Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Show Summary Details
More options …

Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications

2 Issues per year

Open Access
Online
ISSN
2354-0036
See all formats and pricing
More options …

Has Creativity Research Become a Trivial Pursuit?

Todd Lubart / Xavier Caroff
Published Online: 2015-05-26 | DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0006

Abstract

Based on Glăveanu’s target article, issues raised about the psychometric approach to creativity research are examined. Criticisms of divergent thinking tests, such as the unusual uses of an object test, are examined. Arguments supporting the theoretical and practical utility of divergent thinking tests are presented. It is furthermore suggested that tests are best conceived and used in contextualized ways. The example of measures of divergent thinking which were designed for managers is presented. Finally, the psychometric approach encompasses many aspects of creativity beyond divergent thinking, as illustrated by recent work on the evaluation of creative potential (the EPoC battery). In the EPoC assessment, both divergent-exploratory thinking and convergent-integrative thinking are measured in a range of contextual domains, such as the visual-graphic, verballiterary, social problem solving ones. This work contrasts with the simplistic, and restrictive view of the unusual uses of an object test as the epitome of the psychometric approach to creativity.

Keywords: Creativity measurement; EPoC; Divergent thinking; Psychometric approach

REFERENCES

  • Caroff, X., & Lubart, T. (2012). Multidimensional Approach to Detecting Creative Potential in Managers. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 1, 13–20; DOI: 10.1080/10400419.2012.652927.CrossrefWeb of ScienceGoogle Scholar

  • Glăveanu, V. P. (2014). The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications, 1, 10-32; DOI: 10.15290/ctra.2014.01.01.02.Google Scholar

  • Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5, 444-454.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-Analyses of the Relationship of Creative Achievement to Both IQ and Divergent Thinking Test Scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 2, 106–130; DOI:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01290.x.Web of ScienceCrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Lubart, T., Besançon, M., & Barbot, B. (2011). EPoC: Evaluation du potentiel créatif [Evaluation of potential creativity]. Paris : Hogrefe.Google Scholar

  • Lubart, T., Mouchiroud, C., Tordjman, S., & Zenasni, F. (2003). Psychologie de creativité [Psychology of creativity]. Paris: Armand Colin.Google Scholar

  • Scratchley, L. S., & Hakstian, A. R. (2001). The measurement and prediction of managerial creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 3-4, 367–384; DOI:10.1207/S15326934CRJ1334.CrossrefGoogle Scholar

  • Sternberg, R.J. & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar

About the article

Received: 2014-11-30

Revised: 2014-12-21

Accepted: 2014-12-22

Published Online: 2015-05-26

Published in Print: 2015-06-01


Citation Information: Creativity. Theories – Research - Applications, ISSN (Online) 2354-0036, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1515/ctra-2015-0006.

Export Citation

© Todd Lubart et al.. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 3.0 License. BY-NC-ND 3.0

Comments (0)

Please log in or register to comment.
Log in