Advertisement

Die Beurteilung von Ideenqualität

  • Boris ForthmannEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Psychologie in Bildung und Erziehung: Vom Wissen zum Handeln book series (PBE)

Zusammenfassung

Um kreatives Denken optimal zu fördern, müssen Produkte kreativer Denkprozesse bewertbar sein, damit man möglichst konkrete Hilfestellung geben kann. Dass eine solche Bewertung nicht möglich sei, ist ein bekanntes Klischee, welches durch mystifizierende Vorstellungen zu Kreativität im Allgemeinen genährt wird. Wo Kreativität entsteht bzw. gedacht wird, muss doch schließlich etwas Magisches passieren! Dem gegenüber stehen empirische Befunde aus dem Bereich der psychologischen Kreativitätsforschung, die konkrete Hinweise liefern, was bei der Einschätzung von Ideen (Gedankengängen, Lösungsvorschlägen für ein Problem usw.) aus theoretischer und praktischer Sicht sinnvoll ist. Hierzu wird dieses Kapitel eine Übersicht zur Beurteilung von Antworten hinsichtlich der kreativen Qualität geben, die auf der aktuellen Forschungslage aus dem Bereich des divergenten Denkens kommt.

Literatur

  1. Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2014). Assessing associative distance among ideas elicited by tests of divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 26, 229–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Beketayev, K., & Runco, M. A. (2016). Scoring divergent thinking tests by computer with a semantics-based algorithm. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 12, 210–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Benedek, M., Mühlmann, C., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2013). Assessment of divergent thinking by means of the subjective top-scoring method: Effects of the number of top-ideas and time-on-task on reliability and validity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 341–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Benedek, M., Schües, T., Beaty, R. E., Jauk, E., Koschutnig, K., Fink, A., et al. (2018). To create or to recall original ideas: Brain processes associated with the imagination of novel object uses. Cortex, 99, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boden, M. (1994). What is creativity? In M. Boden (Hrsg.), Dimensions of creativity (S. 75–117). London: MIT Press & Bradford Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Botella, M., Nelson, J., & Zenasni, F. (2017). It is time to observe the creative process: How to use a creative process report diary (CRD). The Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  7. Carroll, J. B. (1993). Human cognitive abilities: A survey of factor-analytic studies. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Clapham, M. M. (1998). Structure of figural forms A and B of the Torrance tests of creative thinking. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 58, 275–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Clark, P. M., & Mirels, H. L. (1970). Fluency as a pervasive element in the measurement of creativity. Journal of Educational Measurement, 7, 83–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Cropley, D., & Cropley, A. (2016). Promoting creativity through assessment: A formative computer-assisted assessment tool for teachers. Educational Technology, 56(6), 17–24.Google Scholar
  11. Diedrich, J., Benedek, M., Jauk, E., & Neubauer, A. C. (2015). Are creative ideas novel and useful? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9, 35–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forthmann, B., Gerwig, A., Holling, H., Çelik, P., Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2016). The be-creative effect in divergent thinking: The interplay of instruction and object frequency. Intelligence, 57, 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Forthmann, B., Holling, H., Çelik, P., Storme, M., & Lubart, T. (2017a). Typing speed as a confounding variable and the measurement of quality in divergent thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 29, 257–269.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Forthmann, B., Holling, H., Zandi, N., Gerwig, A., Çelik, P., Storme, M., et al. (2017b). Missing creativity: The effect of cognitive work load on rater (dis-)agreement in subjective divergent-thinking scores. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 23, 129–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Forthmann, B., Oyebade, O., Ojo, A., Günther, F., & Holling, H. (2018a). Application of latent semantic analysis is biased by elaboration. Journal of Creative Behavior. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  16. Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Holling, H. (2018b). Understanding the confounding effect of fluency in divergent thinking scores: Revisiting average scores to quantify artifactual correlation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts. Advance online publication.Google Scholar
