Assessing Creativity in the university classroom
How do we measure creativity? It isn’t easy – for centuries now creativity has been tied to ideas of the magical or the supernatural (think of our stories of the muses, or the spirit of creative inspiration that we wait for when hoping a good idea will roll into town). While creativity isn’t a readily observable phenomenon, psychologists and organizational behaviourists have developed a series of scales and assessment techniques to measure the creative capacity of individuals, the creativity of work processes, and the creative impact of the products of that work. Most of the scales below focus on creativity as a problem-solving activity, aimed at developing what Amabile might call heuristic solutions to existing problems: just what we’re hoping our marketing students will do in their classes and, someday soon, in their careers! Here’s a breakdown of the scales that are most commonly used in the post-secondary context today.
Scales That Help Us Measure Students’ Creative Capacity
We can use the following scales and assessments to evaluate students as individuals with a definable creative capacity, based on their personality and life experiences.
| Creativity Assessment Scale | Description | Administration | Use case |
| Self Rated Creativity Scale [i] | The Self-Rated Creativity Scale (SRCS) is a self-assessment tool used to measure an individual’s perception of their own creativity. Respondents rate their creative abilities across various domains, such as problem-solving, artistic expression, and idea generation. While subjective, the SRCS provides valuable insights into how individuals view their creative potential and engagement in creative activities. | The 12-item self-rated creativity scale (SRCS) initially developed for supervisory rating of employees’ creativity was modified by some researchers and used as a self-report of creativity. Based on the statements, the indicators of creativity are based on the ability to be innovative in problem solving, improve performance, take risks and try/implement new processes. It consists of a list of 12 statements related to an individual’s creativity and processes, which the participant rates on a Likert scale 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). | The scale is commonly applied in psychological research, education, and workplace creativity assessments to explore the relationship between self-perceived creativity and actual creative performance. It helps identify confidence in creative abilities, track personal development, and assess the effectiveness of creativity training programs. |
| Creativity Styles Questionaire (Revised) [ii] | The Creativity Styles Questionnaire (CSQ) is a self-report tool used to assess individual differences in creative thinking and problem-solving approaches. It identifies distinct creativity styles, such as spontaneous versus deliberate creativity, or emotional versus cognitive-driven innovation. Respondents rate their preferences for various creative behaviors, allowing researchers and organizations to understand how individuals generate and develop ideas. | The CSQ consisted of 72 items divided into seven subscales to be answered using a 3-point scale consisting of 3 (true), 1 (false), and 2 (unsure). The CSQ included statements identifying the various ways, procedures, and environmental control manipulations a person may use to be creative. Respondents share the styles or activities that charecterize what they believe to be creative work. | The CSQ is applied in workplace innovation studies, educational settings, and personal development programs to tailor creativity training and team dynamics. By recognizing different creative styles, it helps optimize collaboration, foster diverse idea generation, and enhance problem-solving in creative and professional environments. |
| Implicit Creative Personality Scale [iii] | The Implicit Creative Personality Scale (ICPS) is a psychological measure used to assess creativity-related traits without directly asking individuals about their creativity. It operates on the premise that creativity is linked to implicit associations rather than explicit self-perceptions. The ICPS is applied in research to study implicit creativity, reducing social desirability bias. | To measure the subjects’ implicit perception of creativity, the iCPS uses the same 18 positive and 11 negative adjectives, asking students to “please indicate which of the following adjectives best describe a creative person.” While the traditional application of the CPS is a self-report inventory, the iCPS becomes, in essence, an informant-rating inventory. Typically, respondents classify words as “me” or “not me,” with creative traits (e.g., imaginative, original) embedded among neutral or non-creative traits. The speed and accuracy of these classifications reveal unconscious creative self-concepts. | It is useful in talent identification, organizational creativity assessments, and personality psychology studies. |
| Creative Behaviour Inventory [iv] | The Creative Behaviour Inventory (CBI) is a self-report scale used to assess creative actions across various domains. It is commonly applied in research on creativity, education, and organizational behavior to measure individuals’ engagement in creative activities. | Respondents rate the frequency of their participation in behaviors like generating novel ideas, problem-solving, and artistic expression using the following scale: A = Never did this B = Did this once or twice C = 3-5 times D = More than 5 times | The CBI helps identify creative potential and track the impact of interventions designed to enhance creativity. In workplaces, it informs talent development, while in academic settings, it supports studies on creativity-related traits and cognitive processes. Its broad applicability makes it valuable for psychological and managerial research. |
| Creative Achievement Questionnaire [v] | The Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ) is a self-report measure used to assess real-world creative accomplishments across multiple domains, including visual arts, music, writing, science, and entrepreneurship. Respondents indicate their level of achievement in each domain, ranging from casual participation to professional recognition. The CAQ is the most frequently used self-reported inventory of creative achievement | The Creative Achievement Questionnaire is a self-report measure that assesses an individual’s creative achievements across 10 domains, including visual arts, music, dance, architectural design, creative writing, humor, inventions, scientific discovery, theater and film, and culinary arts. It provides a comprehensive evaluation of a person’s creative accomplishments and outputs. | The CAQ is widely applied in psychological research, talent identification, and organizational creativity assessments to distinguish between creative potential and demonstrated creative success. It helps researchers study the relationship between creative ability, personality, and cognitive traits. While self-reported, the CAQ provides a structured way to evaluate creative achievement across diverse fields with varying levels of expertise. |
| Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment [vi] | The Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment (RDCA) is a self-report and observer-rated tool designed to measure creativity across multiple domains and dimensions. It evaluates creative potential based on cognitive, affective, and behavioral traits, considering both personal and contextual factors. | Like some of the other self-report assessments, the RDCA has respondents rate themselves on a six-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly agree on 40 items. The respondent would then immediately get a profile of relative strengths and weaknesses, ranked from Very High to Very Low on each of 11 factors measured: Originality, Fluency, Flexibility, Elaboration, Tolerance of Ambiguity, Resistance to Premature Closure, Divergent Thinking, Convergent Thinking, and Risk Taking. Respondents assess their own creative tendencies, while external raters can provide additional perspectives. | The RDCA is applied in education, workplace innovation, and psychological research to identify creative strengths, diagnose barriers to creativity, and inform talent development strategies. Its multidimensional approach makes it useful for assessing creativity holistically, offering insights into how individuals generate, develop, and apply creative ideas in various settings. |
| Creative Personality-Potential Composite [vii] | The Creative Personality-Potential Composite (CPPC) is a psychological measure used to assess an individual’s creative potential based on personality traits linked to creativity. It combines multiple indicators, such as openness to experience, divergent thinking, and intrinsic motivation, to provide a comprehensive evaluation of creative potential. | The CPPC is designed to provide an estimate of trait-based creative potential, using either a 39-item long-form or a 27-item short version of the scale. The long-form version has eight subscales focused on problem-awareness, novelty, complexity, sensitivity, non-conformity, independence, flexibility, and fluency. | The CPPC is applied in research, education, and organizational settings to identify individuals likely to excel in creative tasks, predict innovative performance, and guide talent development. By integrating various creativity-related traits, it offers a nuanced understanding of creative potential beyond self-perception, making it valuable for both academic studies and professional applications. |
| Revised Creative Domain Questionnaire [viii] | The Revised Creative Domain Questionnaire (RCDQ) is a self-report tool used to assess creativity across multiple domains, such as arts, sciences, business, and everyday problem-solving. It examines individuals’ engagement, experience, and accomplishments in specific creative fields, offering insights into domain-specific versus general creativity. | Respondents are asked to review domain specific engagements, and to rate themselves using the following question: Compared to people of approximately your age and life experience, how creative would you rate yourself for each of the following acts? For acts that you have not specifically done, estimate your creative potential based on your performance on similar tasks. 1 = Much less creative 2 = less creative 3 = neither more or less creative 4 = more creative 5 = much more creative | The RCDQ is applied in psychological research, education, and workplace settings to study how creativity manifests in different areas and to tailor creativity development programs accordingly. By distinguishing between creative strengths across domains, it helps researchers and organizations understand how creative skills transfer between fields and influence overall creative potential and innovation. |
| Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours [ix] | The Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviours (BICB) is a self-report measure used to assess an individual’s history of engagement in creative activities. It consists of a checklist of behaviors across various domains, such as arts, sciences, and problem-solving, allowing respondents to indicate which activities they have participated in. | The BCIB is a 34-item scale that assesses everyday creativity across a broad range of domains. The BICB presents people with a range of behaviors and asks whether people have done them. The items listed in the model include common activities related to the visual and performing arts and creative writing, intellectual and scientific activities, and interpersonal activities involving coaching, mentoring, and leadership. The instructions ask participants to endorse “the activities you have been actively involved in” during the past year. For each item, people thus indicate if, in the past 12 months, they have “written a short story” or “designed and planted a garden”. The BICB uses a binary checklist response scale, so people indicate simply if they did (Yes = 1) or did not (No = 0) actively engage in each activity during the past year. | The BICB is applied in psychological research, education, and talent identification to evaluate real-world creative engagement rather than potential or self-perception. By capturing past creative behaviors, it provides insights into habitual creativity and the environmental or experiential factors that contribute to an individual’s creative development over time. |
Scales That Help Us Measure The Creativity of Students’ Work Processes
We can use the following scales to measure the creativity of thinking processes. Measures of the creative process typically ask participants to write, draw or perform a task in order to demonstrate their creative thinking. Most often, these assessments measure the quantity of different ideas that a participant can generate within specific constraints (divergent thinking), or the quality of a novel, useful or appropriate idea developed within specific constraints (convergent thinking).
