Audacity of creativity assessment
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
2 likes•945 views
The Audacity of Creativity Assessment Bonnie Cramond, Ph.D. Torrance Center The University of Georgia ECCI XII
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Viewers also liked
Viewers also liked (20)
Similar to Audacity of creativity assessment
Similar to Audacity of creativity assessment (20)
More from APGICO- Associação Portuguesa de Inovação e Criatividade
More from APGICO- Associação Portuguesa de Inovação e Criatividade (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Audacity of creativity assessment
- 1. The Audacity of Creativity Assessment Bonnie Cramond, Ph.D. Torrance Center The University of Georgia
- 2. A Metaphor
- 4. Sometimes a Snapshot Doesn‘t Tell the Whole Story…
- 5. Caveats and Considerations 1. There are false negatives 2. There are not likely to be false positives. 3. All tests are not equal 4. Assessments have a short shelf life. 5. Assessment results have a short shelf life, too. 6. No assessments have pinpoint accuracy.
- 6. Any Psychological Measurement is Audacious… • But provides us with valuable information. • We must remember limitations and use judiciously • Value is in predictive validity
- 7. Predictive Validity of Creativity Assessment • Creativity measures, such as divergent thinking test scores and creativity inventory scores, are generally predictive of creative activities, interests, and accomplishments later in life • (Cline, Richards, & Needham, 1963; Kogan&Pankove, 1974; Rimm& Davis, 1983; Russ, Robins, &Christiano, 1999; Torrance, 2002).
- 8. Methods and Instruments for Assessing Creativity Should Based Upon the Answers to Some questions…
- 9. Cognitive Ability or Personality Trait? • Minnesota Multiphasic • Guilford‘s Structure of Personality Inventory (MMPI) Intellect • Neo Personality Inventory (NPI) • Gough‘s Creative Personality Scale for the Adjective Checklist
- 10. Eminent or Everyday • Historiometric/biogr • Lifetime Creativity aphical approach Scales ―A first rate soup is more creative than a second rate painting‖ Maslow Galton
- 11. Aptitude or Achievement • Torrance Tests of • Consensual Creative Thinking Assessment Technique--Amabile
- 12. Holistic, Subjective Specific, Objective Judgments, or Criteria • Creative Product Semantic • Consensual Assessment-- Scale (CPSS) or Amabile • Creative Product Analysis Matrix (CPAM)*-- Besemer&O‘Quin • Cropley&Cropley *Novelty Surprising Originality Resolution Logicalness Usefulness Value Understandability Elaboration and Synthesis Organic qualities Well-craftedness Elegance
- 13. Child or Adult • Group Inventory for Finding • Remote Associates Talent for grades k-6 (GIFT)– Rimm Test (RAT)—Mednick • Group Inventory for Finding • Most personality Interest for grades 6-12 (GIFFI)-- Davis &Rimm measures Bass Complex Sleep Deep Bald Screech Emblem Eagle Blood Music Cheese Blood Room Blood Salts Bath Rabbit Cloud House White
- 14. Divergent or Convergent Thinking • TTCT—Torrance • Flanagan Ingenuity Test • Tests of Creative Thinking Divergent Production— A hostess for a children‘s Urban &Jellen party wanted to serve ice cream in an interesting manner, and she decided to make a clown for each child. She placed a ball of ice cream to represent the clown‘s head on a round cookie which served for a collar, on top of this she inverted a A. t _ _ e. D. c _ _ e. B. u _ _ i. E. t _ _ r. C. r _ _ s. • Answer is D, cone.
- 15. In Context or Decontextualized • Measures of Creativity in Sound and Music (Wang) • TTCT • The Seashore Measures of Musical Talents (Seashore, • Williams Tests Lewis, &Saetveit) • TCTDP • The Barron-Welsh Art Scale • The Meier Art Test • The Horn Art Aptitude Inventory • The Graves Design Judgment Test
- 16. General or Specific • Guilford Tests • Consensual • Torrance Tests Assessment • Personality tests Technique Bandwidth--width of measurement vs. fidelity-- precision of measurement ‗
- 17. Self or Other Runco Ideational Scales for Rating the Behavioral Characteristics Behavior Index-- of Superior Runco &Plucker Students (SRBCSS) Renzulli The student demonstrates... Quality of ideas is more 12. imaginative thinking ability. important the quantity 13. asense of humor. SD D N A S A 14. the ability to come up with unusual, unique, or clever responses. 15. an adventurous spirit or a willingness to take risks. 16. the ability to generate a large number of ideas or solutions to problems or questions.
- 18. Person Process •Personality Scales •Tests of Divergent thinking and other creative processes •Neurobiological Indicators such as low latent inhibition — e.g.Carson, Peterson, &Higgins Product Press Product rating systems, such as KEYS—Amabile The Student Product Assessment Form (Reis &Renzulli) Situational Outlook Besemer and O‘Quin‘s, and Questionnaire (SOQ) –Ekvall Cropley&Cropley‘s A Creative Attitudes Survey— Consensual Assessment Basadur&Hausdorf Technique--Amabile
- 19. ―Success is the child of audacity‖ Disraeli (1833)
Editor's Notes
- 1.There are false negatives. There are intelligent and creative individuals who do not get high scores on intelligence and creativity measures for many reasons related to the person, the test, their expression of their abilities, and the conditions of testing. Therefore, the identification process should include behavioral observations that are ongoing in addition to tests. 2.There are not likely to be false positives. Given valid measures, it is not likely that a student will get a high score on an intelligence test and not be intelligent, or a high score on a creativity test without creative thinking. So, educators should look carefully at a student whose scores on tests are much higher than his/her performance. It is unlikely the test score is a false positive; it is more likely that the student is underachieving or has some type of learning disability.3. All tests are not equal. So, one could get very different scores on two different measures of the same construct if the tests are based on different conceptions of the construct. (Of course, differences in the validity and reliability of tests can cause score differences, too.) Therefore, educators should carefully consider the abilities that different tests measure in choosing one for the identification of a gifted student. For example, some tests are very verbal and others are visual or performance-based. If the child’s strengths are known, a test that is most likely to demonstrate the child’s strengths (or minimize weaknesses) should be chosen.4. Assessments have a short shelf life. The content and form of the tests, as well as the norms, should be updated periodically to ensure that they are still relevant and representative of current populations. For example, the pictures on some IQ tests have been updated so that children of color are included and old-fashioned lace-up shoes were deleted. The Torrance Tests are re-normed every 10 years. Using a test with outmoded items or obsolete norms will produce invalid results.5. Assessment results have a short shelf life, too. Constructs such as intelligence and creativity are now largely considered to be dynamic and developmental rather than fixed amounts at birth. Therefore, students may get different results on measures as they grow and develop. That is one reason that identification for the gifted program should be ongoing, and not considered the sole responsibility of the elementary school. 5. No assessments have pinpoint accuracy. They all have standard errors of measurement. In other words, they all have ranges of error that can occur randomly. So, one should never require a pinpoint score for admission to a gifted program; the