  17. French, J. W., Ekstrom, R. B., & Price, L. A. (1963). Manual for kit of reference tests for cognitive factors. Princeton: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  18. Garrett, R. M. (1987). Issues in science education: Problem-solving, creativity and originality. International Journal of Science Education, 9, 125–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Gilhooly, K. J., Fioratou, E., Anthony, S. H., & Wynn, V. (2007). Divergent thinking: Strategies and executive involvement in generating novel uses for familiar objects. British Journal of Psychology, 98, 611–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Guilford, J. P. (1953). The correlation of an item with a composite of the remaining items in a test. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 13, 87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Guilford, J. P. (1954). Psychometric methods. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  22. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  23. Hargreaves, H. L. (1927). The ‚faculty‘ of imagination. London: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. Harbison, J. I., & Haarmann, H. (2014). Automated scoring of originality using semantic representations. In P. Bello, M. Guarini, M. McShane, & B. Scassellati (Hrsg.), Proceedings of COGSCI 2014 (S. 2327–2332). https://mindmodeling.org/cogsci2014/papers/405/index.html. Zugegriffen: 7. Jan. 2019.
  25. Harrington, D. M. (1975). Effects of explicit instructions to “be creative” on the psychological meaning of divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Personality, 43, 434–454.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hass, R. W. (2016). Tracking the dynamics of divergent thinking via semantic distance: Analytic methods and theoretical implications. Memory and Cognition, 45, 233–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hass, R. W. (2017). Semantic search during divergent thinking. Cognition, 166, 344–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hass, R. W., Rivera, M., & Silvia, P. (2018). On the dependability and feasibility of layperson ratings of divergent thinking. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, 1343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hocevar, D. (1979). Ideational fluency as a confounding factor in the measurement of originality. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 191–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Jäger, A. O., Holling, H., Preckel, F., Schulze, R., Vock, M., Süß, H. M., et al. (2006). BIS-HB: Berliner Intelligenzstrukturtest für Jugendliche: Begabungs- und Hochbegabungsdiagnostik – Manual. Göttingen: Hogrefe.Google Scholar
  31. Johnson, D. M., Parrott, G. L., & Stratton, R. P. (1968). Production and judgment of solutions to five problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 59, 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13, 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. Hoboken: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Kettner, N. W., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1959). A factor-analytic study across the domains of reasoning, creativity, and evaluation. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 73, 1–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 106–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Landauer, T. K., Foltz, P. W., & Laham, D. (1998). An introduction to latent semantic analysis. Discourse Processes, 25, 259–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lubart, T. (2000). Models of the creative process: Past, present and future. Creativity Research Journal, 13, 295–308.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Madore, K. P., Jing, H. G., & Schacter, D. L. (2016). Divergent creative thinking in young and older adults: Extending the effects of an episodic specificity induction. Memory & Cognition, 44, 974–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Madore, K. P., Thakral, P. P., Beaty, R. E., Addis, D. R., & Schacter, D. L. (2017). Neural mechanisms of episodic retrieval support divergent creative thinking. Cerebral Cortex, 29(1), 1–17.Google Scholar
  40. Mednick, S. (1962). The associative basis of the creative process. Psychological Review, 69, 220–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Mouchiroud, C., & Lubart, T. (2001). Children’s original thinking: An empirical examination of alternative measures derived from divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Genetic Psychology: Research and Theory on Human Development, 162, 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Mullins, C. J. (1963). Prediction of creativity in a sample of research scientists. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 10(2), 52–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Mumford, M. D., Mobley, M. I., Uhlman, C. E., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Doares, L. M. (1991). Process analytic models of creative capacities. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 91–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mumford, M. D., Vessey, W. B., & Barrett, J. D. (2008). Commentary: Measuring divergent thinking: Is there really one solution to the problem? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 86–88.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Nusbaum, E. C., Silvia, P. J., & Beaty, R. E. (2014). Ready, set, create: What instructing people to “be creative” reveals about the meaning and mechanisms of divergent thinking. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 8, 423–432.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Olteteanu, A.-M., & Falomir, Z. (2016). Object replacement and object composition in a creative cognitive system. Towards a computational solver of the Alternative Uses Test. Cognitive Systems Research, 39, 15–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Osborn, A. F. (1963). Applied imagination: Principles and procedures of creative problem-solving. New York: Scribner.Google Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Plucker, J. A., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. T. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 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, 135–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13(2), 144–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Reiter-Palmon, R., Young Illies, M., Kobe Cross, L., Buboltz, C., & Nimps, T. (2009). Creativity and domain specificity: The effect of task type on multiple indexes of creative problem-solving. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3, 73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Runco, M. A. (2008). Commentary: Divergent thinking is not synonymous with creativity. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 93–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Runco, M. A. (2011). Divergent thinking. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Hrsg.), Encyclopedia of creativity (Bd. 1, S. 400–403). San Diego: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2010). Do tests of divergent thinking have an experiential bias? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 4, 144–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Runco, M. A., & Acar, S. (2012). Divergent thinking as an indicator of creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 66–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Runco, M. A., & Charles, R. E. (1993). Judgments of originality and appropriateness as predictors of creativity. Personality and Individual Differences, 15, 537–546.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 92–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Runco, M. A., & Mraz, W. (1992). Scoring divergent thinking tests using total ideational output and a creativity index. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 213–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Runco, M. A., Plucker, J. A., & Lim, W. (2001). Development and psychometric integrity of a measure of ideational behavior. Creativity Research Journal, 13(3–4), 393–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Runco, M. A., Millar, G., Acar, S., & Cramond, B. (2010). Torrance tests of creative thinking as predictors of personal and public achievement: A fifty-year follow-up. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 361–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Schoppe, K.-J. (1975). Verbaler Kreativitäts-Test. Ein Verfahren zur Erfassung verbalproduktiver Kreativitätsmerkmale. Göttingen: Verlag für Psychologie.Google Scholar
  64. Silvia, P. J., Martin, C., & Nusbaum, E. C. (2009). A snapshot of creativity: Evaluating a quick and simple method for assessing divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 4, 79–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Silvia, P. J., Nusbaum, E. C., & Beaty, R. E. (2017). Old or new? Evaluating the old/new scoring method for divergent thinking tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 51, 216–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2, 68–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Simonton, D. K. (2012). Taking the U.S patent office criteria seriously: A quantitative three-criterion creativity definition and its implications. Creativity Research Journal, 24, 97–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Simonton, D. K. (2018). Defining creativity: Don’t we also need to define what is not creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 52, 80–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Storm, B. C., & Patel, T. N. (2014). Forgetting as a consequence and enabler of creative thinking. Journal of Experimental Psychology. Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 40, 1594–1609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Stratton, R. P., & Brown, R. (1972). Improving creative thinking by training in the production and/or judgment of solutions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 390–397.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Torrance, E. P. (1966). Torrance tests of creative thinking. Norms – Technical manual (Research Aufl.). Princeton: Personnel Press Inc.Google Scholar
  72. Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). Modes of thinking in young children: A study of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
  73. Wallach, M. A., & Wing, C. W., Jr. (1969). The talented student: A validation of the creativity-intelligence distinction. New York: Holt, Rinehart, & Winston.Google Scholar
  74. Wallas, G. (1926). The art of thought. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company.Google Scholar
  75. Weisberg, R. W. (2015). On the usefulness of “value” in the definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 27, 111–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., & Christensen, P. R. (1953). The measurement of individual differences in originality. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 362–370.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wilson, R. C., Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., & Lewis, D. J. (1954). A factor-analytic study of creative-thinking abilities. Psychometrika, 19, 297–311.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Wilson, R. C., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Guilford, J. P. (1960). Alternate Uses – Form A. Manual of administration, scoring, and interpretation (second preliminary ed.). Beverly Hills: Sheridan Supply Company.Google Scholar
  79. 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, 24–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität MünsterMünsterDeutschland

Personalised recommendations