Full-text resources of CEJSH and other databases are now available in the new Library of Science.
Visit https://bibliotekanauki.pl

Results found: 3

first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last

Search results

Search:
in the keywords:  Creativity measurement
help Sort By:

help Limit search:
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
1

Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?

100%
Lubart T., Caroff X.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 1
44-48
EN
Based on Glăveanu’s target article, issues raised about the psychometric approach to creativity research are examined. Criticisms of divergent thinking tests, such as the unusual uses of an object test, are examined. Arguments supporting the theoretical and practical utility of divergent thinking tests are presented. It is furthermore suggested that tests are best conceived and used in contextualized ways. The example of measures of divergent thinking which were designed for managers is presented. Finally, the psychometric approach encompasses many aspects of creativity beyond divergent thinking, as illustrated by recent work on the evaluation of creative potential (the EPoC battery). In the EPoC assessment, both divergent-exploratory thinking and convergent-integrative thinking are measured in a range of contextual domains, such as the visual-graphic, verballiterary, social problem solving ones. This work contrasts with the simplistic, and restrictive view of the unusual uses of an object test as the epitome of the psychometric approach to creativity.
2

Notes on Creative Potential and Its Measurement1

100%
Karwowski M.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 1
4-16
EN
The discussion raised by the Glăveanu target paper (Glăveanu, 2014) continues in the second issue of “Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications” (CTRA). In this editorial I focus on two elements shared by commentators whose articles are presented in this issue, namely: creative potential and its measurement. I start with the observation that potential is probably the most fuzzy and poorly defined construct in the creativity literature (and likely social science as a whole). As a result of different operationalizations of this category, its valid and reliable measurement is difficult – though not impossible – but, more importantly, several different theories of potential are being developed simultaneously. I focus mainly on critiques of the measurement of creative potential and show how recent developments in psychometrics make it more valid and reliable than critics tend to realize.
3

She, You and They – More Actors on the Creativity Research Stage!

88%
Hoff E., Carlsson I.
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications
|
2015
|
vol. 2
|
issue 1
38-43
EN
The commentary confirms and builds on Glăveanu’s critical scrutiny of the current stage of creativity research. The need for more actors, theories, methods and definitions will not be fulfilled until critical reflection concerning what has been done and synthesis between different research attempts are achieved. The authors first expand the creativity stage by discussing what will happen in creativity research attempts if we alternate with a “ she, you and they” perspective? They then present a new definition of creativity. Creativity is seen as a collective, generative, novel way of experiencing reality ending with the idea of a shared product that is evaluated as creative in a relevant context. This definition is in line with the development of a new creativity tool or measurement, the Test for Distributed Creativity in Organizational Groups (DOG). The DOG can be used both for measuring the products of creative groups and investigating their processes.
first rewind previous Page / 1 next fast forward last
JavaScript is turned off in your web browser. Turn it on to take full advantage of this site, then refresh the page.