Title: Creative self-belief responses versus manual and automated Guilford alternate use task

scoring: A cross-sectional study

Running Title: Creative self-belief versus AUT

Authors: Helané Wahbeh,1,2 Cedric Cannard,1 Garret Yount,1 Arnaud Delorme,1,3 Dean Radin1

1. Research Department, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Novato, California, USA

2. Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, Oregon, USA

3. SCCN, INC, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, California, USA

Corresponding Author:

Helané Wahbeh

Institute of Noetic Sciences

7250 Redwood Blvd., Suite 208

Novato, CA 94945-327

hwahbeh@noetic.org

707-779-8230

Competing Interests Statement: All authors have no competing interests to declare.

Title: Creative self-belief responses versus manual and automated Guilford alternate use task

scoring: A cross-sectional study

Abstract

While behavioral tasks like the Guilford Alternate Use task (AUT) are the gold standard for

quantifying creativity levels and clarifying how they relate to subjective, self-report ratings would

contribute to the creativity assessment field. If a single-item measure were available to reliably

and efficiently assess one’s creativity level, researchers and educators with limited time and

resources could use the simpler and shorter self-report item. This study’s primary objective was to

evaluate the construct validity of a single-item creative self-belief (CSB) measure by comparing it

with AUT fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores that were scored using manual

and automated methods. It also aimed to assess the single-item CSB’s convergent validity and test-

retest reliability. In addition, the relationship between the manual and automated AUT scoring

methods was evaluated. Data from 1,179 adult participants collected in a more extensive parent

study were used for these analyses. CSB was weakly correlated to manual fluency (rho = .13, p

=.004, n-505) and manual originality (rho = .11, p =.01, n-505) but no other creativity measures.

CSB was correlated with the personality indices of openness to experience (rho = .49, p <.000005,

n-1022), extraversion (rho = .20, p <.000005, n-1021), neuroticism (rho = -.20, p <.000005, n-

1018), agreeableness (rho = .14, p <.000005, n-1021), and conscientiousness (rho = .14, p

<.000005, n-1023). CSB test-retest reliability, assessed using entries from participants who

completed two sessions, was high (Intraclass Correlation 78.6, 95% CI [74.8 - 81.8]). The manual

elaboration score was strongly correlated with the automated Open Creativity Scoring with

Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI) elaboration score (rho = .76, p <.000005, n-520), and manual

1
Creative self-belief versus AUT

originality scores were correlated with OCSAI originality scores but less strongly (rho = .21, p

<.000005, n-520). These findings support using multiple measures to assess creativity, not relying

solely on this single-item CSB measure. However, the single-item CSB item may be helpful in

limited-time situations and has demonstrated positive content validity, test-retest reliability, and a

significant, albeit weak, correlation to AUT fluency and flexibility. This study also supports the

continued use of OCSAI to score elaboration and originality in AUT.

Keywords: creativity, subjective, objective, Guilford Alternate Use Task (AUT), creative self-

belief, artificial intelligence, Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI),

SemDis

2
Creative self-belief versus AUT

INTRODUCTION

Creativity can be experienced and measured in many ways.

Creativity is a multifaceted concept that manifests itself in various forms. Artistic creativity

involves expressing oneself through various art forms like painting, sculpture, music, dance, and

writing, tapping into emotions and imagination (Morriss-Kay, 2010). Scientific creativity entails

individuals thinking outside the box and employing their innovative thinking and problem-

solving skills to make groundbreaking discoveries, theories, and advancements in fields such as

science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (sometimes termed “lateral thinking”)

(Stumpf, 1995). Practical creativity involves finding innovative and functional solutions to

everyday problems and challenges, often seen in design, engineering, architecture, and fashion

(D. Cropley, 2016). Creativity encompasses a wide range of expressions, and there is no single

agreed-upon definition. In simple terms, creativity can be defined as the ability to produce work

that is both novel (i.e., original, unexpected) and appropriate (i.e., useful, adaptive concerning

task constraints; Amabile, 1983). It is composed of three main components: 1) expertise

(knowledge, technical skills, and talent in a particular domain), creative thinking (the ability to

think in novel ways, which includes a flexible and imaginative approach to problem-solving),

and motivation (the drive and passion for the task at hand, which can include intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation; Amabile, 1983).

Because creativity is multifaceted, it can be challenging to accurately measure (A. J. Cropley,

2000; Kaufman & Baer, 2012; Runco, 1986). Researchers have developed several methods and

approaches to assess different aspects of creativity, such as evaluating an individual’s ability to

3
Creative self-belief versus AUT

generate multiple solutions or ideas for a given problem (i.e., divergent thinking tests), assessing

an individual’s ability to establish connections between apparently unrelated words (i.e., Remote

Associates Test; Mednick, 1968), rating the quality, originality, and impact of creative works, or

assessing cognitive processes underlying creative thinking, such as insight, associative thinking,

or analogical reasoning (i.e., creative cognition tasks). Creativity assessments are usually

classified as subjective, scored based on self-report or expert judgment, or objective, scored

based on quantitative measures, such as counting the number of associations made (Park et al.,

2016). Of course, no single measure can capture all its aspects, so combining different

measurement approaches (e.g., subjective and objective assessments) may provide a more

comprehensive understanding of an individual’s creativity.

Subjective measures can provide advantages, such as being easy to administer and allowing

insight into personal beliefs, motivations, and confidence levels regarding participants’ creative

abilities (Silvia et al., 2012). However, they also have limitations. Subjective measures are

susceptible to bias (Elsbach & Kramer, 2003; Madjar et al., 2002; Shin et al., 2012) because they

rely on self-perception, can be influenced by self-esteem issues and social desirability (Hébert et

al., 2001) and may not align with objective measures or expert evaluations. Subjective scores can

only be as reliable as the individual's level of meta-awareness regarding their creative abilities.

This means that their capacity to objectively observe their own skills plays an important role in

the accuracy of subjective scores. In addition, creativity measures consisting of one single item

(e.g., creative self-belief questions like “How creative are you?), may not capture the

multifaceted nature of creativity, provide limited information, and do not allow for a deep

understanding of the various dimensions or domains of creativity. Ideally, subjective ratings

4
Creative self-belief versus AUT

would be complemented with other measures, such as objective assessments, expert evaluations,

or real-world creative achievements, for a more comprehensive understanding of an individual's

creativity.

