Measuring Children's Creativity: Methodological and Administrative Practices

• In Event: Classic and Novel Approaches in Creativity Assessment and Programming: Implications for Gifted Education

Abstract

The developmental trajectory of creativity has long been a point of interest in the field of creativity research, yet findings are still inconsistent. Researchers have agreed that developmental trends of creativity are influenced by contextual variables such that great variations in the developmental trajectory of creativity can be attributed to individual, cultural, regional, as well as age- and time-related factors (Barraza et al., 2019; Barbot et al., 2016; Chang et al., 2017). Thus, these inconclusive findings may be attributed to the wide variety of assessments and approaches used to measure creativity, especially those with children.

Several standardized creativity assessments have been developed and all differ in terms of their conceptualization and operationalization of creativity (Rafner et al., 2021; Said-Metwaly et al., 2017a). While there are numerous approaches and assessments used to measure creativity, such variations cannot always be used interchangeably given that creativity is influenced by contextual factors such as age, culture, environment, and domain-specific requirements or skills (Glaveanu, 2019; Sternberg, 2018). Consideration of transparency on accurately reporting the conceptualization, operationalization, and methodological practices for creativity assessment, such as scoring and administration, is particularly important for creativity research with children. Furthermore, several scholars (Barbot et al., 2019; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019) have emphasized the vast variability in administration and implementation of creativity assessments, such as variations in measures, tasks, scoring procedures, and settings.
To better understand creativity and/or DT performance, its relation to important constructs, development, and assessment, researchers must consider and implement optimal testing conditions and practices (Bloom et al., 2019). Yet, there is still much ambiguity regarding other administration practices, particularly with children. Lack of standard practices in using creativity tests allowed researchers to take liberties for using them in a variety of ways. The data presented in this session is drawn from a systematic review using 85 articles from 2016 to 2021 to critically examine and determine what are common research practices when administering creativity assessments in children ages 0 to 12, how these practices vary by age of participants, and whether these practices are developmentally appropriate. Specifically, for each article we systematically coded for: the number of measurements, tasks, and items used; age appropriateness of measures; task structure; task type (DT vs. non-DT); as well as administrative practices such as setting, modality of instructions, stimuli and response modality, and task timing. An examination of common practices and how and why the administrative practices vary provide research-based clues toward a more consistent use of creativity tests in future research. Consequently, replicability of creativity research may be enhanced.

Our findings indicated that current administrative practices for creativity assessments with children were more varied—and less empirically justified—than expected. Given the broad array, we identified and reviewed best practices for administering creativity assessments with children. We offer several recommendations for best practices to the field in hopes that more cohesive, standardized practices will contribute to reliable, replicable studies and consistent results regarding the developmental trajectory of creativity with children.

Authors

• Kelly Berthiaume, University of North Texas
  Presenting Author

• Selcuk Acar, University of North Texas
  Non-Presenting Author

• Denis Dumas, University of Georgia
  Non-Presenting Author