The Experts below are selected from a list of 483 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
John Baer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Creativity
Oxford Handbooks Online, 2018Co-Authors: John BaerAbstract:This article reviews research and theory dealing with the psychology of creativity. It begins with a discussion of the most influential and widely known theory of creativity, which is based on the structure of the intellect model. It then considers four aspects of divergent thinking that are frequently mentioned in the literature, along with two models for classifying creativity: the “four P” model and the four C model. The article describes other theories of creativity, including the chance configuration theory, the propulsion model, and the five-factor theory of personality. Finally, it examines other important issues in creativity research, such as mental illness, gender differences, birth order, and IQ. It also looks at some of the approaches used in the Assessment of creativity, including the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Finally, it explores the issue of teaching creativity.
-
THE AMERICAN IDOL EFFECT: ARE STUDENTS GOOD JUDGES OF THEIR CREATIVITY ACROSS DOMAINS?
2014Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, Michelle L. Evans, John BaerAbstract:Students are often asked to judge their own creativity. There is some evidence that such judgments correlate modestly with other self-report data and some divergent thinking test measures. Only limited work, however, has been done comparing self-reported creativity with actual creative performance. Because levels of self-reported creativity might vary across domains— which would allow greater likelihood of accuracy of such reports—we examined self-reports of creativity in four domains and compared these with expert ratings of subjects ’ work in those domains (as judged using the Consensual Assessment Technique). Subjects were 78 fourth-grade students. The students did not predict uniform levels of creativity for themselves across domains (all self-Assessments correlated across domains less than.30). However, these predictions did not match expert ratings of the students ’ creative products in each domain. These results challenge the validity of self-Assessments of creativity among students of this age, even when the students are given the opportunity to give themselves different creativity ratings in different domains
-
The Gold Standard for Assessing Creativity
International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 2014Co-Authors: John Baer, Sharon S. MckoolAbstract:The most widely used creativity Assessments are divergent thinking tests, but these and other popular creativity measures have been shown to have little validity. The Consensual Assessment Technique is a powerful tool used by creativity researchers in which panels of expert judges are asked to rate the creativity of creative products such as stories, collages, poems, and other artifacts. The Consensual Assessment Technique is based on the idea that the best measure of the creativity of a work of art, a theory, a research proposal, or any other artifact is the combined Assessment of experts in that field. Unlike other measures of creativity, the Consensual Assessment Technique is not based on any particular theory of creativity, which means that its validity (which has been well established empirically) is not dependent upon the validity of any particular theory of creativity. The Consensual Assessment Technique has been deemed the “gold standard” in creativity research and can be very useful in creativity Assessment in higher education.
-
Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative?
Creativity Research Journal, 2012Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, John BaerAbstract:The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a common creativity Assessment. According to this Technique, the best judges of creativity are qualified experts. Yet what does it mean to be an expert in a domain? What level of expertise is needed to rate creativity? This article reviews the literature on novice, expert, and quasi-expert creativity ratings. Although current research indicates that novices may be poor choices to be CAT raters, quasi-experts may represent a compromise between ideal scientific rigor and practical time and budget restrictions. Certain guidelines are suggested to make the selection of experts more streamlined, including paying attention to which domain is being assessed.
-
creativity stereotypes and the Consensual Assessment Technique
Creativity Research Journal, 2010Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, John Baer, Mark D Agars, David LoomisAbstract:In creativity, there is scant evidence of significant racial and gender differences, and when such differences are found, there is no consistency regarding which groups perform best. There has been little work focusing on racial and gender biases and/or stereotypes within creativity Assessment. It is study these issues by using a modified version of the Consensual Assessment Technique in which the judges are provided with information about the creators' gender and/or race. A total of 455 undergraduates assigned ratings for creativity, writing ability, and enjoyment to 60 poems downloaded from a poetry Web site. These poems either had no attribution or had (fictional) stereotypical Black, White, and Crossover names for each gender. Results suggest that novice raters using CAT methodology display little evidence of bias in their ratings of creativity, writing ability, and poem enjoyment. Very slight preference was found for poems assigned names of White females.
James C. Kaufman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Are Creative People Better than Others at Recognizing Creative Work
Thinking skills and creativity, 2020Co-Authors: Steven E. Stemler, James C. KaufmanAbstract:It is often assumed that people with high ability in a domain will be excellent raters of quality within that same domain. This assumption is an underlying principle of using raters for creativity tasks, as in the Consensual Assessment Technique. While several prior studies have examined expert-novice differences in ratings, none have examined whether experts' ability to identify the quality of a creative product is being driven more by their ability to identify high quality work, low quality work, or both. To address this question, a sample of 142 participants completed individual difference measures and rated the quality of several sets of creative captions. Unbeknownst to the participants, the captions had been identified a prior by expert raters as being of particularly high or low quality. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that after controlling for participants' background and personality, those who scored significantly higher on any of three external measures of creativity also rated low-quality captions significantly lower than their peers; however, they did not rate the high-quality captions significantly higher. These findings support research in other domains suggesting that ratings of quality may be driven more by the lower end of the quality spectrum than the high end.
