The aim of this study was to explore the education expert and non-expert consensually rated nature of creativity operationalized as observable behaviour. When operationalized as observable behaviour akin to concrete educational objectives accessible to being taught, is creativity a construct valid both internationally and over time, and what are its distinguishing features? A representative sample of concretely stated behaviours descriptive of creativity displayed by children and adolescents was evaluated with high convergent validity by educational psychologists, specialists in gifted education, university students of teacher studies, and mathematics teachers (N = 208) on the level of creativity, and ten additional behaviour features. The results of the canonical correlation analysis suggest internationally and temporally stable and an educationally viable bridge between general creativity construct operationalization and measurement on the one hand, and the domain-specificity of creative behaviours and their features on the other. By viewing the general creativity construct as a meta-theoretical heuristic, and focusing on one group of domain-specific consensually rated creative behaviours and their progressive nature as educational objectives, the findings of this study are discussed in the context of general and gifted education.
If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.
Amabile T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to "The Social Psychology of Creativity." Boulder CO US: Westview Press Inc.
American Psychological Association Coalition for Psychology in Schools and Education. (2015). Top 20 principles from psychology for preK-12 teaching and learning. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/ed/schools/cpse/top-twenty-principles.pdf
Anderson L. W. & Krathwohl D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning teaching and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives. New York USA: Addison-Wesley Longman.
Angleitner A. & Demtröder A. I. (1988). Acts and dispositions: A reconsideration of the Act frequency approach. European Journal of Personality 2 121-141. doi:
Baer J. (2013). Teaching for Creativity: Domains and Divergent Thinking Intrinsic Motivation and Evaluation. In M. B. Gregerson J. C. Kaufman & H. T. Snyder (Eds.) Teaching Creatively and Teaching Creativity (pp. 175-181). New York: Springer.
Baer J. Kaufman J. C. & Gentile C. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal 16(1) 113-117. doi:
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., & Gentile, C. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal, 16(1), 113-117. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11)| false
Beghetto R. A. & Plucker J. A. (2016). Revisiting the relationship among schooling learning and creativity. In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.) Creativity and reasoning in cognitive development. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bloom B. S. (1956). Taxonomy of educational objectives: The classification of educational goals Handbook 1 Cognitive domain (Ed.). London: Longmans Green and Co Ltd.
Buss D. M. & Craik K. H. (1983). The Act Frequency approach to personality. Psychological Review 90(2) 105-126. doi:
Carson, S., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4)| false
Conti, R., Coon, H., & Amabile, T. M. (1996). Evidence to support the componential model of creativity: Secondary analyses of three studies. Creativity Research Journal, 9(4), 385-389. doi:10.1207/s15326934crj0904_9)| false
Gajda A. Karwowski M. & Beghetto R. A. (2016 August 18). Creativity and Academic Achievement: A meta-Analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000133
Glăveanu V. P. (2013). Rewriting the language of creativity: The Five A's framework. Review of General Psychology 17(1) 69-81. doi:
Han, K. (2003). Domain-specificity of creativity in young children: How quantitative and qualitative data support it. Journal of Creative Behavior, 37(2), 117-142. doi:10.1002/ j.2162-6057.2003.tb00829.x)| false
Ivcevic Z. & Brackett M. A. (2015). Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 9(4) 480-487. doi:
Ivcevic, Z., & Brackett, M. A. (2015). Predicting creativity: Interactive effects of openness to experience and emotion regulation ability. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 9(4), 480-487. doi:10.1037/a0039826)| false
Jussim L. Eccles J. & Madon S. (1996). Social perception social stereotypes and teacher expectations: accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in experimental social psychology 29 281-388. doi:
Jussim, L., Eccles, J., & Madon, S. (1996). Social perception, social stereotypes, and teacher expectations: accuracy and the quest for the powerful self-fulfilling prophecy. Advances in experimental social psychology, 29, 281-388. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601 (08)60240-3)| false
Jussim, L., Harber, K. D., Crawford, J. T., Cain, T. R., & Cohen, F. (2005). Social reality makes the social mind: Self-fullling prophecy, stereotypes, bias, and accuracy. Interaction Studies, 6(1), 85-102. doi:10.1075/is.6.1.07jus)| false
Karwowski M. Kaufman J. C. Lebuda I. Szumski G. & Firkowska-Mankiewicz A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence 64 36-44. doi:
Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J. C., Lebuda, I., Szumski, G., & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence, 64, 36-44. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001)| false
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the Muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scales (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308. doi:10.1037/a0029751)| false
Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2004). Sure, I’m Creative-But Not in Mathematics!: Self-Reported Creativity in Diverse Domains. Empirical Studies of the Arts, 22(2), 143-155. doi:10.2190/26HQ-VHE8-GTLN-BJJM)| false
Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Russell, C. M. (2012). Identifying and asessing creativity as a component of giftedness. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30(1), 60-73. doi:10.1177/0734282911428196)| false
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(2), 106-130. doi:10.1002/j.2162-6057.2008.tb01290.x)| false
Milgram R. M. (2003). Challenging out-of-school activities as a predictor of creative accomplishments in art drama dance and social leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research 47(3) 305-315. doi:
Milgram, R. M. (2003). Challenging out-of-school activities as a predictor of creative accomplishments in art, drama, dance and social leadership. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 47(3), 305-315. doi:10.1080/00313830308599)| false
Milgram R. M. & Livne N. L. (2005). Creativity as a general and a domain-specific ability: The domain of mathematics as an exemplar. In J.C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.) Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Mumford M. D. & Norris D. G. (1999). Heuristics. In M. A. Runco & S. R. Pritzker (Eds.) Encyclopedia of Creativity Vol. 1 (pp. 807-813). San Diego: Academic Press.
