Creativity research in Russia (2000–2017). Part II. Methodological recommendations for researchers

Publication type Article
Status Published
Occupation: Master’s student
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg State University, Faculty of Psychology
Address: Saint Petersburg, Admiral Makarov Embankment, 6, Russia
Occupation: Associate Professor
Affiliation: Saint Petersburg State University, Faculty of Psychology
Address: Saint Petersburg, Admiral Makarov Embankment, 6, Russia
Journal namePsikhologicheskii zhurnal
EditionVolume 41 Issue 3

This article is concerned with analysis and discussion of empirical results of the study of the most common methodological practices in the Russian field of creativity research.  In the present study, methodological practices are defined as research methodology, statistical data processing, and description of results in scientific papers.Based on the obtained results, we composed a list of recommendations aimed at improving current methodological practices. These recommendations stress the necessity of: 1) compliance with the current requirements for the processing and interpretation of the results on divergent thinking tests and the organization of the testing procedure; 2) using more than one divergent thinking task in case the latter is chosen as a target measure; 3) avoiding the tendency to interpret scores on Mednick's test as characteristic of (verbal) creativity; 4) providing data on the reliability of scores derived from psychometric methods; 5) reporting sample size as well as sample’s major demographic characteristics, such as age and sex; 6) correct application of statistical tests; 7) reporting the magnitude of a test statistic, the exact p-value, and confidence intervals and/or effect size.

KeywordsCreativity, creativity research, methodology, methodological practices, statistical analysis, methodological recommendations
Publication date08.05.2020
Number of characters27648
100 rub.
When subscribing to an article or issue, the user can download PDF, evaluate the publication or contact the author. Need to register.

Number of purchasers: 2, views: 1098

Readers community rating: votes 0

1. Ilinykh A.E. Social'naja kreativnost' lichnosti: psihologicheskaja struktura. Izvestija Saratovskogo universiteta. Novaja serija. Serija Filosofija. Psihologija. Pedagogika. 2011. V. 11. № 3. P. 74–76. (in Russian)

2. Morozova S.V. Ugrozy izoljacii rossijskoj psihologii v budushhem. Psikhologicheskii zhurnal. 2018. V. 39. № 3. P. 129–133. (in Russian)

3. Morozova S.V., Nasledov A.D. K voprosu o specifike statisticheskogo diskursa psihologii v Rossii. Vestnik Tverskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Serija: Pedagogika i psihologija. 2015. № 3. P. 6–18. (in Russian)

4. Moroshkina N.V., Gershkovitch V.A. Tipologija jempiricheskih issledovanij v psihologii. Vestnik Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. Serija 16. Psihologija. Pedagogika. 2016. № 1. P. 80–99. (in Russian)

5. Amabile T.M. Componential theory of creativity. Harvard Business School. 2012. V. 12. № 96. P. 1–10.

6. Barbot B., Hass R.W., Reiter-Palmon R. Creativity assessment in psychological research: Setting the Standards. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. P. 233–240.

7. Benedek M., Christensen A.P., Fink A., Beaty R.E. Creativity assessment in neuroscience research. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. P. 218–226.

8. Csikszentmihalyi M. Creativity: Flow and the psychology of discovery and invention. N.Y.: Harper Collins, 1996.

9. Cropley A. In praise of convergent thinking. Creativity research journal. 2006. V. 18. № 3. P. 391–404.

10. Cumming G., Fidler F., Leonard M., Kalinowski P., Christiansen A., Kleinig A., Lo J., McMenamin N., Wilson, S. Statistical Reform in Psychology: Is Anything Changing? Psychological Science. 2007. V. 18. № 3. P. 230–232.

11. Feist G.J., Runco M.A. Trends in the creativity literature: An analysis of research in the Journal of Creative Behavior (1967–1989). Creativity Research Journal. 1993. V. 6. № 3. P. 271–283.

12. Finke R.A., Ward T.B., Smith S.M. Creative cognition: theory, research, and applications. The MIT Press, 1992.

13. Forgeard M.J.C., Kaufman J.C. Who cares about imagination, creativity, and innovation, and why? A review. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2016. V. 10. № 3. P. 250–269.

14. Forthmann B., Holling H., Çelik P., Storme M., Lubart T. Typing speed as a confounding variable and the measurement of quality in divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal. 2017. V. 29. № 3. P. 257–269.

15. Forthmann B., Szardenings C., Holling H. Understanding the confounding effect of fluency in divergent thinking scores: Revisiting average scores to quantify artifactual correlation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2018. Advance online publication.

16. Furr M.R., Bacharach V.R. Psychometrics: An Introduction. SAGE Publications, Inc., 2013.

17. Glăveanu V.P. The psychology of creativity: A critical reading. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications. 2014. V. 1. P. 10–32.

18. Goodwin L.D., Leech N.L. Understanding correlation: Factors that affect the size of r. The Journal of Experimental Education. 2006. V. 74. № 3. P. 249–266.

19. Graham J.M. Congeneric and (essentially) tau-equivalent estimates of score reliability: What they are and how to use them. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2006. V. 66. № 6. P. 930–944.

20. Guilford J.P. Creative abilities in the arts. Psychological Review. 1957. V. 64. № 2. P. 110–118.

21. Guo J. The development of an online divergent thinking test: Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Mansfield, 2016.

