Scoring Originality in Mathematical Problem-Solving: Comparison of Criterion-Referenced Scoring with Alternate Measures.

A Kadir Bahar, Iclal Can, C June Maker, Rabia Sipahi, Yasemin Sipahi

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland), 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

5 authors.

A Kadir BaharDepartment of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-5825-3017

Iclal CanGuidance and Psychological Counseling Program, Middle East Technical University Northern Cyprus Campus, 99738 Güzelyurt, Türkiye.ORCID 0000-0003-0466-9687

C June MakerDisability & Psychoeducational Studies, College of Education, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-3938-8917

Rabia SipahiDepartment of Finance, University of Illinois Chicago, Chicago, IL 60607, USA.ORCID 0009-0003-2576-4090

Yasemin SipahiDepartment of Educational Psychology, College of Education, University of Georgia, Athens, GA 30602, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-9719-1952

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which criterion-referenced originality scores are related to scores generated through alternative measures of originality (i.e., sample-based scoring and expert-referenced scoring) in mathematical problem-solving tasks. Drawing on data from 520 students enrolled in a public elementary school situated in a culturally diverse metropolitan area of New South Wales, Australia, the criterion-referenced approach was compared psychometrically with sample-based and expert-referenced scoring approaches. Another focus for analysis was on how each scoring system describes the relationship between originality and fluency. The results are important for ongoing debates about creativity and educational assessment, highlighting the implications of scoring methods for the interpretation of students' original mathematical thinking. The study contributes important information for the design of fair and meaningful assessment and scoring practices.

Indexed as

creativitycreativity assessmentmathematical creativityoriginalityscoring originalityteaching for creativity

Identifiers

PMID41750058

DOI10.3390/bs16020249

PMCPMC12938549

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.