The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Measuring divergent thinking originality with human raters and text-mining models: A psychometric comparison of methods.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“we investigate originality primarily by means of semantic similarity, using a well-performing sentence embedding model [72] whose direct predecessors [70] have been found to agree well with human judgments of originality in creativity research [6, 26].”
From Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
In the citing paper
“a metric which has been found to agree well with human judgments of semantic similarity [6, 26].”
From Homogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open platform for computing semantic distance
Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2021) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-020-01453-w · Cited by 341
“Regarding creativity, the five semantic spaces showed comparable but variable correlations with creativity ratings, with the highest correlations found for GloVe ( r = .61) and cbowukwac ( r = .55).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialAssociative thinking at the core of creativity
Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.004 · Cited by 272
Hubert, K. F., Awa, K. N., & Zabelina, D. L. (2024) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-024-53303-w · Cited by 292
“For example, human intervention is necessary for inputting appropriate and relevant data to train the model and shape outputs to become more linguistically natural 16,17 .”
BackgroundMethodOrganisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356 · Cited by 202
Self-citationNaming unrelated words predicts creativity
Olson, J. A., Nahas, J., Chmoulevitch, D., Cropper, S. J., & Webb, M. E. (2021) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.2022340118 · Cited by 182
“Many of these computational methods can generate scores similar to human ratings, including on the Alternative Uses Task (11, 17, 26, 27).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHomogenization Effects of Large Language Models on Human Creative Ideation
Anderson, B. R., Shah, J. H., & Kreminski, M. (2024) · Creativity and Cognition · doi:10.1145/3635636.3656204 · Cited by 188
“We conducted a within-subjects experiment to evaluate the effects of using two different CSTs for idea generation: ChatGPT and the Oblique Strategies (OS) deck.”
MethodThe Relationship between Intelligence and Divergent Thinking—A Meta-Analytic Update
Gerwig, A., Miroshnik, K. G., Forthmann, B., Benedek, M., Karwowski, M., & Holling, H. (2021) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence9020023 · Cited by 128
“All scoring methods have their weaknesses, and the development of new methods (e.g., based on corpus semantics; Beaty and Johnson 2020; Dumas et al. 2020) continues, and we can be curious about how the weaknesses of the current methods will be mitigated.”
MethodBeaty, R. E., Zeitlen, D. C., Baker, B. S., & Kenett, Y. N. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100859 · Cited by 86
Johnson, D. R., Kaufman, J. C., Baker, B. S., Patterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Green, A. E., van Hell, J. G., Kennedy, E., Sullivan, G., Taylor, C. L., et al. (2022) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-022-01986-2 · Cited by 118
“…2020; Eichstaedt et al., 2021; Vo & Collier, 2013), cultural similarities and differences (Jackson et al., 2021), creativity (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2020; Gray et al., 2019; Green, 2016; Heinen & Johnson, 2018; Johnson et al., 2021; Prabhakaran et al., 2014), and more (see Jackson et…”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialThe Role of Knowledge in Creative Thinking
Kenett, Y. N. (2024) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2024.2322858 · Cited by 95
“It has strong theoretical links to the associative theory of creativity, as it offers an objective way to quantify novelty of associations (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas, Organisciak, & Doherty, 2021; Kenett, 2019).”
Beaty, R. E., Kenett, Y. N., Hass, R. W., & Schacter, D. L. (2022) · Thinking & Reasoning · doi:10.1080/13546783.2022.2076742 · Cited by 88
Applying Automated Originality Scoring to the Verbal Form of Torrance Tests of Creative Thinking
Acar, S., Berthiaume, K., Grajzel, K., Dumas, D., Flemister, C. “., & Organisciak, P. (2021) · Gifted Child Quarterly · doi:10.1177/00169862211061874 · Cited by 69
Self-citationAuDrA: An automated drawing assessment platform for evaluating creativity
Patterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Lloyd-Cox, J., & Beaty, R. E. (2023) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02258-3 · Cited by 71
“For example, Beaty and Johnson (2021) and Dumas et al. (2021) found that semantic distance correlates strongly and positively with human creativity ratings.”
BackgroundAssessing Raters: What Factors Predict Discernment in Novice Creativity Raters?
