The Experts below are selected from a list of 204 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
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.
-
amabile s consensual Assessment technique why has it not been used more in design Creativity research
DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1, 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.
John Baer - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
the importance of domain specific expertise in Creativity
Roeper Review, 2015Co-Authors: John BaerAbstract:Although Creativity and expertise are related, they are nonetheless very different things. Expertise does not usually require Creativity, but Creativity generally does require a certain level of expertise. There are similarities in the relationships of both expertise and Creativity to domains, however. Research has shown that just as expertise in one domain does not predict expertise in other, unrelated domains, Creativity in one domain does not predict Creativity in other, unrelated domains. People may be expert, and people may be creative, in many domains, or they may be expert, or creative, in few domains or none at all, and one cannot simply transfer expertise, or Creativity, from one domain to another, unrelated domain. The domain specificity of Creativity matters crucially for Creativity training, Creativity Assessment, Creativity research, and Creativity theory. The domain specificity of Creativity also means that interdisciplinary thinking, interdisciplinary collaboration, and interdisciplinary cr...
-
Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory
Journal of Creative Behavior, 2012Co-Authors: John BaerAbstract:A growing body of research evidence suggests that Creativity is very domain-specific and that domain-general skills or traits contribute little to creative performance. The term “Creativity” is a convenient term for collecting many interesting artifacts, processes, and people into a single category, and the term “creative thinking skills” may be a useful way to connect a diverse set of unrelated cognitive processes that operate on different content and in different domains. These concepts are misleading, however, because although they connect things that may seem similar to observers, they lack any underlying cognitive psychological validity. This has implications for the ways we understand and assess Creativity, and also for how we should direct our efforts to develop creative-thinking skills in diverse domains. Creativity training needs either to target the domains in which Creativity enhancement is desired or to use a wide range of activities in diverse domains if the goal is more general improvement in many domains. Creativity Assessment needs to focus on domain-by-domain Assessment and to review findings based on allegedly domain-general tests of Creativity that may have misled researchers to unsupportable interpretations. Creativity theory needs to set more modest goals of domainby-domain theory development and to recognize that theories that may seem domain-general might better be understood as meta-theoretical heuristics that do not actually describe domain-general processes. These meta-theories might in some cases help guide the search for domain-based theories.
-
how divergent thinking tests mislead us are the torrance tests still relevant in the 21st century the division 10 debate
Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts, 2011Co-Authors: John BaerAbstract:An adult observed a preschool child working assiduously on a drawing and asked, “What are you drawing?” Without looking up, the child responded, “I’m drawing the face of God.” The adult smiled and said, “But no one knows what God looks like.” The child answered, “They will in a couple minutes.” No one is really sure what Creativity looks like either, but half a century ago Joy Guilford described one important piece of it—divergent production—and Guilford’s vision has shaped what many of us think Creativity looks like, especially in the area of Creativity Assessment. The Torrance Tests are essentially divergent thinking tests based on Guilford’s model, and they are very widely used as Creativity tests. Although the Torrance Tests have lost some of the edge they had quarter of a century ago, when Torrance and Presbury (1984) reported that the Torrance Tests had been used in three quarters of all recently published studies of Creativity, they nonetheless remain an important force, although perhaps more in schools than in research. If they are valid measures of Creativity, that’s wonderful. If they are not, it’s a huge problem. It would mean that we may think we know a lot of things—things we’ve learned from research by using a possibly invalid tool—that we don’t really know. Guilford grouped his divergent-production factors into four categories, and those four categories—fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration—were the basis of the Torrance Tests for many years. Torrance cautioned against the use of a composite score, recommending instead that the subscales be interpreted “in relation to one another” to get a picture of an individual’s skills:
-
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.
-
Essentials of Creativity Assessment
2008Co-Authors: James C. Kaufman, Jonathan A. Plucker, John BaerAbstract:Acknowledgments. Series Preface. One. Introduction to Creativity. Two. Divergent Thinking Tests. Three. The Consensual Assessment Technique. Four. Assessment by Others: Teacher, Peer, and Parent Measures. Five. Self Assessment. Six. Creativity, Intelligence, and Giftedness. Seven. Moving Forward. References. Annotated Bibliography. Index. About the Authors.
