ArticleBritish journal of psychology (London, England : 1953)2026
Assessing novelty, feasibility and value of creative ideas with an unsupervised approach using GPT-4.
Article in British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953), 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- How AI can advance psychological science.British journal of psychology (London, England : 1953) · 2026Article
- Introducing the fusion innovation test as a new paradigm for studying realworld creative problem solving.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Application of large language models in disease diagnosis and treatment.Chinese medical journal · 2025Review
- Creativity and aesthetic evaluation of AI-generated artworks: bridging problems and methods from psychology to AI.Frontiers in psychology · 2025Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Creativity is defined by three key factors: novelty, feasibility and value. While many creativity tests focus primarily on novelty, they often neglect feasibility and value, thereby limiting their reflection of real-world creativity. In this study, we employ GPT-4, a large language model, to assess these three dimensions in a Japanese-language Alternative Uses Test (AUT). Using a crowdsourced evaluation method, we acquire ground truth data for 30 question items and test various GPT prompt designs. Our findings show that asking for multiple responses in a single prompt, using an 'explain first, rate later' design, is both cost-effective and accurate (r = .62, .59 and .33 for novelty, feasibility and value, respectively). Moreover, our method offers comparable accuracy to existing methods in assessing novelty, without the need for training data. We also evaluate additional models such as GPT-4 Turbo, GPT-4 Omni and Claude 3.5 Sonnet. Comparable performance across these models demonstrates the universal applicability of our prompt design. Our results contribute a straightforward platform for instant AUT evaluation and provide valuable ground truth data for future methodological research.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.