Plucker J. Beghetto R. A. & Dow G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials pitfalls and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist 39 83-96. doi:
Plucker, J., Beghetto, R. A., & Dow, G. (2004). Why isn’t creativity more important to educational psychologists? Potentials, pitfalls, and future directions in creativity research. Educational Psychologist, 39, 83-96. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3902_1)| false
Renzulli J. S. (1986). The three-ring conception of giftedness: A developmental model of creative productivity. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (pp. 53-92). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Root-Bernstein R. S. & Root-Bernstein M. (2004). Artistic scientists and scientific artists: The link between polymathy and creativity. In R. J. Sternberg E. L. Grigorenko & J. L. Singer (Eds.) Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 127-151). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Runco M. A. (2015). A Commentary on the Social Perspective on Creativity. Creativity. Theories - Research - Applications 2(1) 21-31. doi:
Silvia, P. J. (2008). Another look at creativity and intelligence: Exploring higher-order models and probable confounds. Personality and Individual Differences, 4, 1012-1021. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2007.10.027)| false
Silvia P. J. Kaufman J. C. & Pretz J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts 3(3) 139-148. doi:
Silvia, P. J., Kaufman, J. C., & Pretz, J. E. (2009). Is creativity domain-specific? Latent class models of creative accomplishments and creative self-descriptions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 3(3), 139-148. doi:10.1037/a0014940)| false
Simonton, D. K. (2003). Scientific creativity as constrained stochastic behavior: The integration of product, person, and process perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 129(4), 475-494. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.129.4.475)| false
Sternberg, R. J. (2001). Giftedness as Developing Expertise: A theory of the interface between high abilities and achieved excellence. High Ability Studies, 12(2), 159-179. doi:10.1080/13598130120084311)| false
Sternberg R. J. & O'Hara L. A. (1999). Creativity and intelligence. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed.) Handbook of creativity (pp. 251-272). Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Subotnik R. F. Olszewski-Kubilius P. & Worrell F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest 12(1) 3-54. doi:
Subotnik, R. F., Olszewski-Kubilius, P., & Worrell, F. C. (2011). Rethinking giftedness and gifted education: A proposed direction forward based on psychological science. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 12(1), 3-54. doi:10.1177/1529100611418056)| false
Subotnik R. F. & Jarvin L. (2005). Beyond expertise: conceptions of giftedness as great performance. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed. pp. 343-357). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
Torrance E. P. (1995). Insights about creativity: Questioned rejected ridiculed ignored. Educational Psychology Review 7(3) 313-. doi:
Wai, J. (2014). Experts are born, then made: Combining prospective and retrospective longitudinal data shows that cognitive ability matters. Intelligence, 45, 74-80. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2013.08.009)| false
Wai, J., & Rindermann, H. (2017). What goes into high educational and occupational achievement? Education, brains, hard work, networks, and other factors. High Ability Studies, 28(1), 127-145. doi:10.1080/13598139.2017.1302874)| false
Wai J. Lubinski D. & Benbow C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology 97(3) 484-492. doi:
Wai, J., Lubinski, D., & Benbow, C. P. (2005). Creativity and occupational accomplishments among intellectually precocious youth: An age 13 to age 33 longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 484-492. doi:10.1037/0022-06184.108.40.2064)| false
Ziegler A. (2005). The Actiotope Model of Giftedness. In R. J. Sternberg & J. E. Davidson (Eds.) Conceptions of giftedness (2nd ed. pp. 411-436). New York NY: Cambridge University Press.
Ziegler A. & Heller K. A. (2000). Conceptions of giftedness: A meta-theoretical perspective. In K. A. Heller F. J. Mönks R. Sternberg & R. Subotnik (Eds.) International handbook of research and development of giftedness and talent (2nd ed. pp. 3-22). Oxford England: Pergamon.