & Davis, S. L. (2003, April). Examining the invariance of the achievement goal questionnaire across gender. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
• Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.
• Guilford, J. P. (1968). Creativity, intelligence and their educational implications. San Diego, CA: Knapp.
• Hocevar, D. (1979a). A comparison of statistical infrequency and subjective judgment as criteria in the measurement of originality. Journal of Personality Assessment, 43, 297-299.
• Hocevar, D. (1979b). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191-196.
• Hocevar, D. (1980). Intelligence, divergent thinking, and creativity. Intelligence, 4, 25-40.
• Holland, J. L. (1961). Creative and academic performance among talented adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 53, 132-143.
• Hong, E., Milgram, R. M. & Gorsky, H. (1959). Original Thinking as a Predictor of Creative Performance in Young Children. Roeper Review, 18, 147-49
• Johnson, D., Runco, M. A. & Raina, M. K. (2003). Parents and teachers’ implicit theories of children’s creativity: A cross-cultural perspective. Creativity Research Journal, 14, 427-438.
• MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W. & Sugawara, H. M. (1996). Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130-149.
• Milgram, R. M. & Milgram, N. A. (1976). Creative thinking and creative performance in Israeli students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 255-259.
• Miller, H. B. & Sawyers, J. K. (1989). A comparison of self and teachers ratings of creativity in fifth grade children. Creative Child and Adult Quarterly, 14, 179‑185.
• Muthén, L. K. & Muthén, B. O. (1998-2012). Mplus user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles: Muthén & Muthén.
• Noble, E. P., Runco, M. A. & Ozkaragoz, T. Z. (1993). Creativity in alcoholic and nonalcoholic families. Alcohol, 10, 317-322.
• Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
• Plucker, J. A., Runco, M. A. & Woong, L. (2006). Predicting ideational behavior from divergent thinking and discretionary time on task. Creativity Research Journal, 18, 55-63.
• Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42, 305-310.
• Richards, R. (1999). Everyday creativity. In: M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.), Encyclopedia of creativity(1st ed.) (pp. 683-687). San Diego: Academic Press.
• Runco, M. A. (1985). Reliability and convergent validity of ideational flexibility as a function of academic achievement. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 61, 1075-1081.
• Runco, M. A. (1987). Interrater agreement on a socially valid measure of students’ creativity. Psychological Reports, 61, 1009-1010.
• Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent and creative thinking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Runco, M. A. (2007). Creativity. Theories and themes: Research, development, and practice. Burlington, MA: Elsevier Academic Press.
• Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 93-96.
• Runco, M. A. (2013, October). The real creativity crisis. Keynote address to the Mississippi Association for Gifted Children, Hattiesburg, MS.
• Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (1985). The originality and convergent validity of ideational originality in academically gifted and nongifted children. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 45, 483-501.
• Runco, M. A. & Albert, R. S. (2005). Parents' personality and the creative potential of exceptionally gifted boys. Creativity Research Journal, 17, 355-368.
• Runco, M. A. & Charles, R. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537-546.
• Runco, M. A. & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92-96
• Runco, M. A. & Plucker, J. A. & Lim, W. (2000-2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 393-400.
• Runco, M. A., Johnson, D. & Bear, P. (1993). Parents' and teachers' implicit theories of children's creativity. Child Study Journal, 23, 91-113.
• Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M. & Thurston, B. J. (1991). Environmental cues and divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco (Ed.), Divergent thinking (pp. 79-85). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
• Runco, M. A., Walczyk, J. J., Acar, S., Cowger, E. L., Simundson, M. & Tripp, S. (2013). The incremental validity of a Short Form of the Ideational Behavior Scale and usefulness of distractor, contraindicative, and lie scales. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 48, 185-197.
• Runco, M. & Richards, R. (1998). Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health. Stamford, CT: Ablex.
• Schwartz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6, 461-464.
• Shapiro, A. K. (1960). A contribution to a history of the placebo effect. Behavioral Science, 5, 109-135.
• Steenkamp, J. E. M. & Baumgartner, H. (1998). Assessing measurement invariance in crossnational consumer research. Journal of Consumer Research, 25, 78-90.
• Torrance, E. P. (1974). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking: Norms - Technical manual. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
• Torrance, E. P. (1995). Why fly? Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
• Vandenberg, R. J. & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 3, 4-70.
• Vartanian, O., Bouak, F., Caldwell, J. L., Cheung, B., Cupchik, G., Jobidon, M. E., Lam, Q., Nakashima, A., Paul, M., Peng, H., Silvia, P. J. & Smith, I. (2014). The effects of a single night of sleep deprivation on fluency and prefrontal cortex function during divergent thinking. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 8, 1-12.
• Wallach, M. A. (1970). Creativity. In P. H. Mussen (ed.), Manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1211-1272). New York: Wiley.
• Wallach, M. A. & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
• Wallach, M. A. & Wing, C. (1969). The talented student. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Identifiers

DOI

10.1515/ctra-2015-0018