Creativity is most commonly evaluated with divergent thinking (DT) tests (Kaufman et al., 2008;

Plucker et al., 2010). DT is a fundamental component of creative thought and problem-solving

and DT tests assess an individual’s ability to generate multiple solutions or ideas for a given

problem. DT supports the creative process by enabling individuals to explore different

possibilities, perspectives, and connections by encouraging individuals to break free from the

constraints of linear thinking and to embrace non-traditional approaches. Overall, DT plays a

crucial role in unlocking and nourishing creative potential, leading to the development of new

and imaginative outcomes.

The Guilford Alternate Uses Task (AUT)

The AUT (Guilford, 1967; Guilford et al., 1978) is a gold standard test for DT. It is a widely

used creativity assessment tool that encourages individuals to generate alternative uses for

common objects. The task involves presenting participants with an image of an everyday object,

such as a brick or a paperclip, and asking them to provide as many uses (or functions) for that

object as possible within a given time frame. The task is usually scored by human raters who are

asked to review the corresponding answers and rate them on fluency (number of ideas),

flexibility (number of categories of ideas), elaboration (number of details provided about ideas),

and originality (number of new and unusual ideas). By requiring individuals to think beyond the

customary purpose of an object and explore novel and imaginative possibilities, the AUT

5
Creative self-belief versus AUT

provides valuable insights into an individual's capacity for originality and fluency of ideas

(Runco, 1999). However, because the responses are text-based, manual data manipulation and

rating are time-intensive and expensive, which limits its use in large populations. Also, human

rater judgments are subjective and influenced by their own creativity levels, introducing bias into

scores. While attempts to reduce variability are made through structured methods, human rater

training, and using multiple raters, the effort required to adequately score the AUT can prevent it

from being used. Some have suggested alternative human rating methods, such as the Top 2

scoring method, which asks participants to choose their most creative responses and then only

considers the top two (Silvia et al., 2008). However, this method has been criticized because it

artificially truncates the creative process (Forthmann et al., 2020). A reliable method of

automated AUT scoring would allow it to be used more often and in much larger studies, thus

advancing our understanding of human creativity.

Automated scoring methods for the AUT

Some researchers have developed automated ways to score the AUT. The performance of an

automated system is evaluated by comparing it to human ratings (i.e., high-performance

automated system scores will more strongly correlate with the gold-standard human ratings). For

example, Beaty et al. (2021) evaluated the use of semantic distance as an automated scoring

method for the AUT. They assessed top-performing automated semantic models and found that a

latent semantic distance factor strongly predicted creativity and novelty ratings across a range of

creativity tasks, including the AUT. They also provided a freely available program for

computing semantic distance (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Dumas et al., 2021). Others have also

evaluated semantic distance as an automated scoring method, finding that it predicted average

6
Creative self-belief versus AUT

creativity ratings (Hass, 2017). One research group at the University of Amsterdam (Tanis et al.,

2017) developed an algorithm to automatically score AUT responses using a system based on

expert ratings of similar responses and showed that it reliably scored AUT responses similarly to

experts.

While automated methods like text-mining algorithms and semantic distance provided some

advantage in time and resources to manual human rating (and are correlated with human ratings),

a more sophisticated and far superior automated method has recently been developed. With the

explosion of artificial intelligence (AI) natural language processing technology, AI has shown

promise for AUT scoring. Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI),

developed by Organisciak and colleagues at the University of Denver, used neural network-

based large language models (LLM) trained on 27,000 human-judged AUT responses. The

model, tested on new AUT data, showed creativity scores that strongly correlated with human

ratings of the same data (r = .81), far exceeding the performance of any other automated system

to date (Organisciak et al., 2023).

The current study

The current exploratory study addressed two gaps in the literature. While task-oriented

assessments like the AUT are the gold standard measures, clarifying how they relate to

subjective self-report ratings would contribute to the creativity assessment field. If a single-item

creative self-belief rating (“In general, how creative do you consider yourself?”) demonstrated a

strong association with the manually scored AUT, researchers and educators with limited time

and resources can use the simpler and shorter self-report item. Thus, this study evaluated the

7
Creative self-belief versus AUT

psychometric features of construct validity, convergent validity, and test-retest reliability of a

single-item creative self-belief measure (CSB). Construct validity refers to whether the measure

truly assesses the construct intended to be measured and was assessed by comparing CSB scores

with AUT scores. Convergent validity, an aspect of construct validity, measures the degree to

which two measures are related. In this case, most studies demonstrate that specific personality

indices are related to self-perceptions of creativity, such as openness to experience of the Big

Five personality system (da Costa et al., 2015; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). Thus, our CSB item

should correlate with the personality factors already known to relate to creativity. In addition, the

CSB should be consistent over time, reflecting stable scores over multiple administrations.

Finally, with the introduction of automated AUT scoring, the question of how well automated

scoring aligns with manual human-rater scoring can be studied in more detail. The specific

objectives of this study were to evaluate the following research questions and hypotheses:

1. What is the relationship between the CSB item and manual and automated AUT

scores?

Hypothesis: The creative self-belief item will significantly correlate with at least one of the AUT

values (construct validity).

2. Does the CSB item demonstrate convergent validity with personality indices?

Hypothesis: The CSB item significantly correlates with personality inventory measures,

confirming relationships previously observed in the literature.

3. What is the test-retest reliability of the CSB item?

8
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Hypothesis: The CSB item will have a high test-retest reliability.

4. What is the relationship between manual and automated AUT scores?

Hypothesis: The manual and automated scores of AUT will be significantly correlated.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

The data for this study were collected as part of a larger study between April 3, 2018 and

November 4, 2020, the results of which are reported elsewhere (Cannard et al., 2021b, 2021a;

Wahbeh, Vieten, et al., 2022; Wahbeh, Yount, et al., 2022). Thus, these analyses are secondary,

exploratory analyses, and the relevant methods are briefly repeated for expedience. Participants

completed pre- and post-workshop questionnaires and tasks assessing various outcome measures,

including creativity (See Measures section). Participants included adults 18 years or older who

could read and understand the consent form, complete the survey and tasks, and had access to the

survey online or at the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) EarthRise Learning Center (Petaluma,

CA). The study excluded minors, those unable to understand the consent form or those with

acute or chronic illnesses that precluded the completion of measurements. All study activities

were approved by the IONS Institutional Review Board (IORG#0003743). For this secondary

analysis, records were included if participants completed the Guilford Alternate Use Task (see

Table 1 for Participant Demographics).