Ceh, S. M., Edelmann, C., Hofer, G., & Benedek, M. (2021) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.515 · Cited by 50
Automatic Scoring of Metaphor Creativity with Large Language Models
DiStefano, P. V., Patterson, J. D., & Beaty, R. E. (2024) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2024.2326343 · Cited by 79
“…human originality ratings (Hass, 2017; Heinen & Johnson, 2018; Kenett, 2019; Landauer, Foltz, & Laham, 1998) and other measures, such as creative behavior (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Beaty, Johnson, Zeitlen, & Forthmann, 2022; Dumas, Organisciak, & Doherty, 2020; Fan et al., 2023; Yu et al., 2023).”
Default mode network electrophysiological dynamics and causal role in creative thinking
Bartoli, E., Devara, E., Dang, H. Q., Rabinovich, R. J., Mathura, R. K., Anand, A., Pascuzzi, B., Adkinson, J. A., Kenett, Y. N., Bijanki, K. R., et al. (2024) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awae199 · Cited by 57
“48,49 Thus, such a measure can be used to quantify originality.”
Functional Realignment of Frontoparietal Subnetworks during Divergent Creative Thinking
Beaty, R. E., Cortes, R. A., Zeitlen, D. C., Weinberger, A. B., & Green, A. E. (2021) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhab100 · Cited by 50
Multilingual semantic distance: Automatic verbal creativity assessment in many languages.
Patterson, J. D., Merseal, H. M., Johnson, D. R., Agnoli, S., Baas, M., Baker, B. S., Barbot, B., Benedek, M., Borhani, K., Chen, Q., et al. (2023) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000618 · Cited by 55
“…number of researchers are exploring automated scoring methods (Acar & Runco, 2014; Acar et al., 2023; Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas & Runco, 2018; Dumas, Organisciak, & Doherty, 2021; Dumas, Organisciak, Maio, & Doherty, 2021; Forthmann & Doebler, 2022; Gray et al., 2019; Johnson, Kaufman, et…”
InfluentialBuczak, P., Huang, H., Forthmann, B., & Doebler, P. (2022) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.559 · Cited by 46
Orwig, W., Diez, I. P., Vannini, P., Beaty, R. E., & Sepulcre, J. (2020) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01658 · Cited by 48
“Given high correlations reported between human ratings and semantic distance (Beaty & Johnson, 2020; Dumas et al., 2020), we expect to find similar (though perhaps nonredundant) neural patterns for human ratings and semantic distance measures of DT.”
BackgroundAutomating Creativity Assessment with SemDis: An Open Platform for Computing Semantic DistancePreprint
Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2020) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/nwvps · Cited by 42
Four Text‐Mining Methods for Measuring Elaboration
Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., Maio, S., & Doherty, M. (2021) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.471 · Cited by 38
Self-citationThe psychology of professional and student actors: Creativity, personality, and motivation
Dumas, D., Doherty, M., & Organisciak, P. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0240728 · Cited by 35
“First, the DT assessment is scored using a modern computational scoring method derived from the text-mining literature [42], and Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operators (LASSOs [43]) are utilized to provide the most psychologically informative prediction and classification models.”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationUsing a model of domain learning to understand the development of creativity
Dumas, D., Forthmann, B., & Alexander, P. A. (2024) · Educational Psychologist · doi:10.1080/00461520.2023.2291577 · Cited by 50
“For example, in cases where individuals are particularly closed-off to new experiences (i.e., Dumas et al., 2021), have low creative self-efficacy (Haase et al., 2018), or hold strong epistemological beliefs that describe knowledge as immutable (Buehl & Alexander, 2005), extra care and attention on…”
Self-citationForthmann, B., Jankowska, D. M., & Karwowski, M. (2021) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2021.100851 · Cited by 29
Open and closed-ended problem solving in humans and AI: The influence of question asking complexity
Raz, T., Reiter‐Palmon, R., & Kenett, Y. N. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101598 · Cited by 40
Plucker, J. A. (2022) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2022.2110415 · Cited by 31
Yang, A. J., Deng, S., Wang, H., Zhang, Y., & Yang, W. (2023) · Journal of Informetrics · doi:10.1016/j.joi.2023.101411 · Cited by 30
Forthmann, B., & Doebler, P. (2022) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000518 · Cited by 29
Zielińska, A., Organisciak, P., Dumas, D., & Karwowski, M. (2023) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101414 · Cited by 35
Self-citationCreativity Assessment, Research, and Practice in the Age of Artificial Intelligence
Acar, S. (2023) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2271749 · Cited by 33
“The third phase was led by Dumas, Organisciak, and Doherty (2021), who shifted from latent semantic analysis to Global Vectors for Word Representation (GloVe; Pennington et al., 2014).”
Is the Reliability of Objective Originality Scores Confounded by Elaboration?
