{"title":"The impact of creativity training on creative performance: A meta-analytic review and critical evaluation of 5 decades of creativity training studies.","authors":"Ut Na Sio, Hugues Lortie-Forgues","doi":"10.1037/bul0000432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Creativity is widely considered a skill essential to succeeding in the modern world. Numerous creativity training programs have been developed, and several meta-analyses have attempted to summarize the effectiveness of these programs and identify the features influencing their impact. Unfortunately, previous meta-analyses share a number of limitations, most notably overlooking the potentially strong impact of publication bias and the influence of study quality on effect sizes. We undertook a meta-analysis of 169 creativity training studies across 5 decades (844 effect sizes, the largest meta-analysis of creativity training to date), including a substantial number of unpublished studies (48 studies; 262 effect sizes). We employed a range of statistical methods to detect and adjust for publication bias and evaluated the robustness of the evidence in the field. In line with previous meta-analyses, we found a moderate training effect (0.53 SDs; unadjusted for publication bias). Critically, we observed converging evidence consistent with strong publication bias. All adjustment methods considerably lowered our original estimate (adjusted estimates ranged from 0.29 to 0.32 SDs). This severe bias casts doubt on the representativeness of the published literature in the field and on the conclusions of previous meta-analyses. Our analysis also revealed a high prevalence of methodological shortcomings in creativity training studies (likely to have inflated our average effect), and little signs of methodological improvement over time-a situation that limits the usefulness of this body of work. We conclude by presenting implications and recommendations for researchers and practitioners, and we propose an agenda for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":17,"journal":{"name":"ACS Infectious Diseases","volume":" 8","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-18","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Infectious Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000432","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CHEMISTRY, MEDICINAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
Abstract
Creativity is widely considered a skill essential to succeeding in the modern world. Numerous creativity training programs have been developed, and several meta-analyses have attempted to summarize the effectiveness of these programs and identify the features influencing their impact. Unfortunately, previous meta-analyses share a number of limitations, most notably overlooking the potentially strong impact of publication bias and the influence of study quality on effect sizes. We undertook a meta-analysis of 169 creativity training studies across 5 decades (844 effect sizes, the largest meta-analysis of creativity training to date), including a substantial number of unpublished studies (48 studies; 262 effect sizes). We employed a range of statistical methods to detect and adjust for publication bias and evaluated the robustness of the evidence in the field. In line with previous meta-analyses, we found a moderate training effect (0.53 SDs; unadjusted for publication bias). Critically, we observed converging evidence consistent with strong publication bias. All adjustment methods considerably lowered our original estimate (adjusted estimates ranged from 0.29 to 0.32 SDs). This severe bias casts doubt on the representativeness of the published literature in the field and on the conclusions of previous meta-analyses. Our analysis also revealed a high prevalence of methodological shortcomings in creativity training studies (likely to have inflated our average effect), and little signs of methodological improvement over time-a situation that limits the usefulness of this body of work. We conclude by presenting implications and recommendations for researchers and practitioners, and we propose an agenda for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).
期刊介绍:
ACS Infectious Diseases will be the first journal to highlight chemistry and its role in this multidisciplinary and collaborative research area. The journal will cover a diverse array of topics including, but not limited to:
* Discovery and development of new antimicrobial agents — identified through target- or phenotypic-based approaches as well as compounds that induce synergy with antimicrobials.
* Characterization and validation of drug target or pathways — use of single target and genome-wide knockdown and knockouts, biochemical studies, structural biology, new technologies to facilitate characterization and prioritization of potential drug targets.
* Mechanism of drug resistance — fundamental research that advances our understanding of resistance; strategies to prevent resistance.
* Mechanisms of action — use of genetic, metabolomic, and activity- and affinity-based protein profiling to elucidate the mechanism of action of clinical and experimental antimicrobial agents.
* Host-pathogen interactions — tools for studying host-pathogen interactions, cellular biochemistry of hosts and pathogens, and molecular interactions of pathogens with host microbiota.
* Small molecule vaccine adjuvants for infectious disease.
* Viral and bacterial biochemistry and molecular biology.