Table 1. Participant demographics

Measure Category M ± SD % N

9
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Age Years 56.2 ± 13.2 1,153

Education Years 1.3 ± 3.0 1,052

Gender Male 23.2 266

Female 76.2 875

Other 1.0 8

Race Asian/Pacific Islander 5.8 61

Black or African American 2.2 23

Hispanic 4.3 45

White/Caucasian 83.9 883

Other 3.8 40

Relationship In Relationship 61.5 638

Not in Relationship 38.5 399

Measures

Creative Self-Belief (CSB) - All participants rated, “In general, how creative do you consider

yourself?” on a slider scale anchored by “Not at all creative” (0) to “Very creative” (100).

Participants did not see the numerical value associated with their answer choice, and the anchor

was always first displayed in the middle of the scale. This measure resulted in one value ranging

from 0-100.

Guildford Alternate Uses Task - (Guilford, 1967) The task was administered on Google

Chromebooks at the Earthrise Learning Center or online on their own devices. Participants were

10
Creative self-belief versus AUT

shown one of four images of a common item that were randomly selected (Newspaper, Brick,

Envelope, Wire Clothes Hanger). Participants were given 2 minutes to type into a text field as

many uses of the item as quickly as possible. A bar indicated how much time was left in real

time. The instructions were, “You are about to be shown an object or objects. Please list as many

ways to use the object(s) as possible within 2 minutes.” The answers were manually reviewed for

validity and separated by commas. “Use” is defined as one named use for the item, and

“response” is defined as all the uses the participants gave in one AUT trial.

Manual Scoring of AUT data - Three reviewers manually scored a subset of the total AUT

responses for fluency, flexibility, and elaboration. We took a qualitative analysis approach to

scoring, where two student volunteers first reviewed the responses and made independent

assessments. Then, a third, more experienced reviewer evaluated all uses where the students’

values did not match to choose the final value. Inter-rater reliability was assessed with

Krippendorf’s alpha (Zapf et al., 2016). Please see Supplemental Data for the scoring codebook

used by the raters.

The fluency score is the number of valid uses and was considered a continuous variable.

Unacceptable uses are ones that are not possible with that item. The two student rater

scores matched for 64% (n-479) of the records. Of those that did not match, there was M

= 1.18, SD = 1.39 (range 1-7) difference in scores. Interrater reliability was good (percent

agreement 72% with 95% CI [69-74%]; Krippendorf’s alpha 0.70, 95% CI [66-73%].

11
Creative self-belief versus AUT

The flexibility score is assessed by categorizing the uses by category and was considered

a continuous variable. For the brick example, “building a house,” “building a chimney,”

and “building stove” would all be in the same “building” category, whereas “building a

house” (building),” throwing at a person” (weapon), and “a doorstop” (weight) would be

three separate categories. The two student rater scores matched for 51% (n-379) of the

responses. Of those that did not match, there was M = 1.76, SD =1.55 (range 1-15)

difference in scores. Interrater reliability was fair (percent agreement 62% with 95% CI

[59-65%]; Krippendorf’s alpha 0.54, 95% CI [50-57%].

The elaboration score is assessed by rating the amount of detail in each participant’s

response overall as a 0, 1, or 2 and was considered an ordinal variable. For example, “a

doorstop” would receive a score of 0, whereas “a doorstop to prevent a door slamming

shut in a strong wind” would receive a score of 2 (one for the explanation of a door

slamming and two for further detail about the wind), and a rating of 1 would be in

between those examples. The elaboration for all the listed uses in a response was taken

into account, and one elaboration score was ascribed for each response. Scores matched

for 76% (n-568) of the responses. Of those that did not match, there was M = 0.69, SD =

0.48 (range 1-2) difference in scores. Interrater reliability was good (percent agreement

84% with 95% CI [82-86%]; Krippendorf’s alpha 0.74, 95% CI [70-77%].

The originality score is evaluated by assessing the originality of the participant’s uses

overall compared to those of others in the dataset. Originality was team scored as part of

a Hackation workshop. The Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS) Hackation, a contraction

12
Creative self-belief versus AUT

of Hackathon and vacation, occurred on December 15 and 16, 2018. Participants were

invited to analyze a collection of data collected at IONS, one of them being the AUT. The

team reviewed all the responses for each image and generated three originality response

categories (0, 1, 2) with a list of uses representing each category. Then, the team viewed

all the uses in each response and gave it an overall originality rating (i.e., ideational pool

scoring). Ideational pool scoring has advantages and disadvantages. It reduces the burden

on raters by requiring fewer ratings, but it also makes each judgment more complex,

leading to disagreement among raters (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019). The team was

required to come to a consensus on their originality score for each response, and the final

score was considered an ordinal variable.

Automated Scoring of AUT data - Automated scores for elaboration and originality were

calculated using Open Creativity Scoring by the University of Denver.

The automated elaboration score was calculated using the 'whitespace' method and was

considered a continuous variable. This method simply counts words based on spaces. For

example, “the cat chased the dog” would count as five space-separated words (i.e., the,

cat, chased, the, dog). Contractions and hyphenated words count as one word.

Whitespace is the most straightforward automated elaboration method.

The automated originality was conducted using Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial

Intelligence (OCSAI), a fine-tuned set of large language models (LLMs of the type of

ChatGPT) that greatly improves on semantic distance scoring (Organisciak et al., 2023)

13
Creative self-belief versus AUT

and is freely available. Automated scoring utilizing LLMs operates through supervised

learning, where models are trained using prior examples of scored uses. As an alternative

to semantic system scoring, this approach was first proposed by Organisciak et al. (2023).

The current models (ada, babbage, curie, davinci) are based on the ChatGPT-3

architecture as reported in the same study (Organisciak, 2023). The OCSAI Davinci LLM

model was used in this current study because it performed substantially better than

semantic scoring and the other three AI models and correlated more strongly with human

judges, as Organisciak et al. (2023) demonstrated. For example, for over 20 different

AUT word prompts, OCSAI Davinci LLM had an r value of .80 in relation to human

judgments compared to .19 for SemDis (Organisciak, 2023). Considering the far superior

performance of LLM models, this was the only automated scoring method used in this

analysis. The OCSAI Davinci LLM originality scores range from 1 to 5, where 1

indicates a highly unoriginal use, 5 represents a highly original use, and 3 represents the

median originality level and was considered an ordinal variable.

Personality - The convergent validity of the creativity items was evaluated by the personality

measure, the Big Five Inventory - 10 (BFI-10) by Rammstedt (Rammstedt, 2007). The BFI-10

measures the "Big Five" personality traits and consists of ten items, with two items for each of

the five personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, emotional stability,

and openness to experience. It provides a concise and reliable measure of individuals’

personality characteristics. This psychometric measure has undergone rigorous research and

exhibits high internal consistency, validity, and reliability. It has been extensively used in various

research studies, clinical settings, and psychological assessments.

