Objective: This study examines the validity of Amabile’s (1982) consensual assessment technique in measuring creativity in a warm-up activity in fourth-grade drama classrooms and compares the scores between warm-ups occurring in a blackbox theater setting (experimental) vs. a traditional classroom (control). Method: Four professional actors viewed 60 clips of children’s drama warm-ups and scored for creativity, using a 5-point scale. After establishing sufficient inter-rater reliability (IRR), we used the average scores of the raters to compare creativity between the experimental and control groups. Results: The raters demonstrated high agreement, with a coefficient alpha estimate of .819. An independent samples t-test between the experimental and control groups was significant at p < .001, with the experimental group receiving higher scores. Conclusions: The results suggested that creativity was significantly higher in the experimental group, and the context correlated with creativity, despite neither group having yet received drama instruction at that time. This paper presents discussions about validity, opinions of the raters, possible implications for the activity itself, and possible effect of setting on creativity.
Advares-Yorno, I., Postmes, T., Haslam, S. A., (2006). Social identity and the recognition of creativity in groups. The British journal of social psychology, 45(3), 479-497.
Amabile, T. M. (1982). The social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(5), 997-1013.
Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Grossman, B. S. (1986). Social influences on creativity: The effects of contracted-for reward. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50(1), 14.
Peppler, K., Bender, S., & Catterall, J. (2015). Learning and achieving through the arts: A collaborative project of inner-city arts and Los Angeles Unified School District 4 (Deliverable to the U.S. Department of Education). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
Baer, J. (2010). Is creativity domain specific?. In the (Eds) J. C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg. The Cambridge Handbook of Creativity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Barab, S. A., & Plucker, J. A. (2002). Smart people or smart contexts? Cognition, ability, and talent development in an age of situated approaches to knowing and learning. Educational Psychologist, 37(3), 165-182.
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113-117.
Baer, J., & McKool, S. S. (2009). Assessing creativity using the consensual assessment technique. In Handbook of research on assessment technologies, methods, and applications in higher education (pp. 65-77). IGI Global.
Beghetto, R. A., & Kaufman, J. C. (2014). Classroom contexts for creativity. High Ability Studies, 25(1), 53-69.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16(3), 297-334.
Cronbach, L. J., & Shavelson, R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and psychological measurement, 64(3), 391-418.
Csikszentmihalyi M. (1988). Society, Culture, and Person: A Systems View of Creativity. In: The Systems Model of Creativity. Springer, Dordrecht
Furman, A. (1998). Teacher and pupil characteristics in the perception of the creativity of classroom climate. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 32(4), 258-277.
Hennessey, B. A. (1994). The consensual assessment technique: An examination of the relationship between ratings of product and process creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 7(2), 193-208.
Hickey, M. (2001). An application of Amabile’s consensual assessment technique for rating the creativity of children’s musical compositions. Journal of Research in Music Education, 49(3), 234-244
Isaksen, S. G., Lauer, K. J., Ekvall, G., & Britz, A. (2001). Perceptions of the best and worst climates for creativity: Preliminary validation evidence for the situational outlook questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 13(2), 171-184.
Issacharoff, M. (1981). Space and reference in drama. Poetics Today, 2(3), 211-224.
Johnson, C. (2004). Creativity in drama: thinking from within. In R. Fisher & M. Williams (Eds.), Unlocking creativity: Teaching across the curriculum. London: David Fulton Publishers.
Johnson, R. B., Onwuegbuzie, A. J., & Turner, L. A. (2007). Toward a definition of mixed methods research. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 1(2), 112-133.
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(2), 171-178.
Kaufman, J. C., Lee, J., Baer, J., & Lee, S. (2007). Captions, consistency, creativity, and the consensual assessment technique: New evidence of reliability. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 2(2), 96-106.
LeBlanc, A., Jin, Y. C., Obert, M., & Siivola, C. (1997). Effect of audience on music performance anxiety. Journal of Research in Music Education, 45(3), 480-496.
Llewelyn-Jones, L. (2002). Understanding theater space. In Essays on documenting and researching productions of Greek drama: The sources.
Nachmanovitch, S. (1990). Free play: Improvisation in life and art. Penguin.
Neelands, J. (2004). Miracles are happening: Beyond the rhetoric of transformation in the Western traditions of drama education. Research in Drama Education, 9(1), 47-56.
Oreck, B. A., Owen, S. V., & Baum, S. M. (2003). Validity, reliability, and equity issues in an observational talent assessment process in the performing arts. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 27(1), 62-94.
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(2), 83-96.
Podlozny, A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. Journal of Aesthetic Education, 34(3/4), 239-275.
Renzulli, J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan, 60(3), 180.
Sawyer, R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey, Collingwood, and the aesthetics of spontaneity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, 58(2), 149-161.
Sawyer, R. K., (2003). Group creativity: Music, Theater, Collaboration. Routledge Taylor & Francis Group: New York and London.
Schmitt, N. (1996). Uses and abuses of coefficient alpha. Psychological Assessment, 8(4), 350.
Scruggs, M., & Gellman, M. J. (2007). Process: An improviser’s journey. Northwestern University Press.
Spicker, H. H. (1992). Identifying and enriching rural gifted children. Educational Horizons, 70(2), 60-65.
Spolin, V. (1999). Improvisation for the theater: A handbook of teaching and directing techniques. Northwestern University Press.
Torrance, E. (1972). Predictive validity of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking*. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 6(4), 236-262.
Walker, E., Tabone, C., & Weltsek, G. (2011). When achievement data meet drama and arts integration. Language Arts, 88(5), 365.
Weltsek, G. (2005). Using Process Drama to Deconstruct “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. English Journal, 95, 75-81.