22. Hass R.W. Feasibility of online divergent thinking assessment. Computers in Human Behavior. 2015. V. 46. P. 85–93.

23. Hocevar D., Michael W.B. The effects of scoring formulas on the discriminant validity of tests of divergent thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1979. V. 39. № 4. P. 917–921.

24. Kim K.H. Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. The Journal of Creative Behavior. 2008. V. 42. № 2. P. 106–130.

25. Krumm G., Lemos V., Filippetti V.A. Factor structure of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking Figural Form B in Spanish-speaking children: Measurement invariance across gender. Creativity Research Journal. 2014. V. 26. № 1. P. 72–81.

26. Lau S., Cheung P.C. Creativity assessment: Comparability of the electronic and paper-and-pencil versions of the Wallach–Kogan Creativity Tests. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2010. V. 5. № 3. P. 101–107.

27. Lee C.S., Huggins A.C., Therriault D.J. A measure of creativity or intelligence? Examining internal and external structure validity evidence of the Remote Associates Test. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2014. V. 8. № 4. P. 446–460.

28. Long H. An empirical review of research methodologies and methods in creativity studies (2003–2012). Creativity Research Journal. 2014. V. 26. № 4. P. 427–438.

29. Long H., Plucker J.A., Yu Q., Ding Y., Kaufman J.C. Research productivity and performance of journals in the creativity sciences: A bibliometric analysis. Creativity Research Journal. 2014. V. 26. № 3. P. 353–360.

30. Myszkowski N., Storme M. Judge response theory? A call to upgrade our psychometrical account of creativity judgments. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. P. 167–175.

31. Parnes S.J., Brunelle E.A. The literature of creativity (part I). The Journal of Creative Behavior. 1967. V. 1. № 1. P. 52–109.

32. Plass H., Michael J.J., Michael W.B. The factorial validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking for a sample of 111 sixth-grade children. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1974. V. 34. № 2. P. 413–414.

33. Plucker J.A., Runco M.A. The death of creativity measurement has been greatly exaggerated: Current issues, recent advances, and future directions in creativity assessment. Roeper Review. 1998. V. 21. № 1. P. 36–39.

34. Primi R., Silvia P.J., Jauk E., Benedek M. Applying many-facet Rasch modeling in the assessment of creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. 176–186.

35. Raykov T., Marcoulides G.A. Thanks coefficient alpha, we still need you!. Educational and psychological measurement. 2017. V. 79. № 1. P. 200–210.

36. Reiter-Palmon R., Forthmann B., Barbot B. Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2019. V. 13. № 2. P. 144–152.

37. Runco M.A. Creativity need not be social. Social creativity (V. I). In Eds. A. Montuori, R. Purser. Cresskill: Hampton Press, 1999. P. 237–264.

38. Runco M.A., Acar S. Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal. 2012. V. 24. № 1. P. 66–75.

39. Runco M.A., Acar S. Divergent Thinking. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. In Eds. J.C. Kaufman, R.J. Sternberg. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 2019. P. 224–254.

40. Runco M.A., Beghetto R.A. Primary and secondary creativity. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences. 2019. V. 27. P. 7–10.

41. Runco M.A., Millar G., Acar S., Cramond B. Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal. 2010. V. 22. № 4. P. 361–368.

42. Runco M.A., Mraz W. Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1992. V. 52. № 1. P. 213–221.

43. Said-Metwaly S., Kyndt E., Van den Noortgate W. Approaches of measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications. 2017. V. 4. P. 238–275.

44. Said-Metwaly S., Van den Noortgate W., Kyndt E. Methodological issues in measuring creativity: A systematic literature review. Creativity. Theories – Research – Applications. 2017. V. 4. P. 276–301.

45. Silvia P.J. Creativity and intelligence revisited: A latent variable analysis of Wallach and Kogan. Creativity Research Journal. 2008. V. 20. № 1. P. 34–39.

46. Silvia P.J., Nusbaum E.C., Berg C., Martin C., O’Connor A. Openness to experience, plasticity, and creativity: Exploring lower-order, high-order, and interactive effects. Journal of Research in Personality. 2009. V. 43. № 6. P. 1087–1090.

47. Silvia P.J., Winterstein B.P., Willse J.T., Barona C.M., Cram J.T., Hess K.I., Martinez J.L., Richard C.A. Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. 2008. V. 2. № 2. P. 68–85.

48. Sijtsma K. On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of Cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika. 2009. V. 74. № 1. P. 107–120.

49. Toivainen T., Olteteanu A.M., Repeykova V., Lihanov M., Kovas Y. Visual and linguistic stimuli in the Remote Associates Test: a cross-cultural investigation. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019. V. 10. P. 926.

50. Vacha-Haase T., Ness C., Nilsson J., Reetz D. Practices regarding reporting of reliability coefficients: A review of three journals. The Journal of Experimental Education. 1999. V. 67. № 4. P. 335–341.

51. Weisberg R.W. On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal. 2015. V. 27. № 2. P. 111–124.

52. Yoon C.H. A validation study of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking with a sample of Korean elementary school students. Thinking Skills and Creativity. 2017. V. 26. P. 38–50.

Система Orphus