Divergent Thinking as an Indicator of Creative Potential (original) (raw)
Related papers
The Association of Creativity with Divergent and Convergent Thinking
Psychiatria Danubina, 2021
The inspirational aspect of creativity remains shrouded in mystery. Methodological problems have hindered research into creativity, and such a situation makes the interpretation and comparison of studies problematic. The link between creativity and psychopathology is overstated by the print, electronic, and celluloid media. This paper attempts to explain the creative process from a psychological and psychiatric perspective leaving room for different unexplained aspects of generativity for open discussion. A selective survey of the literature was performed to identify scholarly views of creativity and psychopathology. Data sources included PubMed, Google Scholar, and Scopus. The concept of inspiration was examined from psychological, psychopathological, and biological standpoints. A better understanding of creativity has clinical implications. Psychopathology can facilitate creativity, but it is not the maker of creativity that involves a harmonious blending of divergent and converge...
Which Test of Divergent Thinking Is Best?
Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, 2016
Divergent thinking (DT) tests are probably the most commonly used measures of creative potential. Several extensive batteries are available but most research relies on one or two specific tests rather than a complete battery. This may limit generalizations because tests of DT are not equivalent. They are not always highly inter-correlated. Additionally, some DT tests appear to be better than others at eliciting originality. This is critical because originality is vital for creativity. The primary purpose of the present study was to determine which test of DT elicits the most originality. Seven measures of DTwere administered on a sample of 611 participants in eight Arabic countries. The tests were Figural, Titles, Realistic Presented Problems, Realistic Problem Generation, Instances, Uses, and Similarities. The
Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2008
Silvia et al.'s (2008) primary motivations for exploring and proposing their subjective scoring method are their perceived deficiencies of current divergent thinking tests. First, scores on divergent thinking tests frequently correlate highly with general intelligence. Second, the scoring of divergent thinking tests has changed little since the 1960s. Third, the necessity of instructing people to be creative prior to taking divergent thinking tests is integral to obtaining useful responses and needs to be reaffirmed. Fourth, and finally, the problems posed by uniqueness scoringconfounding with fluency, ambiguity of rarity, and the seeming "penalty" imposed on large samples-that need to be addressed. First, Kim's (2005) meta-analysis indicated that the relationship between divergent thinking test scores and IQ (r ϭ .17) is negligible, which supports the underlying belief that creativity and intelligence are separate constructs. According to Kim's (in press) meta-analysis, divergent thinking test scores predict creative achievement (r ϭ .22) better than IQ (r ϭ .17). Further, 51.8% of the 274 correlation coefficients incorporated in the study used the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking (TTCT; Torrance, 1996), and the TTCT predicted (r ϭ .33, p Ͻ .0001) creative achievement better than other measures of creative potential (e.g.
Problem discovery, divergent thinking, and the creative process
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 1988
Previous empirical research suggests that problem discovery is an important step in the creative process. The present investigation was conducted to examine the role of problem discovery in the divergent thinking and creative performance of adolescents. Three divergent thinking tests were administered to a group of adolescents. Each test contained three presentedproblems and one discoveredproblem. The discovered problem allowed the adolescents to think of a problem and then to provide solutions. Comparisons indicated that the adolescents generated significantly more responses to the discovered problems than the presented problems. Most important was that the unique variance of the discovered problems (controlling the variance shared with scores from the presented problems) was reliable and significantly related to five indices of creative performance. These results support the componential theory of divergent thinking and creativity, and are consistent with the developmental view of problem finding.
Finding Creative Potential on Intelligence Tests via Divergent Production
Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 2011
Assessing creative potential using a comprehensive battery of standardized tests requires a focus on how and why an individual responds in addition to how well they respond. Using the "intelligent testing" philosophy of focusing on the person being tested rather than the measure itself helps psychologists form a more complete picture of an examinee, which may include information about his or her creative potential. Although most aspects of creativity are not present in current individually based IQ and achievement tests, one exception is divergent production. Although still poorly represented, some subtests show great potential for tapping into divergent production, and hence provide some insight into creativity. The research on the relationship between measures of intelligence and creativity is discussed in this article. The authors also propose a way to use individually administered cognitive and achievement batteries to extract information about an individual's divergent production and general creative potential.
