Cited by 116Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeCognitive Abilities and Testing

Re-examining prominent measures of divergent and convergent creativity

Open access
Cortes, Robert A, Weinberger, Adam B, Daker, Richard J, Green, Adam E·2019·Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cobeha.2018.09.017

Cites

46 of 46 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cortes, R. A., Weinberger, A. B., Daker, R. J., & Green, A. E.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Corresponding author
Cortes, Robert A
Venue
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-06
Volume
27
Pages
90-93
ISSN
2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2903548559
Cited by
116
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 2
FWCI
0.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (DRL-1420481)
  • The John Templeton Foundation (ID 51971)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
  • Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Cognitive Abilities and Testing
Keywords
divergent thinking, convergent thinking, creativity assessment, alternative uses task, Remote Associates Test, construct validity, creative cognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review