Utilizing the Consensual Assessment Technique to Compare Creativity in Drama Spaces

Open access


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.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • 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 Psychology43(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 Psychology50(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 Psychologist37(3) 165-182.

  • Baer J. Kaufman J. C. & Gentile C. A. (2004). Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products. Creativity Research Journal16(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 Studies25(1) 53-69.

  • Cronbach L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika16(3) 297-334.

  • Cronbach L. J. & Shavelson R. J. (2004). My current thoughts on coefficient alpha and successor procedures. Educational and psychological measurement64(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 Behavior32(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 Journal7(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 Education49(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 Journal13(2) 171-184.

  • Issacharoff M. (1981). Space and reference in drama. Poetics Today2(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 Research1(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 Journal20(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 Creativity2(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 Education45(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 Education9(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 Gifted27(1) 62-94.

  • Phelan P. (2004). Marina Abramović: witnessing shadows. Theatre Journal 56 569-577.

  • 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 Psychologist39(2) 83-96.

  • Podlozny A. (2000). Strengthening verbal skills through the use of classroom drama: A clear link. Journal of Aesthetic Education34(3/4) 239-275.

  • Renzulli J. S. (1978). What makes giftedness? Reexamining a definition. Phi Delta Kappan60(3) 180.

  • Sawyer R. K. (2000). Improvisation and the creative process: Dewey Collingwood and the aesthetics of spontaneity. Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism58(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 Assessment8(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 Horizons70(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 Behavior6(4) 236-262.

  • Walker E. Tabone C. & Weltsek G. (2011). When achievement data meet drama and arts integration. Language Arts88(5) 365.

  • Weltsek G. (2005). Using Process Drama to Deconstruct “A Midsummer Night’s Dream”. English Journal 95 75-81.

Journal information
All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 136 136 15
PDF Downloads 62 62 6