Journal of Creative Behavior最新文献

This study identifies the configurations of personal and situational conditions that promote or inhibit creativity. We adhere to the Interactionist Model of Creative Behavior and Complexity Theory, adopting a qualitative research design. Data were collected via an online survey from 197 employees in the research and development departments of Portugal's technology and telecommunication industries. According to our findings, creativity requires complex combinations of conditions. Four alternative configurations foster creativity and four inhibit it. Using fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis, we employ a configurational approach to understand how creativity can be facilitated or hindered and therefore contribute to the relatively unexplored topic of inhibiting creativity. Our theoretical contributions augment the Componential Theory of Creativity, addressing the complementarity among several conditions, the compensatory effect of a changing condition, and the substitute effect of a combination of conditions that compensate for the absence (lack) of a condition and still lead to the desired outcome. We also provide recommendations for managers in the technology and telecommunications industries. Even if they are not transformational leaders, they might cultivate creativity by considering other employees and contextual and organizational characteristics.

This study presents the Cebeci Test of Creativity (CTC), a novel computerized assessment tool designed to address the limitations of traditional open-ended paper-and-pencil creativity tests. The CTC is designed to overcome the challenges associated with the administration and manual scoring of traditional paper and pencil creativity tests. In this study, we present the first validation of CTC, demonstrating strong internal and external validity across two studies with a large sample size of over 14,000 students in grades 1–8. The results provide support for the proposed unidimensional factor structure of CTC, with robust reliability (ω = 0.833 and 0.872). Analyses of measurement invariance showed that the unidimensional factor structure of CTC holds consistently across all grade levels, with factor loadings exhibiting notable similarity. Additionally, the item intercepts demonstrate considerable uniformity across grades 3–5. The composite CTC scores were positively correlated with creative self-efficacy but not with Standard Progressive Matrices. The outcomes of our study indicate that CTC is a valuable and efficient tool for assessing creativity in educational settings. Its scalability and comprehensive evaluation of four key dimensions of creative ideation (i.e., fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration) make it particularly advantageous for educators seeking to assess students' creative potential.

Understanding and supporting pre-service teachers' creativity in collaborative instructional design has gained increasing attention. To design novel and effective learning experiences or activities for students, they need to build empathy with students, that is, understanding students' learning needs. This study aimed to (1) explore the patterns of design cognition in empathy-scaffolded pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design, and (2) investigate the differences in patterns of design cognition caused by two empathy interventions. Two classes, comprising 64 pre-service teachers, were randomly assigned to either the experimental condition (that used structured empathy strategy) or the control condition (that used unstructured empathy strategy). The pre-service teachers worked in groups of 3–4 members to perform design tasks. Their group discourses were audio-recorded and coded; an epistemic network analysis (ENA) was used to analyze the coded data to reveal the design cognitive processes and patterns. The ENA results revealed that empathy was cyclical and intertwined with defining problem and ideation (including generating ideas, building on ideas, elaborating and selecting ideas). Group discussions concentrated more on ideation than empathy. The comparison between the two interventions showed significant difference in design cognition. The experimental groups' discourses exhibited stronger co-occurrences between empathy and ideation, between defining the problem and generating new ideas, and between building on ideas and elaborating ideas. In contrast, the control groups' discourses were less focused on empathy, they concentrated more on the ideation processes. Regarding product creativity, there was no differences in terms of usefulness and novelty across the two conditions. This study can deepen understanding of the complexity and dynamic nature of pre-service teachers' collaborative instructional design.

In the PISA 2022 creative thinking test, students provide a response to a prompt, which is then coded by human raters as no credit, partial credit, or full credit. Like many large-scale educational testing frameworks, PISA uses the generalized partial credit model (GPCM) as a response model for these ordinal ratings. In this paper, we show that the instructions given to the raters violate some assumptions of the GPCM as it is used: Raters are instructed to rate according to steps that involve multiple attributes (appropriateness and diversity/originality), with a different (set of) attribute(s) necessary to pass the different thresholds of the scoring scale. Instead of the GPCM, we propose multidimensional generalized item response tree models that allow us to account for the sequential nature of the ratings and to disentangle the attributes measured from the original scores. We discuss advantages, limitations, as well as recommendations for future research.

Access to data from the 2022 PISA creative thinking assessment (PISA CT) provides a unique opportunity to advance our understanding of gender differences in creativity. However, in addition to the general theoretical and methodological considerations discussed elsewhere in this special issue, there are several matters specific to gender differences in creativity that should be considered when interpreting the results of the PISA CT. First, the overall creative thinking index on the PISA CT may not provide much value to understanding gender differences in creativity, as differences may be domain and task specific. Second, gender differences in careless responding may bias results for gender differences in PISA CT scores, as effort is associated with enhanced creative performance. Third, the restricted age range of PISA participants may limit the generalizability of results, as the developmental dynamics of gender differences in creativity suggest that the size and direction of gender differences in creative performance may change during this stage of adolescence. Each of these issues, as well as potential solutions and directions for future research using PISA CT scores to examine gender differences in creativity, are discussed.

Creativity tests, like creativity itself, vary widely in their structure and use. These differences include instructions, test duration, environments, prompt and response modalities, and the structure of test items. A key factor is task structure, referring to the specificity of the number of responses requested for a given prompt. Classic creativity assessments often use divergent thinking tasks, which allow for multiple responses. In contrast, other measures, such as insight tasks or the Remote Associates Test, require a single correct answer. This distinction suggests that a creativity test's correlates could depend on its placement along the convergent–divergent continuum. The PISA Creative Thinking assessment leans toward the divergent end, as none of its items require a single correct answer. However, it differs from traditional divergent thinking tests by not explicitly instructing participants to generate as many responses as possible. Instead, PISA items allow varying numbers of responses—some requiring one, others two or three. This variation reflects different levels of divergence, with one-response items being more convergent than three-response items. We argue that this difference in task structure should be considered when examining the relationship between PISA creativity scores and factors like academic achievement and socioeconomic status.