CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,132Creativity in Education and NeuroscienceDesign Education and PracticeCognitive Abilities and Testing

The Effectiveness of Creativity Training: A Quantitative Review

Scott, Ginamarie, Leritz, Lyle E., Mumford, Michael D.·2004·Creativity Research Journal
DOI 10.1080/10400410409534549
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

: Over the course of the last half century, numerous training programs intended to develop creativity capacities have been proposed. In this study, a quantitative meta‐analysis of program evaluation efforts was conducted. Based on 70 prior studies, it was found that well‐designed creativity training programs typically induce gains in performance with these effects generalizing across criteria, settings, and target populations. Moreover, these effects held when internal validity considerations were taken into account. An examination of the factors contributing to the relative effectiveness of these training programs indicated that more successful programs were likely to focus on development of cognitive skills and the heuristics involved in skill application, using realistic exercises appropriate to the domain at hand. The implications of these observations for the development of creativity through educational and training interventions are discussed along with directions for future research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/10400410409534549

Cites

174 of 174 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • The scoping search identified only three systematic reviews in students or general population focusing on the impact of CTPIP.

    “Our scoping search has identified only three systematic reviews in students or general population focusing on the impact of CTPIP (i.e., Davies et al., 2013;Scott et al., 2004;Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim, 2017).”

    From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Scott et al., 2004

  • Most CTPIP include a wide variety of activities based on a previous cognitive process, which are relatively challenging from a contextual perspective and include practical exercises to apply the strategies acquired.

    “a wide variety of activities based on a previous cognitive process, which are relatively challenging from a contextual perspective and include a series of practical exercises to apply the strategies acquired (Scott et al., 2004);”

    From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Scott et al., 2004

  • There is still no agreement on what methodology should be used mainly in CTPIP to further enhance typical developing primary education pupils' creativity or divergent thinking.

    “These results align with those obtained by Scott et al. (2004), and clearly unveil that there is still no agreement on what methodology should be used mainly in CTPIP to further enhance the typical developing primary education pupils' creativity or divergent thinking.”

    From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Scott et al. (2004)

  • CTPIP influence the development of typical developing primary education pupils' creative potential.

    “it is demonstrated that CTPIP influence the development of their creative potential, as already exposed by authors such as Scott et al. (2004), andValgeirsdottir &Onarheim (2017).”

    From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Scott et al. (2004)

  • The number of studies included in this review is small compared to other reviews on CTPIP.

    “Obviously, the number of studies included in this review can be considered small, especially when compared to the number of studies included in other reviews on CTPIP (e.g., Scott et al., 2004;Valgeirsdottir & Onarheim, 2017).”

    From Creativity training programs in primary education: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2022) · cites this paper as Scott et al., 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Scott, G., Leritz, L. E., & Mumford, M. D.
Affiliations
University of Oklahoma (US)
Venue
Creativity Research Journal
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
2004-12-01
Volume
16
Issue
4
Pages
361-388
ISSN
  • 1040-0419 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6934
DOI
10.1080/10400410409534549
OpenAlex
W2148809109
Cited by
1,132
References
172
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 60 · 2024: 50 · 2023: 100 · 2022: 75 · 2021: 72 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 81 · 2018: 85 · 2017: 71 · 2016: 76 · 2015: 72 · 2014: 65 · 2013: 45 · 2012: 35
FWCI
12.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
doi.org/10.1080/policies-text-data-mining (tdm)
Locations
Creativity Research Journal (publishedVersion)
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
creativity training, creativity development, training program effectiveness, program evaluation, cognitive skills, heuristics, transfer of training, internal validity

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