VALIDATION OF THE UNIQUENESS COEFFICIENT IN ASSESMENT OF DRAWINGS

Authors

  • Irena Ristić Faculty of Dramatic Arts, University of Arts in Belgrade
  • Miloš Milošević Faculty of Physical Education and Sports Management, Singidunum University in Belgrade

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2018.2.227-246

Keywords:

creativity, fine arts, coefficient construction, validity, reliability

Abstract

The new method for measuring product creativity by the constructing of a uniqueness coefficient and a creativity coefficient was tested. A validity, a reliability, an accuracy and a feasibility of the new method were verified in the domain of fine arts, and coefficients are compared with Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) which is most commonly applied for measuring product creativity. The construction procedure had two steps: 1) 1) categorization of products based on similarity, in line with the principles for processing open-ended questionnaires, followed by testing their intentionality, and then 2) calculating the uniqueness coefficient, as a measure of originality for each drawing, and the creativity coefficient at the level of the variable. The validity and reliability testing of the coefficients was carried out on a sample of 53 students, splitted in two subsamples: the art students and general student population. They were asked to generate drawings, starting from the simple apstract stimuli. The creativity of the drawings was measured by the constructed coefficients and with the CAT in addition. Differences between art students and general population confirmed sensitivity and criterion-based validity of the new measuring method. Positive and statistically significant correlation with CAT scores suggests convergent validity of the coefficients. The results indicate that coefficients enable the accurate, reliable and objective assessments of creative products in the domain of fine arts, at least as good as the CAT can do. Furthermore, the greater cost-effectiveness and availability of the coefficients justify its wider application in the future.

Metrics

Metrics Loading ...