-
The relationship of the quality of creative problem solving stages to overall creativity in engineering students
Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2020Co-Authors: Lamies J. Nazzal, James C. KaufmanAbstract:Abstract Despite the growing call for enhancing creativity in STEM fields, creativity is still largely absent in contemporary engineering education. Developing creativity-supportive environments in engineering education requires an understanding of the creative process itself, particularly as it applies to engineering. Engineering students from a public university in the Northeastern region of the United States were asked to solve an engineering-related problem across four stages of the creative problem solving process. The Consensual Assessment Technique was then used to assess the quality of each stage as well as the overall creativity of the entire response. Two path analysis models were conducted to investigate the association between the creative problem solving stages and overall creativity. The first path analysis model computed the mean quality of the ideas generated, whereas the second path analysis considered the total quality of the ideas generated. The different interpretations of idea generation greatly impacted which stages were most related to each other and overall creativity.
-
THE AMERICAN IDOL EFFECT: ARE STUDENTS GOOD JUDGES OF THEIR CREATIVITY ACROSS DOMAINS?
2014Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, Michelle L. Evans, John BaerAbstract:Students are often asked to judge their own creativity. There is some evidence that such judgments correlate modestly with other self-report data and some divergent thinking test measures. Only limited work, however, has been done comparing self-reported creativity with actual creative performance. Because levels of self-reported creativity might vary across domains— which would allow greater likelihood of accuracy of such reports—we examined self-reports of creativity in four domains and compared these with expert ratings of subjects ’ work in those domains (as judged using the Consensual Assessment Technique). Subjects were 78 fourth-grade students. The students did not predict uniform levels of creativity for themselves across domains (all self-Assessments correlated across domains less than.30). However, these predictions did not match expert ratings of the students ’ creative products in each domain. These results challenge the validity of self-Assessments of creativity among students of this age, even when the students are given the opportunity to give themselves different creativity ratings in different domains
-
Measuring Functional Creativity: Non‐Expert Raters and the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2012Co-Authors: David H. Cropley, James C. KaufmanAbstract:The Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS) is a 30-item scale based on a core of four criteria: Relevance & Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Genesis. The CSDS offers potential for the Consensual Assessment of functional product creativity. This article describes an empirical study in which non-expert judges rated a series of mousetrap designs using the 30-item CSDS. A confirmatory factor analysis revealed a simple structure that corresponded closely to the a priori theoretical model of functional creativity, resulting in a revised 24-item CSDS. Non-expert judges were able to use the scale with a high degree of reliability and internal consistency. The revised CSDS paves the way for further research into the use of non-expert judges as a possible replacement for more costly, harder-to-obtain experts when measuring product creativity using the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT).
-
Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative?
Creativity Research Journal, 2012Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, John BaerAbstract:The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a common creativity Assessment. According to this Technique, the best judges of creativity are qualified experts. Yet what does it mean to be an expert in a domain? What level of expertise is needed to rate creativity? This article reviews the literature on novice, expert, and quasi-expert creativity ratings. Although current research indicates that novices may be poor choices to be CAT raters, quasi-experts may represent a compromise between ideal scientific rigor and practical time and budget restrictions. Certain guidelines are suggested to make the selection of experts more streamlined, including paying attention to which domain is being assessed.
Karl K Jeffries - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a scattered cat a critical evaluation of the Consensual Assessment Technique for creativity research
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2019Co-Authors: Genevieve Mercedes Cseh, Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)—taking the consensus opinions of domain experts—is considered a “gold standard” of creativity Assessment for research purposes. While several studies have identified how specific procedural choices impact the CAT’s reliability as a measure, researchers’ depth of knowledge about procedures and their effects still remains incomplete. This article explores gaps in the research by reviewing CAT and creativity literature and aims to explore to what extent the creativity research community needs to revisit and reflect on the CAT and solidify protocols for its implementation. The conclusion highlights the need for new debate and a program of research to clarify, evidence, and harmonize CAT methodology while simultaneously preserving the CAT’s flexibility. This would enable the development and sophistication of the CAT, including possible new assistive technologies, to further strengthen its use within the science of creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
-
a scattered cat a critical evaluation of the Consensual Assessment Technique for creativity research
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2019Co-Authors: Genevieve Mercedes Cseh, Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) – taking the consensus opinions of domain experts – is considered a 'gold standard' of creativity Assessment for research purposes. While several studies have identified how specific procedural choices impact on the CAT's reliability as a measure, researchers’ depth of knowledge about procedures and their effects still remains incomplete. This paper explores gaps in the research by reviewing CAT and creativity literature, and aims to explore to what extent the creativity research community needs to revisit and reflect on the CAT and solidify protocols for its implementation. The conclusion highlights the need for new debate and a program of research to clarify, evidence, and harmonize CAT methodology, while simultaneously preserving the CAT’s flexibility. This would enable the development and sophistication of the CAT, including possible new assistive technologies, to further strengthen its use within the science of creativity.