Maio, S., Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Runco, M. A. (2020) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2020.1818492 · Cited by 25
“To the best of my knowledge, the GloVe 840B text-mining model has been used in the creativity literature only once prior to this investigation (Dumas et al., 2020), but based on the findings from both analyses, creativity researchers might reconsider their use of the TASA LSA and EN 100K and…”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationDumas, D., Dong, Y., & Leveling, M. (2021) · Contemporary Educational Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2021.102013 · Cited by 29
Self-citationMeasuring flexibility: A text-mining approach
Grajzel, K., Acar, S., Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Berthiaume, K. (2023) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1093343 · Cited by 31
“GLoVe has been shown to mimic human raters in DT tasks and is currently considered superior to many other existing text-mining systems based on recent methodological investigations (Dumas et al., 2020b; Acar et al., 2021; Beaty and Johnson, 2021).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationShort-term mindfulness meditation training improves antecedents of opportunity recognition
Moder, S., Jehle, E., Furtner, M. R., & Kraus, S. (2023) · Journal of Business Venturing Insights · doi:10.1016/j.jbvi.2023.e00381 · Cited by 24
Automated Scoring of Figural Tests of Creativity with Computer Vision
Acar, S., Organisciak, P., & Dumas, D. (2024) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.677 · Cited by 33
Self-citationMerseal, H. M., Luchini, S. A., Kenett, Y. N., Knudsen, K. S., Bilder, R. M., & Beaty, R. E. (2023) · Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts · doi:10.1037/aca0000545 · Cited by 20
Yang, T., Zhang, Q., Sun, Z., & Hou, Y. (2023) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-023-02313-z · Cited by 25
“…of the use of transformer-based models for scoring AUT, a recent study by Organisciak et al. (2023) demonstrated that fine-tuned generative large-language models based on transformers, such as fine-tuned GPT-3, out-perform non-transformer-based models (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021).”
InfluentialEvaluation is Creation: Self and Social Judgments of Creativity Across the Four-C Model
Dumas, D., & Kaufman, J. C. (2024) · Educational Psychology Review · doi:10.1007/s10648-024-09947-1 · Cited by 23
“Moreover, the very widely utilized divergent thinking paradigm in creativity research (e.g., Dumas et al., 2021b) is best categorized as an instance of little-c.”
Self-citationThe Role of Semantic Associations as a Metacognitive Cue in Creative Idea Generation
Kenett, Y. N., Gooz, N., & Ackerman, R. (2023) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence11040059 · Cited by 21
Automated Scoring of Scientific Creativity in German
Goecke, B., DiStefano, P. V., Aschauer, W., Haim, K., Beaty, R. E., & Forthmann, B. (2024) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.658 · Cited by 29
van Dijk, M., Blom, E., Kroesbergen, E. H., & Leseman, P. P. M. (2020) · Journal of Intelligence · doi:10.3390/jintelligence8040037 · Cited by 20
“However, to avoid a lack of measurement precision, intersubjective rating of originality or automated scoring is recommended in future research on creativity (for more information, see Beaty and Johnson 2020 or Dumas et al. 2020).”
MethodExploring the behavioral and neural correlates of semantic distance in creative writing
Li, F., Zhuang, K., Wang, X., Zhang, J., Liu, C., Gu, J., & Qiu, J. (2022) · Psychophysiology · doi:10.1111/psyp.14239 · Cited by 20
Assessing novelty, feasibility and value of creative ideas with an unsupervised approach using GPT‐4
Kern, F. B., Wu, C., & Chao, Z. C. (2024) · British Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1111/bjop.12720 · Cited by 22
“Semantic distance between prompt and response has been shown to correlate to human judgements of originality in the AUT (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021; Dumas & Dunbar, 2014), but is not obviously related to feasibility or value judgements.”
Johnson, D. R., Kaufman, J. C., Baker, B., et al. (2021) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/fmwgy · Cited by 17
Advancements in feature selection and extraction methods for text mining: a review
Ayash, L., Algarni, A., & Alqahtani, O. (2025) · Discover Applied Sciences · doi:10.1007/s42452-025-07587-w · Cited by 23
“Nevertheless, employing text-mining systems such as GloVe could introduce an automated and efficient approach for measuring originality in creativity research [87].”
Bianchi, I., Branchini, E., Uricchio, T., & Bongelli, R. (2025) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2025.1648480 · Cited by 40
What Makes Children's Responses to Creativity Assessments Difficult to Judge Reliably?