Jinghuan Zhang - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
paternal indifference and neglect in early life and Creativity exploring the moderating role of tph1 genotype and offspring gender
PLOS ONE, 2020Co-Authors: Shun Zhang, Jinghuan ZhangAbstract:For further understanding the joint contribution of environment, heredity and gender to Creativity, the present research examined the prospective impact of paternal indifference & neglect in early life, TPH1 rs623580, offspring gender, and the interaction effects thereof on Creativity in five hundred and thirty-nine unrelated healthy Chinese undergraduate students. Paternal indifference & neglect in early life was assessed on the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and Creativity on the Runco Creativity Assessment Battery (rCAB). Two primary findings emerged. Firstly, significant paternal indifference & neglect × TPH1 genotype interaction effects were identified in predicting all three dimensions of Creativity (fluency, originality, and flexibility). Paternal indifference & neglect in early life negatively predicted fluency, originality, and flexibility when individuals carry A allele of TPH1 (rs623580). Secondly, there was a significant interaction effect of TPH1 genotype by offspring gender on flexibility. Only in males, individuals who carry A allele were linked with lower level of flexibility compared to TT homozygote individuals. No significant three-way interaction was found. In conclusion, the current findings provided the first preliminary evidence for the moderation effect of TPH1 on the relationship between parenting and Creativity, and TPH1- offspring gender interaction on Creativity; future studies are needed to validate these findings.
-
paternal indifference and neglect in early life and Creativity exploring the moderating role of tph1 genotype and offspring s gender
bioRxiv, 2019Co-Authors: Shun Zhang, Jinghuan ZhangAbstract:Abstract For further understanding the joint contribution of environment, heredity and gender to Creativity, the present research examined the prospective impact of paternal indifference & neglect in early life, TPH1 rs623580, offspring’s gender, and the interaction effects thereof on Creativity in five hundred and thirty-nine unrelated healthy Chinese undergraduate students. Paternal indifference & neglect in early life was assessed on the Parental Bonding Instrument (PBI) and Creativity on the Runco Creativity Assessment Battery (rCAB). Results showed significant paternal indifference & neglect × TPH1 genotype and TPH1 genotype × offspring’s gender interaction effects when predicting Creativity. Specifically, paternal indifference & neglect in early life negatively predicted Creativity in youth when individuals carry A allele of TPH1 (rs623580). In addition, male individuals who carry A allele were linked with lower level of flexibility compared to TT homozygote individuals. No significant three-way interaction was found. Findings from the current study suggested that the A allele of TPH1 (rs623580) might be a risk allele for Creativity, and the long-term negative influence of paternal indifference & neglect in early life on individuals’ Creativity in youth depending on TPH1 genotype.
Lucie Clements - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
expertise in evaluating choreographic Creativity an online variation of the consensual Assessment technique
Frontiers in Psychology, 2018Co-Authors: Lucie Clements, Naomi Lefebvre Sell, Emma Redding, Jon MayAbstract:In contemporary dance, experts evaluate Creativity in competitions, auditions, and performances, typically through ratings of choreography or improvisation. Audiences also implicitly evaluate choreographic Creativity, so dancers' livelihoods also hinge upon the opinions of non-expert observers. However, some argue that the abstract and often pedestrian nature of contemporary dance confuses non-expert audiences. Therefore, agreement regarding Creativity and appreciation amongst experts and non-experts may be low. Finding appropriate methodologies for reliable and real-world Creativity evaluation remains the subject of considerable debate within the psychology Creativity research field. Although considerably variant in methodological operationalisation, the Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) asks individuals to use an implicit definition to assess Creativity in others' work. This study aimed to investigate the role of experience and expertise in the evaluation of choreographic Creativity, with a secondary aim of testing the feasibility of an online snowballing methodology for large-scale dance-specific research, informed by the methodology of the CAT. We filmed 23 Contemporary Dance students each performing a 3-min peer-choreographed solo and then recruited 850 online evaluators with varying degrees of expertise and experience in dance and Creativity. Evaluators viewed at least one randomly selected video and rated Creativity, technical ability, appreciation and understanding of the work, each using a seven-point Likert scale. A one-way ANOVA showed a significant difference in Creativity ratings across the 23 videos, and Creativity correlated significantly with the other variables. We then categorized evaluators on nine aspects of their dance and creative experience and entered the data into a repeated-measures linear mixed model. Two of the fixed effects yielded differences in Creativity evaluations: (i) contemporary choreographic experience and (ii) self-reported creative expertise, as did the random effect of the video. The results indicate that personal experience of the choreographic process impacts Creativity Assessment, above and beyond experience in dance class participation. Implications for Creativity Assessment within Creativity research and practice are discussed.
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.