-
a cat with caveats is the Consensual Assessment Technique a reliable measure of graphic design creativity
DS79: Proceedings of The Third International Conference on Design Creativity Indian Institute of Science Bangalore, 2017Co-Authors: Karl K JeffriesAbstract:The CAT is considered one of the gold standards for creativity Assessment, and graphic design, arguably, the most ubiquitous domain within the "creative industries". For the first time, this study tests two tasks to measure graphic design creativity, and by extension, the reliability of the CAT as a measure of graphic design creativity. Initial research suggested low inter-rater reliability may be unduly influenced by a judge’s preference for technical execution. Sixteen professional graphic designers were randomly assigned instructions to discount technical execution from creativity ratings, or instruction that gave no stipulation, for 60 artworks. Inter-rater reliability were acceptable for each task and experimental condition, but were higher for judges that received instructions to discount technical execution. These and other results are discussed, and the argument presented that, for future CAT studies in this domain, specific instructions to discount technical execution offers a more reliable measure of graphic design creativity.
-
BCS HCI - A DigitalCAT: a fusion of creativity Assessment theory and HCI
2016Co-Authors: Genevieve M. Cseh, Karl K Jeffries, Mark Lochrie, Paul Egglestone, Allan A. BeattieAbstract:As a 'gold standard' creativity Assessment method, it is important to reflect on the digital future of Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT). Over the past three decades, the CAT has given creativity researchers a formal tool on which to build a true science out of the subjective phenomenon of creativity in a vast range of domains. Research practice, however, has relied on primitive paper-based tools or only rudimentary digital technology. As a result, it is high time a more sophisticated, standardized research tool is developed to greatly facilitate future creativity research and Assessment -- a DigitalCAT -- building on expertise from the design research, psychology and human-computer interaction (HCI) disciplines.
-
Amabile‘s Consensual Assessment Technique: Why Has It Not Been Used more in Design Creativity Research?
2012Co-Authors: Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) has been described as the “gold standard” of creativity Assessment; been extensively used within creativity research, and is seen as the most popular method of assessing creative outputs. Its discussion within scholarly research has continued to grow year by year. However, since 1996, a systematic review of the CAT has not been undertaken, and, within design journals, appears not to have occurred, in relation to design, or more broadly, the creative industries in general. Yet, the consensus of domain judges is a prevalent methodology for design education, and professional design awards. This paper presents the findings from a systematic literature review of the CAT covering works from 1982 to 2011. It details key journals and authors publishing or citing CAT related studies, and highlights the limited number of CAT studies within design journals, with suggestions for why this may be the case.
Genevieve Mercedes Cseh - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
a scattered cat a critical evaluation of the Consensual Assessment Technique for creativity research
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2019Co-Authors: Genevieve Mercedes Cseh, Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile’s Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT)—taking the consensus opinions of domain experts—is considered a “gold standard” of creativity Assessment for research purposes. While several studies have identified how specific procedural choices impact the CAT’s reliability as a measure, researchers’ depth of knowledge about procedures and their effects still remains incomplete. This article explores gaps in the research by reviewing CAT and creativity literature and aims to explore to what extent the creativity research community needs to revisit and reflect on the CAT and solidify protocols for its implementation. The conclusion highlights the need for new debate and a program of research to clarify, evidence, and harmonize CAT methodology while simultaneously preserving the CAT’s flexibility. This would enable the development and sophistication of the CAT, including possible new assistive technologies, to further strengthen its use within the science of creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved)
-
a scattered cat a critical evaluation of the Consensual Assessment Technique for creativity research
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2019Co-Authors: Genevieve Mercedes Cseh, Karl K JeffriesAbstract:Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) – taking the consensus opinions of domain experts – is considered a 'gold standard' of creativity Assessment for research purposes. While several studies have identified how specific procedural choices impact on the CAT's reliability as a measure, researchers’ depth of knowledge about procedures and their effects still remains incomplete. This paper explores gaps in the research by reviewing CAT and creativity literature, and aims to explore to what extent the creativity research community needs to revisit and reflect on the CAT and solidify protocols for its implementation. The conclusion highlights the need for new debate and a program of research to clarify, evidence, and harmonize CAT methodology, while simultaneously preserving the CAT’s flexibility. This would enable the development and sophistication of the CAT, including possible new assistive technologies, to further strengthen its use within the science of creativity.
David J. Brinkman - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Problem Finding, Creativity Style and the Musical Compositions of High School Students.
The Journal of Creative Behavior, 1999Co-Authors: David J. BrinkmanAbstract:This study sought to understand the effect of problem finding and creativity style on the creative musical product. Participants (N = 32) were categorized by creativity style (adaptor or innovator) using the Kirton Adaption-Innovation Inventory. The participants completed two musical composition problems involving two different degrees of problem finding behaviors: an open (ill defined) and a closed (more defined) problem. The resulting products were scored for creativity by three judges using a modified version of Amabile's “Consensual Assessment Technique.” A repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to analyze the data. The independent variables were composition problem type and creativity style, and the dependent variable was the creativity score on the open and closed problems. No significant differences due to problem type, creativity style, or the interaction of the two factors was found. This research supports the assertion of Kirton that adaption-innovation theory is a measure of creativity style rather than creativity level, but calls into question its use in individual creativity style.