AI-Driven Advances in Measuring Divergent Thinking and Creative Personality
AI-Driven Advances in Measuring Divergent Thinking, 2024
This study addresses the longstanding challenges in traditional psychometric tools for assessing Divergent Thinking (DT) and Creative Personality (CP), including cultural biases, subjectivity, and limited scalability. The objective of the research was to explore how Artificial Intelligence (AI) can enhance the precision, reliability, and efficiency of creativity assessment. To achieve this, AI-driven tools were employed to compare traditional and AI-enhanced psychometric evaluations across three critical metrics: accuracy, reliability, and efficiency. The methodology included the use of Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) to validate predictive relationships between DT, CP, and an AI-Scored Creativity Index (AI-CI). The results demonstrated that AI tools significantly improved reliability, as evidenced by an increase in Cronbach’s Alpha from 0.85 to 0.91, and accuracy, with a rise from 70% to 95%. Additionally, efficiency was enhanced with a 50% reduction in scoring time. The SEM analysis revealed that AI-CI explained 79% of the variance in DT outcomes, outperforming traditional methods. These findings underscore the transformative potential of AI in addressing the limitations of traditional psychometric tools, offering a scalable and unbiased framework for advancing creativity research and fostering equitable assessments across diverse populations.
Children's divergent thinking and creative ideation
Developmental Review, 1992
Children's creative thinking is often assessed with divergent thinking tests. This article reviews the literature on divergent thinking tests and suggests that the strengths of these tests include their solid theoretical bases, their reliability, their selective validity, and the vast literature available to assist interpretations. Specific conclusions supported by the research include the following. First, divergent thinking test scores are predictive of some types of performance (e.g., writing) but are not predictive of performance in other domains (e.g., art). Second, divergent thinking tests have discriminant validity, but the traditional scoring technique (with fluency, originality, and flexibility) may be inadequate, and the level of ability of the examinees must be taken into account when comparing ideational scores with intelligence test scores. Third, several personality traits (e.g., independence) and familial variables (e.g., birth order, family size, age gap) are associated with performance on tests of ideational creativity. Finally, performance on divergent thinking can he influenced by models, including parental divergent thinking, incentives and reinforcement, task perception, environmental cues, stimulus characteristics, and age. Overall, the research suggests that these tests are useful as estimates of children's potential for creative thinking. o I992 Academic Press, Inc. The value of children's creativity is widely recognized. Creativity is, for example, thought to be related to psychological health and the ability to solve problems. There are, however, concerns about creativity being stifled by specific educational procedures, and there is a debate over development trends in creativity. Steffin (1983) argued that the typical classroom environment, peer pressure, and the format of school assignments each inhibit the creativity of children. Along the same lines, Torrance (1968) described a fourth-grade slump of creative performances. Gardner (1982) offered a cognitive explanation for developmental trends and suggested that creativity drops when children enter a literal stage. With the recognized value of creativity and the concerns about its development, it behooves us to closely monitor the creativity of children. Are the theories of the development of creative abilities built on sound research using meaningful assessments ? Are the measures being used The author expresses his gratitude to
Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment
Twenty-one second-grade subjects received divergent-thinking training and 20 matched subjects received training in solving mathematical word problems. All subjects were then given five tasks: telling stories, writing stories, writing poems, writing mathematical word problems, and making collages. Experts evaluated the creativity of each product. The divergent-thinking groups scored significantly higher than controls on the story-telling, story-writing, and poetry-writing tasks. The lack of correlations among scores on the five tasks, however, suggests that several task-specific factors, rather than one general factor, led to observed group differences. This is consistent with previous research using subjects untrained in divergent thinking in showing that divergent thinking is not a general trait.