14
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Statistical Analyses

Means, standard deviations (SD), percentages, and frequencies were calculated for continuous

and categorical variables. Continuous variables were evaluated for normality and found to be

non-normal (Shapiro–Wilk p < 0.05); thus, non-parametric analyses were performed, such as the

Spearman rank-order correlation, which can be used to compare the relationship between

differing variable types (e.g., one continuous variable and one ordinal variable). Statistical

analyses were conducted using Stata 15.0 (StataCorp, LLC, College Station, TX). The data for

the four different image prompts were collapsed.

Data Cleaning - Records were reviewed for duplicates. If there were multiple records by the

same person, the first two iterations were retained regardless of the image. Two datasets were

created for the analyses: one with unique individuals and their scores before their workshop for

research questions 1, 2 and 4, and another with paired data for individuals with scores before and

after their workshop for research question 3. There were no evident outliers upon data

visualization, and minimum and maximum values constrained data values for most measures

(e.g., CSB ranged from 0 to 100).

Missing Data - Participants were not required to complete all questions; thus, there were missing

values. In addition, manual scoring was not conducted on all records because of limited

resources, and the non-random nature of the missing data did not allow for multiple imputation

procedures. All analyses show the participant numbers included.

15
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Research Question #1: What is the relationship between the CSM item and the manual and

automated AUT scores?

Spearman rank-order correlations were conducted for the CSB item and the following variables:

manually scored fluency, flexibility, elaboration, originality, and automated elaboration and

originality scores. We hypothesized that CSB would significantly correlate with at least one of

the AUT values, indicative of at least one dimension of creativity captured by subjective self-

report. A False Discovery Rate (FDR) multiple comparison correction was applied to control for

type 1 error (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

Research Question #2: Does the CSB item demonstrate convergent validity with

personality indices?

Spearman rank-order correlations were conducted between CSB and the BFI-10 personality

categories of extraversion, agreeableness, openness to experience, neuroticism, and

conscientiousness. We hypothesized that CSB would be significantly correlated with personality

inventory measures aligned with previous research in the following order: openness to

experience > extraversion > conscientiousness > neuroticism > agreeableness (da Costa et al.,

2015; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). FDR multiple comparison correction was applied.

Research Question #3: What is the test-retest reliability of the CSB item?

Test–retest reliability was assessed with an Intraclass Correlation Coefficient (ICC; Aldridge et

al., 2017), evaluating the relationship between the two administrations of the CSB. ICC value

16
Creative self-belief versus AUT

ranges from 0 to 1, where higher values indicate greater reliability. We hypothesized that the

creative self-belief item would have a high test-retest reliability.

Research Question #4: What is the relationship between manual and automated AUT

scores?

Spearman rank-order correlations (rho) were used to evaluate the relationship between manual

and automated scores for elaboration and originality. Elaboration and originality were the only

parameters evaluated because the OCS program does provide fluency or flexibility scores. We

hypothesized that the manual and automated scores AUT would be significantly correlated. FDR

multiple comparison correction was applied.

RESULTS

The means and standard deviations (SD) of the subjective and objective creativity scores are

shown in Table 2. The frequency for the AUT prompts was as follows: Newspaper 299 (25.4%),

Brick 297 (25.3%), Envelope 263 (22.3%), and Hangar 320 (27.1%).

Table 2. Means, standard deviations of subjective and objective creativity scores for unique

records

Measure Mean SD N

Creative Self-Belief 75.9 20.4 1,139

Manual Fluency 9.4 3.7 520

Manual Flexibility 4.4 1.5 520

17
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Manual Elaboration 0.7 0.6 520

Manual Originality 0.3 0.6 520

OCSAI Originality 2.1 0.5 1,179

OCSAI Elaboration 2.7 1.4 1,179

Note: The Ns are different because some participants completed the AUT but did not answer the

CSB. Only 520 AUT responses were manually scored, whereas we could obtain automated

scores for all completed AUTs.

Research Question #1: What is the relationship between the CSB item and the manual and

automated AUT scores for unique records?

CSB was significantly but weakly correlated to manual fluency (rho = .13, p =.004, n-505) and

manual originality (rho = .11, p =.01, n-505), which remained significant after a multiple

comparison correction. CSB was not correlated with the other creativity measures: manual

flexibility (rho = -.10, p =.83, n-505), manual elaboration (rho = .05, p = .30, n-505), and

OCSAI elaboration (rho = -.02, p =.49, n-1139) and OCSAI originality scores (rho = 0.05, p

=.10, n-1139).

Research Question #2: Does the CSB item demonstrate convergent validity with

personality indices?

CSB was correlated with openness to experience (rho = .49, p <.000005, n-1022), extraversion

(rho = .20, p <.000005, n-1021), neuroticism (rho = -.20, p <.000005, n-1018), agreeableness

(rho = .14, p <.000005, n-1021), and conscientiousness (rho = .14, p <.000005, n-1023). These

remained significant after a multiple comparison correction.

18
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Research Question #3: What is the test-retest reliability of the CSB item?

CSB values were similar for tests one and two (1: M = 74.9, SD = 20.3; 2: M = 76.1, SD = 19.2).

The two CSB administrations were highly correlated (ICC = .79, 95% CI [.75 - .82]). The time

between administrations one and two ranged from 0 days (i.e., participants completed the AUT a

second time on the same day after a few hours) to 407 days (i.e., participants completed the AUT

more than a year later). The mean number of days between administration was 34.5 (SD = 54.2).

Research Question #4: What is the relationship between manual and automated AUT

scores?

The manual elaboration score was strongly correlated with the OCSAI elaboration score (rho =

.76, p <.000005, n-520). Manual originality scores were correlated with OCSAI originality

scores but less strongly (rho = .21, p <.000005, n-520). These remained significant after a

multiple comparison correction.

DISCUSSION

These analyses evaluated the construct, convergent, and test-retest reliability of a single-item

CSB and the relationship between manual and automated AUT scoring methods. We found that

the CSB significantly correlated with manual fluency and originality, multiple personality

indices, and was reliable across administrations. Further, we found significant correlations

between manual and automated AUT scoring methods.