| Creativity Assessment Scale | Description | Administration | Use case |
| Alternate Use Test [x] | The Guilford’s Alternate Uses Test (AUT) is a classic divergent thinking measure used to assess creativity by evaluating an individual’s ability to generate multiple uses for a common object (e.g., a brick or a paperclip). It measures divergent thinking, rather than specific solution development, and challenges the respondent to generate responses that are fluent, original and flexible. | Responses are scored based on fluency (number of ideas), originality (uniqueness of ideas), flexibility (variety of idea categories), and elaboration (level of detail). The test is performed with a limited time constraint, and scored based on the quantity of alternate uses proposed by the respondent. Responses are scored for a) fluency, the number of ideas; b) flexibility, the variety of ideas; c) originality, the rarity of ideas; and d) elaboration, the completeness and detail of the expressed ideas. Scoring can be done using either a traditional (fluency, originality and flexibility) or subjective (usefulness or novelty) scale. | The AUT is widely applied in creativity research, education, and innovation studies to measure ideational fluency and problem-solving ability. It helps identify creative potential, assess cognitive flexibility, and evaluate interventions designed to enhance creative thinking in various fields. |
| Torrance Test of Creative Thinking [xi][xii] | The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is a widely-used assessment designed to measure creativity across diverse populations. It evaluates individuals based on fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration in their responses to verbal or figural tasks.. | Participants engage in open-ended activities that require problem-solving, imagination, and divergent thinking. Results provide insights into creative strengths, cognitive flexibility, and potential for innovative thinking. The TTCT can be done in a short form as the Adult Torrance Test for Creativity, and it includes a divergent thinking focused writing prompt, a drawing prompt, and a novel solution focused prompt. | The Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) is commonly applied in educational, organizational, and psychological contexts to assess and foster creative potential. In education, it identifies gifted students, informs curriculum design, and supports differentiated instruction aimed at nurturing creativity. Its robust psychometric properties and broad applicability make it a gold-standard assessment tool in creativity research |
| Creative Process Assessment Scale | The Creative Process Assessment Scale (CPAS) evaluates creativity by measuring behaviors and attitudes integral to the creative process. CPAS’s structured approach enables users to pinpoint strengths and gaps in creative processes, helping to foster environments conducive to innovation and effectively manage creativity at both individual and team levels. | The 24 item CPAS scale measures problem discovery, information search, intake and valuation, concept combination, idea generation, development of a solution approach, idea evaluation, adaptation and realization, and communication and implementation. | Typically used in educational and organizational settings, CPAS assesses individuals’ engagement in creativity-relevant activities, including problem identification, idea generation, openness to experience, and persistence. Educators apply CPAS to monitor students’ creative development, guide instructional strategies, and identify areas needing support. |
| Remote Associates Test [xiii] | The Remote Associates Test (RAT) measures creativity by assessing associative thinking and insight. Its concise format provides a practical tool to understand and nurture creative insight. The participant’s total score indicates their ability to make remote associations. However, there is ongoing debate about the specific form of creativity assessed by the RAT. Typically, the RAT is viewed as a measure of convergent thinking, closely aligned with insight-based problem-solving tasks. | The RAT is a test of association measures convergent thinking. Each item on the test includes three seemingly unrelated words and the respondent must come up with a connecting fourth word, highlighting their ability to recognize hidden relationships and form novel connections. The test is scored based on the respondents ability to find the fourth correct word to complete the pattern. | Widely used in psychology, education, and organizational settings, the RAT evaluates creative potential, problem-solving ability, and cognitive flexibility. Educators apply it to assess students’ innovative thinking and guide creative development. Organizations employ RAT in hiring and training contexts to gauge employees’ capacity for innovative problem-solving. |
Scales That Help Us Measure The Creative Impact Of The Products Of Student Work.
