The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 74 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements
Open accessAbstract
This meta-analysis investigated the relations between creative self-efficacy (CSE) and creativity measures and hypothesized that self-assessed questionnaires would have a different relation to self-efficacy beliefs compared to other creativity tests. The meta-analysis synthesized 60 effect sizes from 41 papers (overall N = 17226). Taken as a whole, the relation between CSE and creativity measures was of medium size (r = .39). Subgroup analyses revealed that self-rated creativity correlated higher with self-efficacy (r = .53). The relation with divergent thinking (DT) tests was weak (r = .23). Creativity scales had a medium size relation (r = .43), and was stronger than the relation to verbal performance tasks (r = .27) and figural performance tasks (r = .19). In a comparison between measures focusing on the creative person (r = .47), the creative product (r = .32), and the creative process (r = .27), the person aspect was most strongly linked to CSE. Thus, the relation between self-efficacy and creativity measures is dependent on the type of measurement used, emphasizing the need for researchers to distinguish between different instruments—not the least between self-report scales and more objective test procedures. Conceptual implications are discussed and critique concerning the creativity concept is brought up.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: the PRISMA statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & for the PRISMA Group (2009) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.b2535 · Cited by 83,823
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & The PRISMA Group (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 · Cited by 64,042
Self-efficacy: The exercise of control
Bandura, A., Freeman, W. H., & Lightsey, R. (1999) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/0889-8391.13.2.158 · Cited by 46,835
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement.
(2009) · PubMed Central · Cited by 44,859
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009) · doi:10.1002/9780470743386 · Cited by 14,225
Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2021) · doi:10.1002/9781119558378 · Cited by 9,799
A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory.
Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006) · Journal of personality and social psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751 · Cited by 9,708 · cited 1×
“Correlation coefficients are commonly used as effect sizes in meta-analyses, within and outside of creativity research (e.g., Boer & Fischer, 2013; Gajda, Karwowski, & Beghetto, 2017; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).”
MethodThe file drawer problem and tolerance for null results.
Rosenthal, R. (1979) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638 · Cited by 9,068 · cited 2×
“A statistical analysis was done to estimate the potential influence of missing studies due to the tendency that usually only significant results get published (file-drawer problem; Rosenthal, 1979).”
MethodThe associative basis of the creative process.
Mednick, S. (1962) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0048850 · Cited by 4,140
The standard definition of creativity
Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012) · Creativity Research Journal · doi:10.1080/10400419.2012.650092 · Cited by 3,895
Cited by
ChatGPT improves creative problem-solving performance in university students: An experimental study
Urban, M., Děchtěrenko, F., Lukavský, J., Hrabalová, V., Svacha, F., Brom, C., & Urban, K. (2024) · Computers & Education · doi:10.1016/j.compedu.2024.105031 · Cited by 396
Metadata
- Authors
- Haase, J., Hoff, E. V., Hanel, P. H. P., & Innes-Ker, Å.
- Venue
- Creativity Research Journal
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 2018-01-02
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1-16
- ISSN
- 1040-0419 (ISSN-L)
- 1532-6934
- OpenAlex
- W2771113974
- Cited by
- 344
- References
- 74
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411436
- The paper
- Haase, J., Hoff, E. V., Hanel, P. H. P., & Innes-Ker, Å. (2018). A Meta-Analysis of the Relation between Creative Self-Efficacy and Different Creativity Measurements. Creativity Research Journal. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2018.1411436
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