References

Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. Boulder, CO: Westview.
Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2014) The Gold Standard for Assessing Creativity. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 3(1), 81–93. doi:10.4018/ijqaete.2014010104
Bart, W. M., Hokanson, B., & Can, I. (2017). An investigation of the factor structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Educational Sciences: Theory & Practice, 17(2), 515–528. doi:10.12738/estp.2017.2.0051
Cropley, D. H., & Cropley, A. J. (2010). Recognizing and fostering creativity in design education. International Journal of Technology and Design Education, 20, 345–358. doi:10.1007/s10798–009–9089–5
Davis, G. A. (1989). Testing for creative potential. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 14, 257–274. doi:10.1016/0361–476X(89)90014–3
Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(1), 35–40. doi:10.1037/a0038688
Einstein, A., & Infeld, L. (1938). The evolution of physics. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Feldhusen, J. F., & Goh, B. E. (1995). Assessing and accessing creativity: An integrative review of theory, research, and development. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 231–247. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0803_3
Galati, F. (2015). Complexity of Judgment: What Makes Possible the Convergence of Expert and Nonexpert Ratings in Assessing Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(1), 24–30. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.992667
Getzels, J., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley Interscience.
GlăVeanu, V. P. (2012). A Multiple Feedback Methodology for the Study of Creativity Evaluations. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 25(4), 346–366. doi:10.108 0/10720537.2012.651344
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American psychologist, 5, 444 – 454. doi:10.1037/ h0063487
Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw–Hill. Hass, R. (2013). Historiometry as Extension of the Consensual Assessment
Technique: A Comment on Kaufman and Baer. Creativity Research Journal, 25(3), 356–360. doi:10.1080/10400419.2013.813813
Heidemeier, H., & Moser, K. (2009). Self–other agreement in job performance ratings: A meta–analytic test of a process model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 353–370. doi:10.1037/0021–9010.94.2.353
Hocevar, D., & Bachelor, P. (1989). A taxonomy and critique of measurements used in the study of creativity. In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 53–75). New York, NY: Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978–1–4757–5356–1_3
Hong, E., Milgram, R. M., & Gorsky, H. (1995). Original thinking as a predictor of creative performance in young children. Roeper Review, 18, 147–149. doi:10.1080/02783199509553720
Hyeon, P. S., & Runco, A. M. (2018). A Latent Profile Analysis of the Criterion– related Validity of a Divergent Thinking Test. Creativity Research Journal, 30(2), 212–223. doi:10.1080/10400419.2018.1446751
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond New and Appropriate: Who Decides What Is Creative? Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83–91. doi:10.1080/1040041 9.2012.649237
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, Domains, and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43(4). doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.2009.tb01316.x
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Agars, M. D., & Loomis, D. (2010). Creativity Stereotypes and the Consensual Assessment Technique. Creativity Research Journal, 22(2), 200–205. doi:10.1080/10400419.2010.481529
Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cole, J. C., & Sexton, J. D. (2008). A comparison of expert and nonexpert raters using the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 171–178. doi:10.1080/10400410802059929
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York, NY: Wiley.
Kim, K. H. (2006). Is Creativity Unidimensional or Multidimensional? Analyses of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 18(3), 251–259. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1803_2
Kim, K. H., Cramond, B., & Bandalos, D. L. (2006). The latent structure and measurement invariance of scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking–Figural. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 66(3). 459– 477. doi:10.1177/0013164405282456
Long, H. (2014). An Empirical Review of Research Methodologies and Methods in Creativity Studies (2003–2012). Creativity Research Journal, 26(4), 427–438. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014.961781
Lu, C. C., & Luh, D. B. (2012). A comparison of assessment methods and raters in product creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 331–337. doi:10.1080/10 400419.2012.730327
Mandić, T., & Ristić, I. (2013). Psihologija kreativnosti. Beograd: Institut za pozorište, film, radio i televiziju, Fakultet dramskih umetnosti Univerzitet umetnosti u Beogradu.
Mansfield, R. S., Busse, T. V., & Krepelka, E. J. (1978). The effectiveness of creativity training. Review of Educational Research, 48, 517–536. doi:10.3102/00346543048004517
Milgram, R. M., & Hong, E. (1993). Creative thinking and creative performance in adolescents as predictors of creative attainments in adults: A follow–up study after18years.RoeperReview,15,135–139.doi:10.1080/02783199309553487 Milošević, M. i Ristić, I. (2016). Nov metodološki pristup studijama kreativnosti. In
Medias Res časopis filozofije medija, 5(8), 1237–1250.
Milošević, M. i Ristić, I. (2017, mart). Konstrukcija i validacija koeficijenta kreativnosti. Rad prezentovan na naučnom skupu Empirijska istraživanja u psihologiji XXIII, Beograd, Srbija.
Mumford, M. D., Reiter–Palmon, R., & Redmond, M. R. (1994). Problem construction and cognition: Applying problem representations in ill–defined domains. In
M. A. Runco (Ed.), Problem finding, problem solving, and creativity (3–39). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Okuda, S. M., Runco, M. A., & Berger, D. E. (1991). Creativity and the finding and solving or real–world problems. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 9, 45–53. doi:10.1177/073428299100900104
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to Present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12, 103–114. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1202_3
Plucker, J. A., & Begetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp.153–167). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692–009
Plucker, J. A., & Runco, M. (1998). The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review, 21, 36–39. doi:10.1080/02783199809553924
Plucker, J. A., Qian, M., & Schmalensee, S. L. (2014). Is What You See What You Really Get? Comparison of Scoring Techniques in the Assessment of Real– World Divergent Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26(2), 135–143. doi:10.1080/10400419.2014. 901023
Plucker, J., & Makel, M. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 48–73). New York, NY: Cambridge. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511763205.005
Priest, T. (2006). Self–evaluation, creativity, and musical achievement. Psychology of Music, 34, 47–61. doi:10.1177/0305735606059104
Proctor, R. W., & Van Zandt, T. (2008). Human factors in simple and complex systems, 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
Reiter–Palmon, R., Robinson–Morral, E. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Santo, J. B. (2012). Evaluation of Self–Perceptions of Creativity: Is It a Useful Criterion? Creativity Research Journal, 24(2–3), 107–114. doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.676980
Ristic, I., Skorc, B., & Mandic, T. (2016). Novelty and coherence in group creative processes. Psihologija, 49(3), 213–229. doi:10.2298/PSI1603213R
Ristić, I. (2010). Početak i kraj kreativnog procesa. Beograd: Hop.La!.
Ristić, I. i Milošević, M. (2017). Povezanost kreativne produkcije i emocionalnog doživljaja. Primenjena psihologija, 10(3), 335–353. doi:10.19090/ pp.2017.3.335–353
Runco, M. A. (1991). Divergent thinking. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent and creative thinking. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press. Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgmentsoforiginality and appropriatenessas predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537–546. doi:10.1016/0191–8869(93)90337–3
Runco, M. A., Okuda, S. M., & Thurston, B. J. (1987). The psychometric properties of four systems for scoring divergent thinking tests. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 5, 149–156. doi:10.1177/073428298700500206
Sawyers, J. K., & Canestaro, N. C. (1989). Creativity and achievement in design coursework. Creativity Research Journal, 2, 126–133. doi:10.1080/10400418909534306
Sharma, N. K., & Rastogi, D. (2009). A Multicriterial Approach to Creativity for Realistic Divergent Thinking Problems. Journal–Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35(1), 9–16.
Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (1995). The creative cognition approach. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Snyder, A., Mitchell, J., Bossomaier, T., & Pallier, G. (2004). The Creativity Quotient: An Objective Scoring of Ideational Fluency. Creativity Research Journal, 16(4), 415–420. doi:10.1080/10400410409534552
Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American Psychologist, 51, 677–688. doi:10.1037/0003–066X.51.7.677
Sternberg, R. J., Grigorenko, E. L., & Singer, J. L. (2004). Creativity: From potential to realization. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/10692–000
Thysa, E., Sabbe, B., & De Herta, M. (2014). The assessment of creativity in creativity/ psychopathology research – a systematic review. Cognitive Neuropsychiatry, 19(4), 359–377. doi:10.1080/13546805.2013.877384
Torrance, E. P. (1984). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking streamlined (revised) manual Figural A and B. Bensenville, IL:Scholastic Testing Service.
Torrance, E. P. (1990). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Figural (streamlined) Forms A & B. Review of Psychology, 36, 275–305. Torrance, E. P. (1998). The Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Norms—Technical Manual Figural (streamlined) Forms A & B. Bensenville, IL: Scholastic Testing Service.
Wakefield, J. F. (1991). The outlook for creativity tests. Journal of Creative Behavior, 25, 184–193. doi:10.1002/j.2162–6057.1991.tb01369.x
Weisberg, R. W. (2006). Modes of expertise in creative thinking: Evidence from case studies. In K. A. Ericsson, N. Charness, P. J. Feltovich, & R. R. Hoffman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of expertise and expert performance (pp. 761–787). New York: Cambridge University Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511816796.042
Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the Usefulness of “Value” in the Definition of Creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27(2), 111–124. doi:10.1080/10400419.2015.1030320
Zeng, L., Proctor, R. W., & Salvendy, G. (2011). Can Traditional Divergent Thinking Tests Be Trusted in Measuring and Predicting Real–World Creativity? Creativity Research Journal, 23(1), 24–37. doi:10.1080/10400419.2011.545713

Downloads

Published

25.06.2018

How to Cite

Ristić, I., & Milošević, M. (2018). VALIDATION OF THE UNIQUENESS COEFFICIENT IN ASSESMENT OF DRAWINGS. Primenjena Psihologija, 11(2), 227–246. https://doi.org/10.19090/pp.2018.2.227-246

Issue

Section

Articles