Said-Metwaly et al. (2017) completed a review of the literature to discuss tools of measurement of creativity and the validity of the tools presented and found in the literature. The authors found that creativity across the literature was largely categorized into four categories: process, person, product, press. Process features processes or skills often associated with creativity; Person focuses on the traits of the individual that reflect creativity; Product refers to the created outcomes or products created by individuals; Press highlights the climate around creative individuals. When measuring these forms of creativity, tools include divergent thinking tests, self-reporting questionnaires, and product-based assessments. The authors concluded that the instruments used to measure creativity mentioned throughout the literature are insufficient in measuring the complexity of creativity. With creativity being such a unique, complex construct, the challenges in one tool measuring the entirety of it is a large task, according to Said-Metwaly et al. (2017). These findings leave more to be desired in measurement tools and their validity across measuring creativity.

The review included a total of 152 papers, which by all accounts, is a large sample size in a literature review like this. The paper explicitly states the various instruments (18 total) used and highlights the limitations of each instrument, according to what facet of creativity the instrument aligns to. This clarity and organization is beneficial for the reader to understand how creativity is assessed according to the literature and in what way the instrument is being implemented. The attention to the limitations of each instrument and its questioning of validity is a strength of the writers. It allows for the reader to make their own judgements on each of the instruments through the findings of the literature.

I chose this article for this week’s post from my own curiosity. When I read through this weeks readings, my mind gravitated towards, “How do you assess creativity?” I think of creativity and its definitions outlined in this paper, and even then I don’t think those definitions are all that clear. Creativity is a “you know it when you see it,” kind of trait. However, the discussion of the assessments I found fascinating when referring to the PISA framework we looked at this week. While the PISA framework was not published until 2021, 4 years after this article, many of these constructs in regards to process and product are evident. A few of my articles have focused on student choice/autonomy and these choices can produce creative opportunities for students based on the product they create. It’s a factor I have yet to consider in student choice, but it is an aspect worth consideration when thinking about measurement tools that could be used in creative opportunities. I don’t foresee myself centering my work on creativity, but its nature also lends itself to the work I have considered thus far.

Sources
Said-Metwaly, S., Van den Noortgate, W., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Approaches to measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories–Research-Applications, 4(2), 238-275.