19
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Our population’s mean effect of 9.4 for the average fluency score aligned with a recent meta-

analysis encompassing 114 effects from 31 studies at 9.08, 95% CI [7.54, 10.61] (Ogurlu et al.,

2023). This metric is the most congruent with the task instructions because we asked participants

to list as many uses they could think of as quickly as possible. Instruction nuances have

demonstrated differences in scoring metrics. For example, instructions that ask participants to list

as many responses as possible result in higher fluency but lower originality. In contrast,

instructions that explicitly ask for creative responses result in the opposite pattern (Nusbaum &

Silvia, 2011). Our scoring approach emphasized the quality of the response because

inappropriate uses were excluded from the fluency count, as has been recommended (Reiter-

Palmon et al., 2019). Thus, we focused on response quality rather than just productivity. The

flexibility scores of our participants (M = 4.4, SD = 1.5) were similar to some values reported by

others (M = 4.094, SD = 1.435; Ramakrishnan et al., 2022; M = 4.9, SD = 2.2; Organisciak et al.,

2023; HMSL_Flexibility_scores_all), but lower than others (M = 16.9, SD = 6.47; van

Hooijdonk et al., 2022). Likely, this variation is due to variability in scoring by study and

population differences. Similar variation is observed for the elaboration scores, with our values

(M = 0.7, SD = 0.6) being lower than another study (M = 0.1, SD = 0.3; Organisciak et al., 2023;

HMSL_Elaboration_scores_all). In addition, our population was older than the traditional

college-aged students often recruited for creativity studies (Said-Metwaly et al., 2020). Future

studies would benefit from establishing normative values in large populations and publishing

mean values and standard deviations.

Research Question #1: What is the relationship between the CSB item and the manual and

automated AUT scores?

20
Creative self-belief versus AUT

We observed a significant correlation between the single-item CSB and the AUT manual fluency

score, meaning that people who thought they were more creative could generate more uses in

two minutes than those who did not. These results support our hypothesis that at least one AUT

dimension would be significantly correlated. However, most standards, such as a review of

correlation coefficient strength attribution by Akoglu, would consider this relationship weak

(Akoglu, 2018). Therefore, while there was a relationship between participants’ perception of

their creativity and the number of appropriate uses they generated for the AUT, it is uncertain

how meaningful this significant relationship actually is in practical terms. There were no

significant relationships with the other scores, either manually or automatically generated. In

addition, when reflecting on their creativity level, people may consider fluency but also likely

consider other dimensions, such as arts and flow states, that the AUT does not capture. The AUT

is highly cognitive and may be influenced by unknown factors such as participants’ expertise.

For instance, a contractor may display more creativity when prompted with a brick than an artist

prompted with a newspaper. Thus, the significant but weak correlation between the single-item

CSB and the AUT, as evaluated in this study, likely reflects this nuanced, complex relationship.

Research Question #2: Does the CSB item demonstrate convergent validity with

personality indices?

The CSB item had a significant relationship with all the subjective self-reported personality

indices reflecting previous studies and supporting our hypotheses. For example, it was most

strongly correlated with openness to experience. One second-order meta-analysis of seven meta-

analyses found that openness to experience was related to creativity (r = .22; da Costa et al.,

2015), and another more recent meta-analysis found an even stronger relationship (r = .47;

21
Creative self-belief versus AUT

(Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). Similarly, we saw results aligned with Karwowski et al., for

extraversion (r =.26), conscientiousness (r =.13), neuroticism (r = -.12), and agreeableness (r =

.07; Karwowski & Lebuda, 2016). These similarities are especially pertinent because Karwowski

evaluated these personality indices with CSB, which encompasses the constructs of creative self-

efficacy, creative personal identity, and self-rated creativity, the last of which is most relevant to

our study. So, despite the CSB item not strongly correlating with the AUT scores as shown in the

previous research question, it demonstrated convergent validity with respect to similar

relationships to personality indices that other studies have found.

Research Question #3: What is the test-retest reliability of the CSB item?

Finally, the subjective creativity item demonstrated strong test-retest reliability, highlighting that

participant’s perceptions of their creativity were consistent and stable over time. Test-retest

reliability is important for the consistency of CSB over time and its use to identify the true

change in longitudinal studies and assess intervention effects.

Research Question #4: What is the relationship between manual and automated AUT

scores?

We found that the manual and automated elaboration scores were strongly correlated (Akoglu,

2018), supporting our hypothesis. Elaboration is likely more straightforward to evaluate since

there were only three levels for the manual scoring, and the automated methods used word

counts for each use to generate the score. Thus, less nuanced judgment was needed. These results

add to the literature demonstrating that automated methods are useful to evaluate elaboration.

Our manual originality scores were also significantly correlated with the automated originality

22
Creative self-belief versus AUT

scores, but weakly. This may be due to the aggregation of uses the human raters did as part of

their process. That is, they gave one score per response regardless of the variation encompassed

by the uses listed for each response. For the automated originality scoring, we separated each

use, obtained an automated score, and then averaged the use originality scores for each response.

Perhaps the human raters’ less structured process to evaluate the originality of the whole

response created greater differences in the manual versus automated scores. Regardless, these

results supported our hypothesis that manual and automated elaboration and originality scores

would be significantly correlated, although the elaboration relationship was stronger.

Limitations

Certain limitations may affect the interpretation of these results. First, the study involved

secondary analyses of a previously collected dataset. Therefore, future studies should aim to

repeat these analyses as primary research questions incorporating optimal study design to answer

those questions. Second, the dataset was incomplete, as not all participants answered all the

questions, and the number of participants varied for different research questions. These missing

data may have influenced the results. Multiple imputation methods were considered but deemed

inappropriate due to the amount and non-randomness of the missing data for the manual scoring.

Some have suggested that averaging scores of four reviewers allows for treating the values as

continuous rather than ordinal, thus more accurately reflecting the spectrum of uses (Dumas et

al., 2021). Instead, we used a qualitative approach with three reviewers.

Perhaps most importantly, the entire dataset could not be manually scored due to limited

resources. Ideally, we would manually scored all of the responses, but this was not possible, so it

23
Creative self-belief versus AUT

motivated our use of automated scoring methods. We also did not have other CSB questionnaire

data (e.g., the 11-item Short Scale of Creative Self; Karwowski, 2012; Karwowski et al., 2013)

to compare against the single item we did collect. Future studies would attempt to validate the

single item against a longer, more nuanced scale. We chose the gold-standard AUT as our

comparator for content validity. However, the AUT comes with its own limitations, such as

cultural bias favoring certain cultural groups over others (Kaufman et al., 2008) and capturing

the divergent thinking aspect of creativity but not others (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).

