Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests Be Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real-World Creativity?

313 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Approaches to Measuring Creativity: A Systematic Literature Review (2017, methodology): “One of the most controversial issues in creativity research is the measurement of this construct (Baer & McKool, 2009; Barbot, Besançon, & Lubart, 2011; Blamiresa & Peterson, 2014; Kaufman, Baer, Cole, & Sexton, 2008; Mouchiroud & Lubart, 2001; Park, Chun, & Lee, 2016; Zeng et al., 2011).”
The Impact of Metacognitive Instruction on Creative Problem Solving (2015, background): “In the present study, an active attempt was made to avoid typical limitations inherent in measuring creativity only with tests of divergent thinking (Zeng et al., 2011).”
The sociomateriality of creativity in everyday life (2013, background): “…much creativity research concerning the 4P’s-model, in which creativity is assumed to consist of four interactive components: persons, processes, product and press (Kahl, Da Fonseca, & Witte, 2009; Mumford, 2003; Zeng et al., 2011), left unanswered is the problem of how these factors interact.”
Creativity and innovation: Skills for the 21st Century (2018, background): “W EC H SLER Creativity and innovation as distinct constructs At the other extreme, such constructs have also been studied as distinct and unrelated concepts (Cerne, Jaklic, & Skerlavaj, 2013; Reiter-Palmon, 2011; Stein & Harper, 2012; Zeng et al., 2011).”