Dumas, D., Acar, S., Berthiaume, K., Organisciak, P., Eby, D., Grajzel, K., Vlaamster, T., Newman, M., & Carrera, M. (2023) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.588 · Cited by 16
Self-citationLuchini, S. A., Maliakkal, N. T., DiStefano, P. V., Patterson, J. D., Beaty, R. E., & Reiter‐Palmon, R. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/g5qvf · Cited by 15
Wise, T., & Kenett, Y. N. (2024) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-024-02463-8 · Cited by 17
“Originality of responses is measured through human subjective originality ratings (Kaufman, 2019; Silvia et al., 2008), and not quantitative originality measures (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021; Organisciak et al., 2023).”
BackgroundKoutstaal, W., Brown, L., Lu, K., & Posson, K. (2024) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2300575 · Cited by 14
“…and neurocognitive understanding of creative ideation because they are more readily reproducible measures, and can provide convergent indices beyond those provided by time-and labor-intensive human-provided subjective ratings (e.g., Dumas, Organisciak, & Doherty, 2021; Heinen & Johnson, 2018).”
Towards Game-Based Assessment of Creative Thinking
Rafner, J. F., Wang, Q. J., Gadjacz, M., badtst, Baker, B. S., Bergenholtz, C., Biskjær, M. M., Bui, T., Carugati, A., de Cibeins, M., et al. (2023) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2198845 · Cited by 13
“Here, GPT-3 was further trained on 27k AUT answers from previous studies (Beaty & Silvia, 2012; Beaty et al., 2018; Dumas, Organisciak, & Doherty, 2020; Hofelich Mohr, Sell, & Lindsay, 2016; Silvia et al., 2008), along with their corresponding originality human ratings.”
MethodAutomated Scoring of Open-Ended Question Complexity: A Large Language Model ApproachPreprint
Raz, T., Luchini, S. A., Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2024) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-3890828/v1 · Cited by 12
CAP: The creativity assessment platform for online testing and automated scoring
Patterson, J. D., Pronchick, J., Panchanadikar, R., Fuge, M., van Hell, J. G., Miller, S. R., Johnson, D. R., & Beaty, R. E. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02761-9 · Cited by 13
“In the first wave, creativity researchers capitalized on unsupervised learning models to approximate creativity scores, such as semantic distance (e.g., SemDis: Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Open Creativity Scoring: Dumas et al., 2021).”
Planning Missing Data Designs for Human Ratings in Creativity Research: A Practical Guide
Forthmann, B., Goecke, B., & Beaty, R. E. (2023) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2250976 · Cited by 13
Getachew, T. (2023) · The International Journal of Management Education · doi:10.1016/j.ijme.2023.100901 · Cited by 12
Using large language models to evaluate alternative uses task flexibility score
Hadas, E., & Hershkovitz, A. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101549 · Cited by 22
Mühlberger, C., Endrejat, P. C., Möller, J., Herrmann, D., Kauffeld, S., & Jonas, E. (2022) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2022.807875 · Cited by 13
Creative abilities: Divergent thinking
Acar, S., & Runco, M. A. (2023) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-91840-4.00005-0 · Cited by 13
Novelty Evaluation using Sentence Embedding Models in Open-ended Cocreative Problem-solving
Haq, I. U., Pifarré, M., & Fraca, E. (2024) · International Journal of Artificial Intelligence in Education · doi:10.1007/s40593-024-00392-3 · Cited by 13
“Thirdly, automatic creativity evaluations have primarily been applied in closed contexts, such as alternate uses tasks (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodEvaluating Creativity Support Tools via Homogenization Analysis
Anderson, B. R., Shah, J. H., & Kreminski, M. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3651088 · Cited by 11
“…strings of text) and the creative ideation prompt in response to which these ideas were generated; similarity scores are determined by means of cosine similarity between aggregated word embeddings [42], a metric which has been found to agree well with human judgments of semantic similarity [5, 20].”
InfluentialWahbeh, H., Cannard, C., Yount, G. L., Arnaud Delorme, A., & Radin, D. I. (2024) · Journal of Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.yjoc.2024.100088 · Cited by 11
The role of alpha oscillations in free‐ and goal‐directed semantic associations
Ζιώγα, Ι., Kenett, Y. N., Giannopoulos, A., & Luft, C. D. B. (2024) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.26770 · Cited by 12
“This is a key contribution of our study since often semantic distance in free association tasks is commonly used as a measure of creativity due to significant but weak to moderate correlations with traditional creativity measures (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021; Organisciak et al., 2023).”
