<abstract xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><p>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.</p></abstract>

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.

Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

{"article-title":"Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?"}

Based on Glăveanu’s target article, issues raised about the psychometric approach to creativity research are examined. Criticisms of divergent thinking tests,...

Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?

Online veröffentlicht: 26. Mai 2015

Seitenbereich: 44 - 48

Eingereicht: 30. Nov. 2014

Akzeptiert: 22. Dez. 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0006

Schlüsselwörter
Creativity measurement, EPoC, Divergent thinking, Psychometric approach

© Todd Lubart et al.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?

Online veröffentlicht: 26. Mai 2015

Seitenbereich: 44 - 48

Eingereicht: 30. Nov. 2014

Akzeptiert: 22. Dez. 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0006

SchlüsselwörterCreativity measurement, EPoC, Divergent thinking, Psychometric approach

© Todd Lubart et al.

This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License.

Schlüsselwörter
Creativity measurement, EPoC, Divergent thinking, Psychometric approach