Advertisement

Assessing Creativity with the Consensual Assessment Technique

  • John BaerEmail author
  • James C. Kaufman
Chapter
Part of the Palgrave Studies in Creativity and Culture book series (PASCC)

Abstract

The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is a way of judging the creativity of a group of artifacts in a domain, such as a group of poems, stories, or works of art (the three domains in which the CAT has been used most widely, although the CAT can be used in any domain). The CAT follows the method most often used in judging creativity in the “real world” in that it is based on the combined assessments of experts in the domain. Although the word “consensual” points to the social aspect of CAT assessments, which rely on the combined judgments of groups of human experts, the CAT’s focus is on creative products; these assessments can then also be used to make inferences about thought processes, environments, and personality traits that lead to creativity. Unlike many creativity assessments, the CAT is not tied to a specific theory of creativity, making it especially useful in empirical studies comparing different theoretical predictions. The CAT is also well suited for making decisions about the creativity of applicants for educational programs and for judging the creativity of submissions to competitions of all kinds.

Keywords

Consensual assessment technique Creativity Creativity assessment Domains 

References

  1. Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997–1013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity. New York: Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview.Google Scholar
  4. Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4, 23–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Baer, J. (1993). Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  6. Baer, J. (1994). Divergent thinking is not a general trait: A multi-domain training experiment. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 35–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Baer, J. (1996). The effects of task-specific divergent-thinking training. Journal of Creative Behavior, 30, 183–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Baer, J. (1997). Gender differences in the effects of anticipated evaluation on creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 10, 25–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baer, J. (2011). Why grand theories of creativity distort, distract, and disappoint. International Journal of Creativity and Problem Solving, 21(1), 73–100.Google Scholar
  10. Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press/Elsevier.Google Scholar
  11. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2008). Gender differences in creativity. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42, 75–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16, 113–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baer, J., & McKool, S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment. In C. Schreiner (Ed.), Handbook of assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education. Hershey, Pennsylvania: IGI Global.Google Scholar
  14. Baer, J., & McKool, S. S. (2014). The gold standard for assessing creativity. International Journal of Quality Assurance in Engineering and Technology Education, 3, 81–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Carson, S. H. (2006). Creativity and mental illness. Invitational panel discussion hosted by Yale’s Mind Matters Consortium, New Haven, CT., April 19, 2006.Google Scholar
  16. Chen, C., Kasof, J., Himsel, A. J., Greenberger, E., Dong, Q., & Xue, G. (2002). Creativity in drawing of geometric shapes: A cross-cultural examination with the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 33, 171–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1999). Implications of a systems perspective for the study of creativity. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 313–335). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Dorans, N. J. (2008). The practice of comparing scores on different tests. Retrieved July 6, 2018, at https://www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RD_Connections6.pdf
  19. Glăveanu, V. P. (2012). A multiple feedback methodology for the study of creativity evaluations. Journal of Constructivist Psychology, 25(4), 346–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7, 193–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1999). Consensual assessment. Encyclopedia of creativity, 1, 347–359.Google Scholar
  22. Hennessey, B. A., Kim, G., Guomin, Z., & Weiwei, S. (2008). A multi-cultural application of the consensual assessment technique. The International Journal of Creativity & Problem Solving, 18(2), 87.Google Scholar
  23. Kaufman, J. C. (2010). Using creativity to reduce ethnic bias in college admissions. Review of General Psychology, 14, 189–203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Why creativity isn’t in IQ tests, why it matters, and why it won’t change anytime soon….Probably. Journal of Intelligence, 3, 59–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative? Journal of Creative Behavior, 24, 83–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Agars, M. D., & Loomis, D. (2010). Creativity stereotypes and the consensual assessment technique. Creativity Research Journal, 22, 200–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Cole, J. C. (2009). Expertise, domains, and the consensual assessment technique. Journal of Creative Behavior, 43, 223–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., Cropley, D., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Sinnett, S. (2013). Furious activity vs. understanding: How much expertise is needed to evaluate creative work? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 7, 332–340.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kaufman, J. C., Baer, J., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Differences in gender and ethnicity as measured by ratings of three writing tasks. Journal of Creative Behavior, 39, 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kaufman, J. C., Beghetto, R. A., & Watson, C. (2016). Creative metacognition and self-ratings of creative performance: A 4-C perspective. Learning and Individual Differences, 51, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kaufman, J. C., Evans, M. L., & Baer, J. (2010). The American idol effect: Are students good judges of their creativity across domains? Empirical Studies of the Arts, 28, 3–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of creativity assessment. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Kuhn, T. S. (1962/1970). The structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lebuda, I., & Karwowski, M. (2013). Tell me your name and I’ll tell you how creative your work is: Author’s name and gender as factors influencing assessment of product originality in four different domains. Creativity Research Journal, 25, 137–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Livingston, S. A. (2014). Equating test scores (without IRT). Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  37. Niu, W., & Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation. International Journal of Psychology, 36(4), 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Paletz, S. B., & Peng, K. (2008). Implicit theories of creativity across cultures: Novelty and appropriateness in two product domains. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 39(3), 286–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Phelps, A. L. (2010). Beyond auditions: Gender discrimination in America’s top orchestras. Downloaded July 3, 2017 at http://ir.uiowa.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2059&context=etd
  40. Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for the content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11, 179–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305–310.Google Scholar
  42. Rhodes, M. (1987). An analysis of creativity. In Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics (pp. 216–222). Buffalo, NY: Bearly.Google Scholar
  43. Rostan, S. M., Pariser, D., & Gruber, H. E. (2002). A cross-cultural study of the development of artistic talent, creativity and giftedness. High Ability Studies, 13(2), 125–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Sternberg, R. J. (2010). College admissions for the 21st century. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  45. Torrance, E. P., & Presbury, J. (1984). The criteria of success used in 242 recent experimental studies of creativity. Creative Child & Adult Quarterly, 9, 238–243.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Rider UniversityLawrencevilleUSA
  2. 2.University of ConnecticutStorrsUSA

Personalised recommendations