Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36743636›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Measuring flexibility: A text-mining approach.

Katalin Grajzel, Selcuk Acar, Denis Dumas, Peter Organisciak, Kelly Berthiaume

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Katalin GrajzelUniversity of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Selcuk AcarUniversity of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States.
Denis DumasUniversity of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Peter OrganisciakUniversity of Denver, Denver, CO, United States.
Kelly BerthiaumeUniversity of North Texas, Denton, TX, United States.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In creativity research, ideational flexibility, the ability to generate ideas by shifting between concepts, has long been the focus of investigation. However, psychometric work to develop measurement procedures for flexibility has generally lagged behind other creativity-relevant constructs such as fluency and originality. Here, we build from extant research to theoretically posit, and then empirically validate, a text-mining based method for measuring flexibility in verbal divergent thinking (DT) responses. The empirical validation of this method is accomplished in two studies. In the first study, we use the verbal form of the Torrance Test of Creative Thinking (TTCT) to demonstrate that our novel flexibility scoring method strongly and positively correlates with traditionally used TTCT flexibility scores. In the second study, we conduct a confirmatory factor analysis using the Alternate Uses Task to show reliability and construct validity of our text-mining based flexibility scoring. In addition, we also examine the relationship between personality facets and flexibility of ideas to provide criterion validity of our scoring methodology. Given the psychometric evidence presented here and the practicality of automated scores, we recommend adopting this new method which provides a less labor-intensive and less costly objective measurement of flexibility.

Indexed as

creativitydivergent thinkingflexibilitypsychometricstext-mining

Identifiers

PMID36743636
PMCPMC9889931

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.