E Thys1, B Sabbe, M De Hert. 1. a University Psychiatric Centre KU Leuven , Kortenberg , Belgium.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: The possible link between creativity and psychopathology has been a long time focus of research up to the present day. However, this research is hampered by methodological problems, especially the definition and assessment of creativity. This makes interpretation and comparison of studies difficult and possibly accounts for the contradictory results of this research. METHODS: In this systematic review of the literature, research articles in the field of creativity and psychopathology were searched for creativity assessment tools. The tools used in the collected articles are presented and discussed. RESULTS: The results indicate that a multitude of creativity assessment tools were used, that many studies only used one tool to assess creativity and that most of these tools were only used in a limited number of studies. A few assessment tools stand out by a more frequent use, also outside psychopathological research, and more solid psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: Most scales used to evaluate creativity have poor psychometric properties. The scattered methodology to assess creativity compromises the generalizability and validity of this research. The field should creatively develop new validated instruments.
INTRODUCTION: The possible link between creativity and psychopathology has been a long time focus of research up to the present day. However, this research is hampered by methodological problems, especially the definition and assessment of creativity. This makes interpretation and comparison of studies difficult and possibly accounts for the contradictory results of this research. METHODS: In this systematic review of the literature, research articles in the field of creativity and psychopathology were searched for creativity assessment tools. The tools used in the collected articles are presented and discussed. RESULTS: The results indicate that a multitude of creativity assessment tools were used, that many studies only used one tool to assess creativity and that most of these tools were only used in a limited number of studies. A few assessment tools stand out by a more frequent use, also outside psychopathological research, and more solid psychometric properties. CONCLUSION: Most scales used to evaluate creativity have poor psychometric properties. The scattered methodology to assess creativity compromises the generalizability and validity of this research. The field should creatively develop new validated instruments.