Author ORCID Identifier
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
This commentary discusses common relevant themes that have been highlighted across contributions in this special issue on 'Creativity Assessment: Pitfalls, Solutions, and Standards.' We first highlight the challenges of operationalizing creativity through the use of a range of measurement approaches that are simply not tapping into the same aspect of creativity. We then discuss pitfalls and challenges of the three most popular measurement methods employed in the field, namely divergent thinking tasks, product-based assessment using the consensual assessment techniques, and self-report methodology. Finally, we point to two imperative standards that emerged across contributions in this collection of articles, namely transparency (need to accurately define, operationalize, and report on the specific aspect[s] of creativity studied) and homogenization of creativity assessment (identification and consistent use of an optimal 'standard' measure for each major aspect of creativity). We conclude by providing directions on how the creativity research community and the field can meet these standards.
31. Barbot, B. Hass, R. W., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2019). Creativity assessment in psychological research: (Re)setting the standards. The Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 233-240. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000233
©American Psychological Association, . This paper is not the copy of record and may not exactly replicate the authoritative document published in the APA journal. The final article is available, upon publication, at: http://dx.doi.org.leo.lib.unomaha.edu/10.1037/aca0000233