We can use the following scales to measure the creativity of products or outputs as a proxy for individual creativity – based on the assumption that creative people produce creative outputs. These scales do present their own challenges, as they do not necessarily measure creative potential, and can be highly subjective.
| Creativity Assessment Scale | Description | Administration | Use case |
| Creative Product Semantic Scale [xiv] | The Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS) is a tool used to evaluate creativity by assessing tangible products or outputs rather than cognitive processes. It involves rating creative works—such as artwork, designs, or advertisements—on dimensions like novelty, complexity, resolution, and elaboration using semantic differential scales. | Evaluators rate creative outputs on multiple dimensions using pairs of opposing descriptive adjectives (semantic differentials). Typically, evaluators examine a creative product—such as artwork, writing, advertisements, or design prototypes—and assign scores along scales that include novelty (common to original), resolution (incomplete to complete), elaboration (simple to detailed), and complexity (straightforward to intricate). Evaluators mark positions on these scales to quantify the creativity inherent in the product. Scores across dimensions are then combined, providing an overall creativity rating. This structured method allows objective comparisons among creative products, guiding feedback, decision-making, or developmental support. | The CPSS is usually applied in educational, artistic, or organizational contexts, CPSS enables judges or evaluators to systematically quantify the creativity evident in products. Educators utilize CPSS to assess student work, inform instructional strategies, and promote creativity. Similarly, organizations apply CPSS to evaluate innovations, benchmark creative outputs, and guide decision-making related to product development, branding, or marketing campaigns. |
| Runco Ideational Behaviour Scale [xv] | The Runco Ideational Behavior Scale (RIBS) is a self-report measure designed to assess individuals’ everyday creative behaviors, specifically ideational fluency and originality. Comprising items that respondents rate based on how frequently they generate, explore, and share ideas in daily life, RIBS evaluates creativity beyond controlled testing environments, capturing naturalistic creative expression. By highlighting habitual creativity rather than task-specific performance, RIBS provides insight into individuals’ intrinsic motivation, openness, and consistent engagement in creative thinking. The RIBS is based on the theory that creativity is a competence that results from the three core elements of creative ability or capacity, creative ideation or thinking disposition, and creative achievement and accomplishment. | Participants rate their agreement or frequency on statements related to activities such as: generating new ideas spontaneously; seeking innovative solutions to problems; thinking up alternative perspectives; suggesting unconventional or original ideas; experimenting with new approaches; and, expressing imaginative or divergent thoughts. The responses are typically scored on a Likert-type scale (e.g., from “never” to “very often”), producing a quantitative measure reflecting an individual’s habitual creative thinking behaviors and tendencies. | The RIBS’s accessible format makes it valuable in educational settings to identify students’ creative potential and guide instructional strategies, and in organizational contexts to assess innovation-oriented behaviors among employees. |
| Consensual Assessment Technique [xvi] [xvii] | The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) measures product creativity through subjective judgments provided by qualified expert evaluators. Judges independently evaluate creative outputs—such as artwork, stories, or designs—without explicit scoring criteria, relying instead on their experienced-based understanding of creativity. High inter-rater reliability validates the approach, suggesting creativity is reliably recognized by consensus among experts. Its strength lies in measuring creativity authentically, based on collective expert perception rather than fixed, standardized scoring metrics. | The CAT tasks evaluators with mobilizing their familiarity with the domain of the product being judged. The tasks evaluated as part of the CAT should not depend too heavily on specialized skills (e.g. drawing or writing) that might give some individuals an advantage by having more developed ability in them than others, and it must be open-ended enough to allow for creative responses. The judges should all have some level of expertise in the field to allow them to have developed some internal criteria for the creativity and technical quality of products in the domain. And evaluators should make their assessments using their own implicit criteria in a non-comparative framework. | The CAT is widely applied in educational and organizational settings because of how it allows accurate, holistic assessment of creative products, identifying nuanced aspects of originality, complexity, and aesthetics. In education, CAT is commonly used to assess student work, inform instructional approaches, and nurture creative potential through targeted feedback. |
| Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale [xviii] | The Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS) was developed in response to a lack of expert evaluators required by the CAT. It encompasses four core criteria: Relevance and Effectiveness, Novelty, Elegance, and Genesis. Each criterion is further detailed through specific indicators, allowing for a nuanced analysis of creative products. | The 21-item scale was designed to guide non-expert evaluators in their assessment of creative products based on five categories: relevance & effectiveness, (whether the artifact is fit for the purpose); problematization (how the artifact helps to define the problem/task at hand); propulsion (whether the artifact sheds new light on the problem/task); elegance (assessing if the artifact is well-executed); and, genesis (whether the artifact changes how the problem/ task is understood). | The CSDS can be utilized by both expert and non-expert raters, offering a reliable means to assess functional creativity in educational and organizational settings. Its structured approach facilitates the identification of creative strengths and areas for improvement, thereby supporting targeted development and innovation strategies. |
[i] Tan, C.-S., & Ong, A. W. H. (2019). Psychometric qualities and measurement invariance of the modified self-rated creativity scale. Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(4), 593-599.
