The Gold Standard for Assessing Creativity

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. The Gold Standard for Assessing Creativity

[1]  John Baer,et al.  Gender Differences in the Effects of Anticipated Evaluation on Creativity , 1997 .

[2]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Evidence to Support the Componential Model of Creativity: Secondary Analyses of Three Studies , 1996 .

[3]  Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking, Intrinsic Motivation, and Evaluation , 2013 .

[4]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Differences in Gender and Ethnicity as Measured by Ratings of Three Writing Tasks , 2004 .

[5]  John Baer,et al.  Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity , 2005 .

[6]  Teresa M. Amabile,et al.  Looking Inside the Fishbowl of Creativity: Verbal and Behavioral Predictors of Creative Performance , 1998 .

[7]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative? , 2012 .

[8]  Jonathan A. Plucker,et al.  The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment , 1998 .

[9]  John Baer,et al.  A Comparison of Expert and Nonexpert Raters Using the Consensual Assessment Technique , 2008 .

[10]  Gregory J. Feist,et al.  The Evolved Fluid Specificity of Human Creative Talent. , 2004 .

[11]  John Baer,et al.  Creativity across domains : faces of the muse , 2005 .

[12]  M. Hickey,et al.  An Application of Amabile's Consensual Assessment Technique for Rating the Creativity of Children's Musical Compositions , 2001 .

[13]  John Baer.  The Case for Domain Specificity of Creativity , 1998 .

[14]  John Baer,et al.  Extension of the Consensual Assessment Technique to Nonparallel Creative Products , 2004 .

[15]  John Baer.  Domain specificity of creativity: Theory, research, and practice , 2012, TEXT.

[16]  T. M. Amabile.  Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. , 1982 .

[17]  David H. Cropley,et al.  Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? , 2013 .

[18]  John Baer,et al.  Creativity Stereotypes and the Consensual Assessment Technique , 2010 .

[19]  John Baer,et al.  Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract, and disappoint. , 2011 .

[20]  John Baer,et al.  Performance assessments of creativity: Do they have long‐term stability? , 1994 .

[21]  John Baer,et al.  Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multidomain training experiment , 1994 .

[22]  Zorana Ivcevic,et al.  Artistic and everyday creativity: An act-frequency approach. , 2007 .

[23]  The Impact of the Core Knowledge Curriculum on Creativity , 2003 .

[24]  John Baer,et al.  Commentary: Divergent Thinking Tests Have Problems, But This Is Not the Solution , 2008 .

[25]  John Baer.  Is Creativity Domain Specific , 2010 .

[26]  Beth A. Hennessey,et al.  The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity , 1994 .

[27]  Robert J. Sternberg,et al.  CULTURAL INFLUENCES ON ARTISTIC CREATIVITY AND ITS EVALUATION , 2001 .

[28]  John Baer.  Domain Specificity and the Limits of Creativity Theory , 2012 .

[29]  John Baer.  Four (more) arguments against the Torrance Tests. , 2011 .

[30]  W. Niu.  Individual and Environmental Influences on Chinese Student Creativity. , 2007 .

[31]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Do Gifted Student Writers and Creative Writing Experts Rate Creativity the Same Way? , 2005 .

[32]  John Baer.  The Effects of Task‐Specific Divergent‐Thinking Training , 1996 .

[33]  M. Runco.  The Creativity of Children's Art. , 1989 .

[34]  John Baer.  Gender Differences in the Effects of Extrinsic Motivation on Creativity , 1998 .

[35]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  The Construct of Creativity: Structural Model for Self‐Reported Creativity Ratings , 2009 .

[36]  Mark A. Runco,et al.  The Generality of Creative Performance in Gifted and Nongifted Children , 1987 .

[37]  John Baer.  How Divergent Thinking Tests Mislead Us: Are the Torrance Tests Still Relevant in the 21st Century? The Division 10 Debate , 2011 .

[38]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Young and Old, Novice and Expert: How we Evaluate Creative art can Reflect Practice or Talent , 2013 .

[39]  James C. Kaufman,et al.  Expertise, Domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique. , 2009 .

[40]  J. Plucker.  Beware of Simple Conclusions: The Case for Content Generality of Creativity , 1998 .