O'Quin and Besemer had several article on Product analysis in the Creativity Research Journal, and in the Encyclopedia of Creativity (1999 or 2012). Quite a number of product criteria are explored in the CRJ. And I would think the Runco & Jaeger (2012) "standard definition of creativity" would be helpful--also the Creativity Research Journal. I had one method I used with kids' art products, if that would be useful. Just let me know.

Thanks Prof Runco, it is really a valuable argument on how many criterion about creativity. My understanding in psychometric view is if creativity is a single criterion. It must be multifaceted domains. But if it is multi-criterion, its nature will be similar to language. Creativity will having multiple construct and relationship of difficulties. I am trying to develop a multiple constructs structure of creativity to see whether creative people can identify or to be evaluated those different latent trait from Rasch or IRT scale.

I would like to hear more about your work and would be happy to help if I can.

You can go different ways--few or many criteria. Most people prefer 2-3 criteria, but sometimes one is used (and it is usually originality or novelty, and thus not perfectly adequate for "creativity"). But there are matrices and product approaches that sometimes have more than a dozen criteria! Either approach, few or many criteria, can be informative. I really think it depends.

You say different latent traits, so you hope to identify one or very few latent traits and then see if those are useful?

I observed many creative designers that they actually may not be identified (explain) creativity conception. Some design academic may good in identified creative conception but not really can create high level creative ideas. Then, I found creative students no need to teach them how to create creative ideas. Not really creative students, you cannot teach them to be more creative.

It was an reality that teachers from art or design cannot really proving their students creativity cause from teaching. Most of the solution in learning environment that teachers demonstrated their creativity thought to students or guide them in divergent thinking or problem solving. These kind of suggestion actually unfair to other students. In educational perspective, students cannot direct compare their ability from different purpose of ideas and different difficulties of the purpose.

I found that raters judges students' creativity do not appropriated to use in classroom setting, because its reliability and validity. It is almost impossible to find out who is the most creative in a classroom. Then most of the assessment can not use for pretest and post test due to the ideas of items different. Memory effect or ceiling effect will limited the estimation.

So after those consideration, I am purposed to apply educational theory to develop a cognitive domain measurement to assess students conception of creativity.

First, I must say that the problem of Pre- and Post-test is easy to get around. I make tests and we often develop parallel versions so Pre and Post can be compared.

Also, if you are interested in students' conceptions of creativity, you might want to read some of the articles on Social Validation and Implicit Theories of creativity. I can attach some examples. Their intent: to use real theories and definitions of creativity rather than relying on academic theories.

That last email to you was sent before I could add other papers. I can send others, if you think the Social Validiation/ implicit theory approach might be useful for your work.

Appreciated you comments and reading. Will read first. ^____^

With my colleagues James Kaufman and Arthur Cropley I developed the Creative Solution Diagnosis Scale (CSDS) - see two related studies published in 2011 and 2012 in my profile. This is specifically designed for measuring the creativity of products.