[ii] Kumar, V. K., Kemmler, D., & Holman, E. R. (1997). The Creativity Styles Questionnaire – Revised. Creativity Research Journal, 10(1), 51–58.
[iii] Luescher, R., Barthelmess, P. Y. Z., Kim, S. Y., Richter, U. H., & Mittag, M. (2019). Conceptualizing creativity: general and cultural biases in Gough’s creative personality scale. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(1), 30-43.
[iv] Hocevar, D. (1979). The Development of the Creative Behavior Inventory (CBI).
[v] Wang, C. C., Ho, H. C., Cheng, C. L., & Cheng, Y. Y. (2014). Application of the Rasch Model to the measurement of creativity: The Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 26(1), 62-71.
[vi] Reisman, F., Keiser, L., & Otti, O. (2016). Development, Use and Implications of Diagnostic Creativity Assessment App, RDCA – Reisman Diagnostic Creativity Assessment. Creativity Research Journal, 28(2), 177–187.
[vii] Shepard, A. C. (2019). Development And Validation Of A New Measurement Tool To Identify Creative Potential. University of Georgia.
[viii] Tu, C., Guo, J., Hatcher, R. C., & Kaufman, J. C. (2020). The relationship between emotional intelligence and domain‐specific and domain‐general creativity. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 54(2), 337-349.
[ix] Silvia, P. J., Rodriguez, R. M., Beaty, R. E., Frith, E., Kaufman, J. C., Loprinzi, P., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2021). Measuring everyday creativity: A Rasch model analysis of the Biographical Inventory of Creative Behaviors (BICB) scale. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 39, 100797.
[x] Vartanian, O., Beatty, E. L., Smith, I., Forbes, S., Rice, E., & Crocker, J. (2019). Measurement matters: the relationship between methods of scoring the Alternate Uses Task and brain activation. Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences, 27, 109-115.
[xi] Acar, S., Lee, L. E., & Scherer, R. (2024). A reliability generalization of the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking-Figural. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 40(5), 396–411.
[xii] Kim, K. H. (2011). The Creativity Crisis: The Decrease in Creative Thinking Scores on the Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking. Creativity Research Journal, 23(4), 285–295.
[xiii] Wu, C. L., Huang, S. Y., Chen, P. Z., & Chen, H. C. (2020). A systematic review of creativity-related studies applying the remote associates test from 2000 to 2019. Frontiers in psychology, 11, 573432.
[xiv] O’Quin, K., & Besemer, S. P. (2006). Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results‐oriented business. Creativity and Innovation Management, 15(1), 34-44.
[xv] Von Stumm, S., Chung, A., & Furnham, A. (2011). Creative ability, creative ideation and latent classes of creative achievement: What is the role of personality? Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(2), 107.
[xvi] Jeffries, K. K. (2012). Amabile‘s consensual assessment technique: Why has it not been used more in design creativity research?. In DS 73-1 Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Design Creativity Volume 1 (pp. 211-220).
[xvii] 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.
[xviii] Cropley, D. H., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Measuring functional creativity: Non‐expert raters and the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale. The Journal Of Creative Behavior, 46(2), 119-137.