More Creative Activities, Lower Creative Ability: Exploring an Unexpected PISA Finding
Kagan, S., & Dumas, D. (2025) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.70035 · Cited by 13
Self-citationReasoning outside the box: Divergent thinking is related to logical reasoning
de Chantal, P., & Markovits, H. (2022) · Cognition · doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2022.105064 · Cited by 11
Semantic Context Search in Creative Idea Generation
Johnson, D. R., & Hass, R. W. (2022) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.534 · Cited by 14
Semantic Spaces Are Not Created Equal – How Should We Weigh Them in the Sequel?
Forthmann, B., Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2022) · European Journal of Psychological Assessment · doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000723 · Cited by 11
Weinstein, T. J., Ceh, S. M., Meinel, C., & Benedek, M. (2022) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2022.2124777 · Cited by 14
“Most scoring algorithms use semantic text-mining models trained on a large text corpus (e.g., GloVe; see Dumas et al., 2021, for a model comparison).”
MethodResultInfluentialPredicting openness to experience via a multiplex cognitive network approach
Samuel, G., Stella, M., Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2023) · Journal of Research in Personality · doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2023.104369 · Cited by 12
How do the kids speak? Improving educational use of text mining with child-directed language models
Organisciak, P., Newman, M., Eby, D., Acar, S., & Dumas, D. (2023) · Information and Learning Sciences · doi:10.1108/ils-06-2022-0082 · Cited by 14
Self-citationArtificial intelligence and corporate ideation systems
Lehmann, S. L., Dahlke, J., Pianta, V., & Ebersberger, B. (2025) · Journal of Product Innovation Management · doi:10.1111/jpim.12782 · Cited by 16
A large-scale comparison of divergent creativity in humans and large language models.
Wang, D., Huang, D.-F., Shen, H., & Uzzi, B. (2025) · Nature Human Behaviour · doi:10.1038/s41562-025-02331-1 · Cited by 29
Large language models are homogeneously creative
Wenger, E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2026) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgag042 · Cited by 100
“Using multiple starting objects reduces the effect of a particular object (e.g., book) on participant responses, ensuring results generalize (62).”
InfluentialUnlocking students’ creative potential in designing technological-enriched design solutions
Huang, B., Jong, M. S., Tsai, C., & Shang, J. (2024) · Journal of Research on Technology in Education · doi:10.1080/15391523.2024.2342915 · Cited by 14
“To assess divergent thinking, Guilford (1967, 1968) devised the Alternate Uses Task (AUT), which asks participants to list as many novel uses as possible for daily objects (e.g. Beaty et al., 2022; Dumas et al., 2021).”
Indicators of verbal creative thinking: results of a Delphi panel
Martínez, O. L., Garrido, A. J. L., & Jara, M. I. D. V.-Y. (2024) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1397861 · Cited by 22
Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Hu, W., Bai, H., & Lyu, Y. (2025) · Journal of Science Education and Technology · doi:10.1007/s10956-024-10195-9 · Cited by 13
“(V) Consistency in assessment: ML models consistently evaluate creative outputs using trained models based on data-driven insights, ensuring consistency, reliability, and validity in creativity assessments (Dumas et al., 2021; Zhai et al., 2020c).”
Hubert, K. F., Awa, K. N., & Zabelina, D. L. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6py2m · Cited by 10
The Effects of Environmental Scene and Body Posture on Embodied Strategies in Creative Thinking
Sargent, M. J., LePage, A., Kenett, Y. N., & Matheson, H. E. (2023) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2022.2160563 · Cited by 8
Dumas, D., Dong, Y., Kagan, S., & Campbell, W. K. (2024) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2024.2371725 · Cited by 7
Self-citationInvestigating Lasting Effects of Real-Time Feedback on Originality and Evaluation Accuracy
de Chantal, P., Houde-Labrecque, C., Leblanc, M., & Organisciak, P. (2024) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2024.2441014 · Cited by 10
Self-citationDivergent and convergent creativity relate to different aspects of semantic control
Krieger‐Redwood, K., Lanzoni, L., Alam, T. R. G., Jackson, R. L., Smallwood, J., & Jefferies, E. (2025) · Imaging Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/imag_a_00502 · Cited by 7
“Word2vec (see above) was used as a method of scoring the uniqueness of the responses, in line with other studies using algorithm-based semantic distance scoring of UUT responses ( Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Buczak et al., 2023; Dumas et al., 2021; Orwig et al., 2021).”
