Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T22:06:25.607Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A STUDY ON STUDENT: ASSESSING FOUR CREATIVITY ASSESSMENT METHODS IN PRODUCT DESIGN

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 July 2021

Yuan Yin ,
Ji Han ,
Shu Huang ,
Haoyu Zuo  and
Peter Childs
Yuan Yin*
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Ji Han
Affiliation:
University of Liverpool
Shu Huang
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Haoyu Zuo
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
Peter Childs
Affiliation:
Imperial College London
*
YIN, Yuan, Imperial College London, Dyson School of Design Engineering, United Kingdom, [email protected]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

This paper asked participants to assess four selected expert-rated Taiwan International Student Design Competition (TISDC) products using four methods: Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT), Creative Product Semantic Scale (CPSS), Product Creativity Measurement Instrument (PCMI), and revised Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (rCSDS). The results revealed that, between experts and non-experts, the ranking results by the CAT and CPSS were the same, while the ranking results of the rCSDS were different. The CAT, CPSS, and TISDC methods provided the same results indicating that raters may return the same results on creativity assessment, and the results are not affected by the selected methods.

If it is necessary to use non-experts to assess creativity and the creativity results are expected to be the same with that of experts, asking non-expert raters to use CPSS to assess creativity and then ranking the creativity score is more reliable. The study offers a contribution to the creativity domain on deciding which methods may be more reliable from a comparison perspective.

Keywords

CreativityEvaluationRatersProductConceptual design
Type
Article
Information
Proceedings of the Design Society , Volume 1: ICED21 , August 2021 , pp. 263 - 272
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BYCreative Common License - NCCreative Common License - ND
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is unaltered and is properly cited. The written permission of Cambridge University Press must be obtained for commercial re-use or in order to create a derivative work.
Copyright
The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press