Moreover, we did not take out repeated uses for the OCSAI score; scoring was done in

aggregate. That is, if multiple similar uses were listed in one response, they were not deleted but

aggregated over the entire response. Lastly, OCSAI was the only automated method included in

the study based on recent evidence that it outperformed other automated methods (Organisciak et

al., 2023). Future research may wish to include other automated methods (e.g., SemDis; Beaty,

2021) to compare them in relationship to the manual rating of the CSB item.

Conclusions

These results highlight the importance of using the CSB in combination with other creativity

measures. While understanding that a person’s self-perception of their creativity may inspire or

predict their ability to produce alternate uses, it is not a reliable metric to replace tasks like the

AUT. That being said, in situations where time is short and extensive questionnaires or objective

measures are not feasible to be administered, the single-item CSB may still be useful and has

demonstrated positive convergent validity, test-retest reliability, and a significant, albeit weak,

correlation to AUT fluency and flexibility. Further, this study provides support for the continued

24
Creative self-belief versus AUT

use of OCSAI as a valid method to score originality in the AUT. The AUT is challenging to

score manually, and automated methods would certainly support its wider use in creativity

research. Despite some criticisms (Gilhooly, 2024), automated methods for AUT scoring,

especially AI-based versions, are gathering increasing evidence for their validity as compared to

human raters (Organisciak et al., 2023). These automatic methods will be a huge boon to the

field where human scoring is expensive both in resources and time.

Ultimately, the goal of this research is to support human creativity research. Creativity fosters

innovation, problem-solving, and personal growth. In a world faced with numerous intractable

problems, understanding how to inspire creative solutions and adaptation to change is of

paramount importance.

Funding

This work was supported by the John Sperling Foundation, the John Brockway Huntington

Foundation, and the Patricia Beck Phillips Foundation, who had no involvement in the study

design, in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data, in the writing of the report, and in

the decision to submit the article for publication.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the following for their support of this project: Institute of Noetic

Sciences members and donors, Maria Wojakowski,

Sitara Taddeo, Mason Pritchard, Angel Vazquez, Mayank Ranti, Kim Davis, Tiffany Dickerson,

and 2018 IONS Hackation attendees.

25
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Declaration of generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in the writing process

During the preparation of this work the author(s) used Grammarly in order to improve readability

and language. After using this tool/service, the author(s) reviewed and edited the content as

needed and take(s) full responsibility for the content of the publication.

REFERENCES

Akoglu, H. (2018). User’s guide to correlation coefficients. Turkish Journal of Emergency

Medicine, 18(3), 91–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tjem.2018.08.001

Aldridge, V. K., Dovey, T. M., & Wade, A. (2017). Assessing test-retest reliability of

psychological measures: Persistent methodological problems. European Psychologist,

22(4), 207–218. https://doi.org/10.1027/1016-9040/a000298

Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.2.357

Beaty, R. E., & Johnson, D. R. (2021). Automating creativity assessment with SemDis: An open

platform for computing semantic distance. Behavior Research Methods, 53(2), 757–780.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-020-01453-w

Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and

powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series B

(Methodological), 57(1), 289–300. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2517-6161.1995.tb02031.x

Cannard, C., Wahbeh, H., & Delorme, A. (2021a). Electroencephalography correlates of well-

being using a low-cost wearable system. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 15, 736.

26
Creative self-belief versus AUT

https://doi.org/10.3389/fnhum.2021.745135

Cannard, C., Wahbeh, H., & Delorme, A. (2021b). Validating the wearable MUSE headset for

EEG spectral analysis and frontal alpha asymmetry. 2021 IEEE International Conference

on Bioinformatics and Biomedicine (BIBM), 3603–3610.

https://doi.org/10.1109/BIBM52615.2021.9669778

Cropley, A. J. (2000). Defining and measuring creativity: Are creativity tests worth using?

Roeper Review, 23(2), 72–79. https://doi.org/10.1080/02783190009554069

Cropley, D. (2016). Creativity in Engineering. In G. E. Corazza & S. Angoli (Eds.),

Multidisciplinary Contributions to the Science of Creative Thinking (pp. 155–173).

Springer.

da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of

creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Revista de Psicología Del Trabajo y de Las

Organizaciones, 31(3), 165–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rpto.2015.06.002

Dumas, D., Organisciak, P., & Doherty, M. (2021). Measuring divergent thinking originality

with human raters and text-mining models: A psychometric comparison of methods.

Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 15(4), 645–663.

https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000319

Elsbach, K. D., & Kramer, R. M. (2003). Assessing creativity in Hollywood pitch meetings:

Evidence for a dual-process model of creativity judgments. Academy of Management

Journal, 46(3), 283–301. https://doi.org/10.5465/30040623

Forthmann, B., Szardenings, C., & Holling, H. (2020). Understanding the confounding effect of

fluency in divergent thinking scores: Revisiting average scores to quantify artifactual

correlation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 94.

27
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Gilhooly, K. (2024). AI vs humans in the AUT: Simulations to LLMs. Journal of Creativity,

34(1), 100071. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yjoc.2023.100071

Guilford, J. P. (1967). Creativity: Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow. Journal of Creative

Behavior, 1(1), 3–14.

Guilford, J. P., Christensen, P. R., Merrifield, P. R., & Wilson, R. C. (1978). Alternate Uses

Manual & Sample Manual, Test Booklet (B & C), Scoring Key (B & C). Mind Garden,

Inc. www.mindgarden.com

Hass, R. W. (2017). Tracking the dynamics of divergent thinking via semantic distance: Analytic

methods and theoretical implications. Memory & Cognition, 45(2), 233–244.

https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-016-0659-y

Hébert, J. R., Peterson, K. E., Hurley, T. G., Stoddard, A. M., Cohen, N., Field, A. E., &

Sorensen, G. (2001). The effect of social desirability trait on self-reported dietary

measures among multi-ethnic female health center employees. Annals of Epidemiology,

11(6), 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1047-2797(01)00212-5

Karwowski, M. (2012). Did curiosity kill the cat? Relationship between trait curiosity, creative

self-efficacy and creative personal identity. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 8(4), Article

4. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.v8i4.513

Karwowski, M., & Lebuda, I. (2016). The big five, the huge two, and creative self-beliefs: A

meta-analysis. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 10(2), 214–232.

https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000035

Karwowski, M., Lebuda, I., Wisniewska, E., & Gralewski, J. (2013). Big five personality traits

as the predictors of creative self-efficacy and creative personal identity: Does gender

matter? The Journal of Creative Behavior, 47(3), 215–232.