The Effect of Aging on Question-Asking, Divergent Thinking, and Problem-Solving Abilities
Raz, T., Diaz, M. T., & Kenett, Y. N. (2025) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2025.2498916 · Cited by 7
“…measures strongly relate to subjective ratings of idea originality, appropriateness (usefulness), and creativity (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021; Organisciak et al., 2023; Raz et al., 2023) To conduct automated scoring of AQT responses, we applied a recently developed…”
Zhang, L., Fang, C., Lin, H., Liang, G., & Luo, S. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102020 · Cited by 9
Are the Verbal TTCT Forms Actually Interchangeable?
Grajzel, K., Dumas, D., & Acar, S. (2022) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.556 · Cited by 7
Self-citationYu, Y., Beaty, R. E., Forthmann, B., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/vgxpk · Cited by 7
AuDrA: An Automated Drawing Assessment Platform for Evaluating CreativityPreprint
Patterson, J. D., Barbot, B., Lloyd-Cox, J., et al. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/t63dm · Cited by 7
The Scientific Creative Thinking Test (SCTT): Reliability, Validity, and Automated ScoringPreprint
Beaty, R. E., Cortes, R. A., Luchini, S. A., et al. (2024) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/y5fbs · Cited by 7
Automated Scoring of Question Complexity with Transformer Language Models
Raz, T., Luchini, S. A., Beaty, R. E., & Kenett, Y. N. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102090 · Cited by 21
Maier, S., Schneider, M., & Feuerriegel, S. (2026) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3772318.3791185 · Cited by 26
“02) did not produce significantly higher quality ideas compared to the control condition without support.”
Ding, G., He, Y., Yi, K., & Li, S. (2024) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2024.101503 · Cited by 10
Bower, J., Acar, S., & Kursuncu, U. (2023) · Journal of Advanced Academics · doi:10.1177/1932202x231211633 · Cited by 11
“GloVe is vital in assessing complex language skills (e.g., sarcasm; Eke et al., 2020) and approximating highly reliable human-rated scores of fl uency, elaboration, openness, intellect, and self-reported creative activities (Dumas et al., 2021).”
BackgroundMethodForthmann, B., & Doebler, P. (2022) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/byj8c · Cited by 5
Automatic Scoring of Metaphor Creativity with Large Language ModelsPreprint
DiStefano, P. V., Patterson, J. D., & Beaty, R. E. (2023) · doi:10.31234/osf.io/6jtxb · Cited by 5
McDaniel, C., Habibi, A., & Kaplan, J. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-09736-y · Cited by 5
Validating LLM-based alternative uses test scoring across ages
Hadas, E., Avital-Lev, B., & Hershkovitz, A. (2025) · Thinking Skills and Creativity · doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2025.102066 · Cited by 4
A meta-analysis of the relationship between semantic distance and creative thinking
Yadan, L. I., Ying, D. U., Cong, X. I. E., Chunyu, L. I. U., Yilong, Y. A. N. G., Yangping, L. I., & Qiu, J. (2022) · Advances in Psychological Science · doi:10.3724/sp.j.1042.2023.00519 · Cited by 4
Testing Computational Assessment of Idea Novelty in Crowdsourcing
Wang, K., Dong, B., & Ma, J. (2023) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2023.2187544 · Cited by 5
A New Dataset and Method for Creativity Assessment Using the Alternate Uses Task
Sun, L., Gu, H., Myers, R., & Yuan, Z. (2024) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-981-97-0065-3_9 · Cited by 4
Loose and Tight: Creative Formation but Rigid Use of Nominal Compounds in Conspiracist Texts
Miani, A., van der Plas, L., & Bangerter, A. (2024) · The Journal of Creative Behavior · doi:10.1002/jocb.633 · Cited by 4
Measuring up: aligning creativity assessment with the Standards
Dumas, D., & Grajzel, K. (2024) · Edward Elgar Publishing eBooks · doi:10.4337/9781839102158.00007 · Cited by 4
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Doherty, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Denver (US)
- Actors' Equity Association (US)
- Venue
- Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts
- Published
- 2021-11
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 645-663
- ISSN
- 1931-3896 (ISSN-L)
- 1931-390X
- OpenAlex
- W3044750169
- Cited by
- 158
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 21 · 2025: 36 · 2024: 35 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 12
- FWCI
- 14.78
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychology of Aesthetics Creativity and the Arts (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Denver
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Creativity in Education and Neuroscience
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Design Education and Practice
- Keywords
- divergent thinking, originality, human raters, psychometric comparison, creativity assessment
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
