Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38669301›Full record

ReviewPsychological reports2026

VIEW: An Assessment of Problem-Solving Style - 20 Years of Progress.

Scott G Isaksen, Christian Hoßbach

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychological reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

2 authors.

Scott G IsaksenDepartment of Leadership and Organizational Behavior, BI-Norwegian Business School, Orchard Park, NY, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-5145-1341
Christian HoßbachDepartment of Human Resources Management and Business Governance, Martin-Luther-Universitat Halle-Wittenberg, Halle, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While the ability to solve complex problems creatively is among the most important skills for contemporary jobs, understanding individual differences how people prefer to engage in individual or collaborative problem-solving becomes increasingly important. VIEW an assessment of problem-solving style has been specifically designed to measure these preferences at the intersection of creativity and problem-solving. This article summarizes the progress that has been made in the past twenty years of research since the instrument was launched. The available evidence shows that the instrument meets contemporary standards of reliability and validity justifying its application in research and practice. Looking ahead, we conclude with promising areas for further developing the assessment and future research on problem-solving styles that addresses emerging phenomena such as collaborating across hybrid work environments or using artificial intelligence tools.

Indexed as

CreativityProblem SolvingHumansPsychometricsReproducibility of Resultscognitive styleCreativityindividual differencespreferencesproblem-solving style

Identifiers

PMID38669301
PMCPMC12953706

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.