Abstract
The Consensual Assessment Technique (CAT) is one of the most highly regarded assessment tools in creativity, but it is often difficult and/or expensive to assemble the teams of experts required by the CAT. Some researchers have tried using nonexpert raters in their place, but the validity of replacing experts with nonexperts has not been adequately tested. Expert (n = 10) and nonexpert (n = 106) creativity ratings of 205 poems were compared and found to be quite different, making the simple replacement of experts by nonexpert raters suspect. Nonexpert raters' judgments of creativity were inconsistent (showing low interrater reliability) and did not match those of the expert raters. Implications are discussed, including the appropriate selection of expert raters for different kinds of creativity assessment.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