References

Acuna, A. and Sosa, R. (2011), “The complementary role of representations in design creativity: Sketches and models”, Design creativity 2010, Springer, London, pp. 265–270. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-85729-224-7_34Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (2018), Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity, Routledge.10.4324/9780429501234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (1991), “Generality of creativity across performance domains”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 4 No. 1, pp. 23–39. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419109534371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baer, J. (2014), “Creativity and divergent thinking: A task-specific approach”, Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Baer, J., Kaufman, J. C., and Gentile, C. A. (2004), “Extension of the consensual assessment technique to nonparallel creative products”, Creativity research journal, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 113–117. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1601_11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besemer, S. P. (1998), “Creative product analysis matrix: testing the model structure and a comparison among products--three novel chairs”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 11 No. 4, pp. 333–346. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1104_7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Besemer, S. P. and O'Quin, K. (1987), “Creative product analysis: Testing a model by developing a judging instrument”, Frontiers of creativity research: Beyond the basics, pp. 367–389.Google Scholar
Chakrabarti, A. (2006), “Defining and supporting design creativity”, DS 36: Proceedings DESIGN 2006, the 9th International Design Conference, Dubrovnik, Croatia, pp. 479–486.Google Scholar
Chien, Y. C., Liu, M. C., and Wu, T. T. (2020), “Discussion-record-based prediction model for creativity education using clustering methods”, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Vol. 36, pp. 100650. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2020.100650CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Christiaans, H. H. (2002), “Creativity as a design criterion”, Communication Research Journal, Vol. 14 No. 1, pp. 41–54. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15326934crj1401_4Google Scholar
Corazza, G. E. (2016), “Potential originality and effectiveness: The dynamic definition of creativity”, Creativity research journal, Vol. 28 No. 3, pp. 258–267. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1195627CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, A. J., and Urban, K. (2000), “Programs and strategies for nurturing creativity”, International handbook of giftedness and talent, pp. 485–498. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-008043796-5/50034-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cropley, D. and Cropley, A. (2008), “Elements of a universal aesthetic of creativity”, Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Vol. 2 No. 3, pp. 155–161. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.3.155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, G. A. (1986), Creativity is forever, Kendall/Hunt Publishing, Dubuque.Google Scholar
Dorst, K. and Cross, N. (2001), “Creativity in the design process: co-evolution of problem–solution”, Design studies, Vol. 22 No. 4, pp. 425–437. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0142-694x(01)00009-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fink, A., Grabner, R. H., Gebauer, D., Reishofer, G., Koschutnig, K., and Ehbner, F. (2010), “Enhancing creativity by means of cognitive stimulation: Evidence from an fMRI study”, NeuroImage, Vol. 4, pp. 1687–1695. https://doi.org/10.3389/conf.fnins.2010.11.00025CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guilford, J. (1950), “Creativity”, American psychologist, Vol. 5, pp. 444–454.10.1037/h0063487CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Haller, C. S., Courvoisier, D. S., and Cropley, D. H. (2011), “Perhaps there is accounting for taste: Evaluating the creativity of products”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 23 No. 2, pp. 99–109. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2011.571182CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, J. (2018), Combinational creativity and computational creativity, Doctoral dissertation, Imperial College London.Google Scholar
Horn, D. and Salvendy, G. (2006a), “Consumer-based assessment of product creativity: A review and reappraisal”, Human factors and ergonomics in manufacturing and service industries, Vol. 16 No. 2, pp. 155–175. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20047Google Scholar
Horn, D., and Salvendy, G. (2006b), “Product creativity: conceptual model, measurement and characteristics”, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, Vol. 7 No. 4, pp. 395–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/14639220500078195Google Scholar
Horn, D., and Salvendy, G. (2009), “Measuring consumer perception of product creativity: Impact on satisfaction and purchasability”, Human Factors and Ergonomics in Manufacturing and Service Industries, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 223–240. https://doi.org/10.1002/hfm.20150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jung, R. E., Segall, J. M., Jeremy Bockholt, H., Flores, R. A., Smith, S. M., Chavez, R. S., and Haier, R. J. (2010), “Neuroanatomy of creativity”, Human brain mapping, Vol. 31 No. 3, pp. 398–409. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.20874Google ScholarPubMed
Kaufman, J. C., and Baer, J. (2012), “Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what is creative?”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 24 No. 1, pp. 83–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649237CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lu, C. C., and Luh, D. B. (2012), “A comparison of assessment methods and raters in product creativity”, Creativity research journal, Vol. 24 No. 4, pp. 331–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.730327CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Niu, W., and Sternberg, R. J (2001), “Cultural influences on artistic creativity and its evaluation”, International journal of psychology, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 225–241. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207590143000036CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Quin, K., and Besemer, S. P. (1989), “The development, reliability, and validity of the revised creative product semantic scale”, Creativity Research Journal, Vol. 2 No. 4, pp. 267–278.10.1080/10400418909534323CrossRefGoogle Scholar
O'Quin, K., and Besemer, S. P. (2006), “Using the creative product semantic scale as a metric for results-oriented business”, Creativity and Innovation Management, Vol. 15 No. 1, pp. 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8691.2006.00367.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petervari, J. (2018), The evaluation of creative ideas–analysing the differences between expert and novice judges, Doctoral dissertation, Queen Mary University of London.Google Scholar
Sarkar, P., and Chakrabarti, A. (2011), “Assessing design creativity”, Design studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 348–383. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A., Shen, F., and Smith, B. L. (2002), “Judging advertising creativity using the creative product semantic scale”, The Journal of Creative Behavior, Vol. 36 No. 4, pp. 241–253. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.2162-6057.2002.tb01067.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
White, A. and Smith, B. L. (2001), “Assessing advertising creativity using the creative product semantic scale”, Journal of Advertising Research, Vol. 41 No. 6, pp. 27–34. https://doi.org/10.2501/jar-41-6-27-34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yen, J. and Sun, C. (2008), “A study on the design teachers’ and students’ recognition of performance evaluation and evaluation Criteria”, Journal of Science and Technology, Vol. 17 No. 1, pp. 41–57.Google Scholar
Yilmaz, S., and Seifert, C. M. (2011), “Creativity through design heuristics: A case study of expert product design”, Design Studies, Vol. 32 No. 4, pp. 384–415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2011.01.003CrossRefGoogle Scholar