28
Creative self-belief versus AUT

https://doi.org/10.1002/jocb.32

Kaufman, J. C., & Baer, J. (2012). Beyond new and appropriate: Who decides what Is creative?

Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 83–91.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2012.649237

Kaufman, J. C., Plucker, J. A., & Baer, J. (2008). Essentials of Creativity Assessment. John

Wiley & Sons.

Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., & Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The

contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative

performance. Academy of Management Journal, 45(4), 757–767.

https://doi.org/10.5465/3069309

Mednick, S. A. (1971). The Remote Associates Test. Houghton Mifflin.

Morriss-Kay, G. M. (2010). The evolution of human artistic creativity. Journal of Anatomy,

216(2), 158–176. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7580.2009.01160.x

Nusbaum, E. C., & Silvia, P. J. (2011). Are intelligence and creativity really so different?: Fluid

intelligence, executive processes, and strategy use in divergent thinking. Intelligence,

39(1), 36–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2010.11.002

Ogurlu, U., Acar, S., & Ozbey, A. (2023). Does word frequency impact ideational fluency in

divergent thinking? A meta-analytic exploration with the alternate uses test. Thinking

Skills and Creativity, 47, 101139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101139

Organisciak, P., Acar, S., Dumas, D., & Berthiaume, K. (2023). Beyond semantic distance:

Automated scoring of divergent thinking greatly improves with large language models.

Thinking Skills and Creativity, 49, 101356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2023.101356

Park, N. K., Chun, M. Y., & Lee, J. (2016). Revisiting individual creativity assessment:

29
Creative self-belief versus AUT

Triangulation in subjective and objective assessment methods. Creativity Research

Journal, 28(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1080/10400419.2016.1125259

Plucker, J. A., Makel, M. C., & Qian, M. (2010). Assessment of creativity. In The Cambridge

Handbook of Creativity (pp. 48–73).

Ramakrishnan, S., Robbins, T. W., & Zmigrod, L. (2022). Cognitive rigidity, habitual

tendencies, and obsessive-compulsive symptoms: Individual differences and

compensatory interactions. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 13.

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2022.865896

Rammstedt, B. (2007). The 10-item Big Five Inventory: Norm values and investigation of

sociodemographic effects based on a German population representative sample.

European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 23(3), 193.

Reiter-Palmon, R., Forthmann, B., & Barbot, B. (2019). Scoring divergent thinking tests: A

review and systematic framework. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 13,

144–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000227

Runco, M. A. (1986). The discriminant validity of gifted children’s divergent thinking test

scores. Gifted Child Quarterly, 30(2), 78–82.

Runco, M. A. (1999). Divergent Thinking. In Encyclopedia of Creativity: Vol. I (pp. 557–582).

Academic Press.

Said-Metwaly, S., Fernández-Castilla, B., Kyndt, E., & Van den Noortgate, W. (2020). Testing

conditions and creative performance: Meta-analyses of the impact of time limits and

instructions. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 14(1), 15–38.

https://doi.org/10.1037/aca0000244

Shin, S. J., Kim, T.-Y., Lee, J.-Y., & Bian, L. (2012). Cognitive team diversity and individual

30
Creative self-belief versus AUT

team member creativity: A cross-level interaction. Academy of Management Journal,

55(1), 197–212. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2010.0270

Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with

self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics,

Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19–34. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024071

Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., Martinez, J.

L., & Richard, C. A. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks:

Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of

Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68. https://doi.org/10.1037/1931-3896.2.2.68

Stumpf, H. (1995). Scientific creativity: A short overview. Educational Psychology Review, 7(3),

225–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02213372

Tanis, C., Stevenson, C., & Baas, M. (2017, October). Automatic Scoring of the Alternative Uses

Task. Creativity and Innovation Conference, Nijmegen, The Netherlands.

http://modelingcreativity.org/blog/wp-

content/uploads/2018/11/2017_Poster_Nijmegen_automated-scoring-AUT.pdf

van Hooijdonk, M., Ritter, S. M., Linka, M., & Kroesbergen, E. (2022). Creativity and change of

context: The influence of object-context (in)congruency on cognitive flexibility. Thinking

Skills and Creativity, 45, 101044. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tsc.2022.101044

Wahbeh, H., Vieten, C., Yount, G., Cartry-Jacobsen, A., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2022).

Transformative, noetic, and transpersonal experiences during personal development

workshops. International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 47.

https://digitalcommons.ciis.edu/advance-archive/47

Wahbeh, H., Yount, G., Vieten, C., Radin, D., & Delorme, A. (2022). Exploring personal

31
Creative self-belief versus AUT

development workshops’ effect on well-being and interconnectedness. Journal of

Alternative & Complementary Medicine, 28(1), 87–95.

https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1089/jicm.2021.0043

Zapf, A., Castell, S., Morawietz, L., & Karch, A. (2016). Measuring inter-rater reliability for

nominal data – which coefficients and confidence intervals are appropriate? BMC

Medical Research Methodology, 16, 93. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-016-0200-9

32
 General Instructions

Participants are given 2 minutes to write down as many uses of a common item as possible.

Images
Image 1 - Newspaper
Image 2 - Brick
Image 3 - Envelope
Image 4 - Hanger

Scoring is comprised of four components:

Step 1. Fluency - look at the response of each participant and count the number of acceptable
responses. An unacceptable response is one that is not possible.

Step 2. Flexibility – categorize each word in the response by category of use. For the brick
example, building a house, building a chimney, building a stove would all be the same category,
whereas building a house (building), throwing at a person (weapon), a doorstop (weight) would
be three separate categories.

Step 3. Elaboration – rate the responses for the amount of detail (for Example "a doorstop" = 0
whereas "a doorstop to prevent a door slamming shut in a strong wind" = 2 (one for explanation
of door slamming, two for further detail about the wind) and a rating of 1 would be in between
those examples.

Step 4. Originality – The overall objective is to evaluate the originality of the person’s
responses compared to the responses of the other people in the dataset. We divided answers in
3 groups: original, somewhat original, non-original. So, for instance, we could have a person
that came up with 10 things but not original, and we would give them a 0 but for people that
came up with just 3 uses but one of the 3 was unique we would give them a 2.
 1 - NEWSPAPER

Fluency

Acceptable Words Unacceptable Word

Read*, Shred, start a fire, throw*, burn*, Schools, clinics, library, hand-on, Smell/Taste,
wrap*, learn, cut*, crumple, tear, stack*, paint, acting, look at, spell*, build a tent, share*,
papier-mache, hat, sit*, create*, write*, grateful that i know how to read, Feel*, taste*,
origami, protect*, pack*, step, fan*, drying, put in water
clean*, hit*, recycle, garbage, fold, wipe*,
paper mache, paper mâché, lining, decor*,
kindling, wrap*, cover*, recycle, potty train,
tear*, confetti, layer*, sell, stack, Blanket,
wipe*, swat*, catch urine/pee
* represents any number of characters. For example, Ex* could mean Excel, Excels, Example,
Expert, etc.

