It works…but can we make it easier? A comparison of three subjective scoring indexes in the assessment of divergent thinking

Abstract

Abstract Silvia and colleagues (2008, 2009) proposed and evaluated alternative subjective scoring approaches (i.e., Top 2 and Snapshot) to assessing creativity on divergent thinking (DT) tasks, highlighting the advantages and compromises of using simpler scoring methods (vs. the more effortful and complex Average scoring system) when including DT as an ancillary or exploratory research variable. The current study replicates and extends Silvia et al.’s (2008, 2009) findings in a sample of N\u2009=\u2009202 undergraduate students who were also assessed on everyday creative activities and personality traits. Correlation and regression analyses were conducted to compare concurrent validities of scores yielded from the three subjective scoring techniques. On the whole, results further supported the superiority of Top 2 over Average scoring as well as the adequacy and promise of the most quick-and-simple Snapshot scoring method; Snapshot scoring showed equivalent validity compared to the most laborious Average scoring approach. Additionally, Openness to Experience was identified as the most consistent and strongest predictor of DT across all three scoring indexes, whereas intelligence (as indicated by SAT total scores) was found to be associated with the Top 2 index only. Implications and future research directions (e.g., more fine-grained analyses to determine whether and how extra complexity in scoring methods may translate into added practical value) are discussed.