This section defines and clarifies some important basic principles and terms in educational assessment. In their monograph, The National Research Center On The Gifted And Talented (NRC/GT) has included some essential terms that apply to all assessment efforts, as a foundation for examining issues that are particularly relevant to creativity assessment:
Measurement refers to the use of any instrument or testing procedure through which quantitative data can be obtained and thus can be treated statistically.
Assessment is a process of "taking stock" of an individual (or a group) by drawing together information from a number of sources and attempting to organize and synthesize those data in a meaningful way.
The assessment draws upon many different kinds of data and frequently includes (but does not rely only upon) measurement sources.
The assessment might be undertaken to identify and understand a person's (or a group's or team's) strengths and deficiencies, or for more prescriptive reasons, such as for instructional planning or for placement in a specific experimental treatment or program.
Assessment is, therefore, a broader and more inclusive term than measurement.
The test refers to a particular kind of assessment that typically includes a standard set of items or questions that can be administered to individuals or groups under well-defined, controlled conditions.
In both creativity assessment (recognizing creativity in individuals or groups) and evaluation (determining whether creativity objectives have been attained), tests may be used, but they are not the only method of assessment that can be used, and measurement will often play an important role. Creativity assessment might be regarded as an attempt to recognize or identify creative characteristics or abilities among people or to understand their creative strengths and potentials. Measurement might play a specific role in creativity assessment to the extent that specific tests, inventories, or rating scales provide evidence to help answer such questions.
There are four different ways to gather information about a person's creative abilities, strengths, skills, or potentials. These data sources are:
Behavior or performance data. One important way to obtain information about a people's creativity is through their actual behavior—their creative products, performances, or accomplishments.
There are two general ways to obtain these kinds of data: through records or first-hand observations in natural "real-life" settings (portfolio data).
Through the person's performance in constructed tasks that simulate or approximate the real-life settings but can be arranged and observed under controlled conditions (performance data).
It might be useful to think of the former set as documentation of real-life creativity and the latter as a demonstration of creativity under realistic or simulated conditions.
The strength of the data that can be obtained in this category derives, of course, from its credibility in real-life or realistic accomplishments and products. From an assessment perspective, these data can be difficult to summarize and evaluate concisely and consistently and may make direct comparisons among individuals very difficult (especially given the variety of ways that creativity can be expressed in the real world). This may be a limitation related to what we seek to do with the data, rather than of the data per se, of course.
Self-report data. It is also possible to obtain information about people's creativity from the responses they provide to questions about themselves and their behavior. Some writers in the creativity literature have argued, quite seriously, that the best way to determine whether or not people are creative is, in fact, simply to ask them! This source of data deals with resources in which people respond to questions about themselves and their own skills, abilities, activities, and behavior.
The tools in this category include, for example, attitude inventories, personal checklists, or biographical inventories.
One strength of data from this category may be that self-report inventories can be efficient to administer and score.
There are also limitations, however, in relation to the completeness and accuracy of any self-description of abilities or skills, the comparability of data across settings, the stability of self-assessments over time, or the correlation between self-ratings and other external criteria of creativity.
Rating scales. The third data source involves instruments that provide specific descriptions of qualities or behaviors that describe (or are associated with) creativity characteristics and ask people to rate the creativity of others.
These might call for ratings by teachers, parents, mentors, or other adults who may be in a position to know and describe a person in relation to those questions; occasionally, instruments in this category might call for ratings by peers.
The usefulness of rating data depends on several factors, of course. These include the rater's understanding of the characteristics or behavior to be rated, the opportunity of the rater to know or observe the person in situations in which that behavior might occur, and the rater's willingness to limit judgments to the specific characteristics being rated.
Under optimum conditions and use, ratings can provide helpful information efficiently; under other conditions, or if not properly used, ratings may also be quite suspect invalidity or reliability.
Tests. The fourth data source is test data. This refers to the person's responses to a structured set of tasks or questions, administered under controlled or standardized conditions, through which the person demonstrates his or her ability to think or respond creatively.
There is often a tendency among some people to trust test data because it is (or appears to be) objective, readily quantifiable, and comparable for all who respond by virtue of its standardized format.
Other people argue that, especially in relation to creativity, the very concept of a "standardized" test that can be "scored objectively" is a contradiction in terms.
If the items on a test call for performance that relates directly to essential elements of one's definition of creativity, then a case can be made that its results are relevant (if not necessarily comprehensive) indicators of creativity. Even under those circumstances, however, concerns may be raised in relation to the complexity and time required for accurate scoring and the breadth of the construct of creativity that can be tapped in a small set of tasks or activities.
Each of these four data sources has both pluses and minuses, so experts recommend caution in their use. It is very clear, for example, that it is unwise to rely on a single instrument or to use results as if they represent absolute, fixed classifications of a person's creative ability.
In several important ways, however, the topic of creativity presents some unique and complex challenges relating to assessment, and here are some things to consider:
The word creativity represents many different characteristics, processes, or products; there are more than 100 different definitions of creativity in the literature. In addition, "creative thinking," "creative potential," and "creativity" may not represent the same construct.
There is no one right or best way to be creative. People use their learning style preferences, personality differences, cognitive abilities, social and interpersonal skills, and content interests in many different ways to behave creatively (individually as well as in groups).
Some elements of creative thinking can be observed, assessed, and documented across various talent or content areas. In addition, other elements may be unique or distinct to specific talent or content areas.
Creative thinking skills can be nurtured, and deliberate efforts to do so are important components of an excellent educational program. Everyone has within them the potential for creativity. However, just as some athletes have the potential for greater speed than others, we believe that some students have the potential for developing their creativity far beyond the norm. Students vary in creative ability, development, and in expressing their creativity (at any time and across various contexts). Thus, we must be concerned both with recognizing natural excellence ("harvesting creativity wild") and with nurturing creative skills ("cultivating creativity").
Tests are not the primary way to understand and document superior skills in creative thinking, but they can provide helpful supporting information when used appropriately.
Creative thinking can be manifested in an almost infinite number of ways. Within any person, it may vary as a function of time, task, and context.
Our efforts to identify creative thinking strengths in students should be linked closely to the efforts we make to help students apply, express, and develop their talents.
It is important to exercise considerable caution in interpreting individual results. Any single indicator (and particularly, any test score) is not a comprehensive, permanent determination of a person's creative ability or potential; it doesn't tell everything about a person's creativity. Anyone indicator does not generalize across all domains of creative performance or accomplishment, nor does it assess all the elements of creativity.
Specify clearly what is to be assessed.
Select an assessment procedure that is relevant to the characteristics or performance you intend to measure.
Use a variety of procedures to attain a comprehensive assessment.
Be aware of the limitations of assessment resources.
Remember that assessment is a means to an end, not an end in itself.