Categories
1. Kindling / Fire starting
2. Reading (Knowledge, gaining information)
3. Stationary (Writing, Craft, Stacking)
4. Specific Crafts (Origami, Collage, Papier Mache, Confetti)
5. Organization (Sorting, Isolation)
6. Packing / Lining / Insulation / Covering
7. Weapon (Throwing, Hitting, Violence)
8. Stabilization (sit on, place under a table leg,
9. Getting rid of/Giving (recycle, gift, shred)
10. Cleaning (wipe up messes, clean windows)
11. Weight (lift, bench press)
12. Garden (mulch, planter box lining, weed prevention)

Elaboration
0 “To read”, “kindling”, “Packing”

1 2-4 word phrase

2 “Blocking wind below a door”, “Using as a cover for your artwork”, “keep the cat off the
couch”, “fan yourself on a hot day”
Originality

0. Non-Original
1. Reading / information
2. Kindling / fire starting
3. Packing material
4. Wrapping
5. Folding
6. Throw away / recycle
7. Pet clean up
8. Window cleaning
9. Stacking, booster seat
10. Art, papier mâché, collages
11. Games, play (with people or animals)
12. Using as a table, chair, or shelf
13. Covering a window / shade
14. Weight
15. Throwing, scattering
16. Protect the floor from paint, oil, etc
17. Gardening, weed control, compost
18. Discussion with others
19. Fan
20. Self defense, throw at someone, make a projectile
21. Stabilization, door stop, wedge
22. Hiding, covering
23. Lining shelves

1. Somewhat Original
1. Record keeping - birthdays, funerals, historical events
2. Wrap food (specific or general)
3. Drive or bike over
4. Make Cushions / kneel on
5. Wear as clothes
6. Crossword puzzles
7. Teach someone to read / read to others
8. Tent / teepee / human shelter
9. Make an ad / advertisement / sales
10. Stuff into shoes / hats for shaping clothes

2. Original
1. Blocking wind below a door
2. Donation to offices for reading
3. Food for termites
4. Coffee filter
5. Wet ball to shoot through straw
6. pretending to be reading while scopi…
7. sitting on coloring easter eggs
8. seeing how times have changed by comparing old and new newspapers
9. keep the cat off the couch
10. creating silly putty prints
11. Cover fruit to ripen
12. Use to wrap a wound
13. learning a new language if paper is in foreign language
14. use the ink to make finger prints
15. photo opp
16. ballast for hot air balloon
17. identify all the words in articles starting with p
18. ear funnel to hear better
19. use to compare heights of children measuring heights / distance
 2 - BRICK

Fluency

Acceptable Words Unacceptable Word

Hit, Build*, Weight, Throw*, Hammer, step*, Ow, Ice skate, Note*, Listening to the earth,
break*, border, path, sit, block, sink, prop, Observe*,
decor, enclosure, destroy, stack, path,
doorstop, cooking, heat*, smash, lift, door
stop, stand on,

Categories

1. Tool
2. Build (Constructive
3. Weapon
4. Athletic (lifting, throwing)
5. Weight
6. Noise
7. Stand / Stacking (Sitting
8. Artistic (Decoration)
9. Interactive
10. Misc. (Scraping, etc)
11. Measurement (Counting, Straight Edge)
12. Destructive (smashing, breaking,

Elaboration
0 “To throw”, “hit”, “build”, “bookend”, “weight”

1 “To throw because you’re feeling smashy”

2 “To use as a weight to keep the door shut from a big gust of wind”,

Originality

0. Non-Original
1. Building - houses, buildings, fire pits, roads, etc
2. Steps, stairs, pathway, road
3. Border, fence, barrier, divider
4. Weight - holding this down / up, car block, paper, door stop, anchor, sink something
5. Excercise / yoga / martial arts
 6. Smashing, crushing, breaking something (including food),
7. Hammering
8. Weapon
9. Stacking
10. Art
11. Pressing things like flowers, cheese, tofu
12. Measuring, drawing, straightedge
13. Stand / sit on
14. Using it to keep warm / heat transfer
15. Play with, make games, imagination, children
16. Drainage for plants
17. Break it up and use the powder / crumbles
18. Writing a message on
19. Scraping, scratching, digging
20. Pillow, bed, headrest

1. Somewhat Original
1. Making a pattern?
2. Give away / gift
3. Color comparison
4. As a mold to create more bricks
5. Making marks, signaling where something is
6. Meditate on
7. Nail file
8. Block for mice / racoons / pests
9. Make noise
10. Experiement / science experiments

2. Original
1. smooth wood polish
2. qi gong tool
3. sink in the water to raise water level
4. use to sharpen a knife
5. Eat food off of
6. habitat for a lizard
7. engrave it to commemorate someone
8. Teaching math
9. A washing surface
10. Burning incense
11. Cooling rack
 3 - ENVELOPE

Fluency

Acceptable Words Unacceptable Word

Create art, mail, send, post, throw, fold, blow on as an instrument, a plate, as a shoe
origami, paper airplane, pick up*, wrap*, for a small person, make noise with,apply
paint, write*, bookmark, container, cover, medicine with, paperclips, paper pins, money,
scratch paper, coaster, clean*, napkin, purse, glue, pet, imaginary friend, mitten
lick, stamp, unfold, give, notepad, hat,
stabilizer, kindling, fire, receptacle, transport,
securing, list, art, tear, bookmark,

Categories

1. Mailing / Sending
2. Containing (Coin holder, hair locks)
3. Wrapping (Including gum)
4. Crafts (Origami, art, child play, toy)
5. Stabilizer (like under a short table leg)
6. Misc. (placement, napkin, coaster, recycle)
7. Stationary (Writing, Using as notepad, filing, organizing)
8. Kindling (Fire)
9. Tool (Straight Edge, crevice cleaner, picking, cleaning, measurement, slicing, Bookmark)

Elaboration
0 “Mail”, “Bookmark”, “Notepad”, “Origami”

1 “Fold into paper airplane”,

2 “Use to wrap up and throw away your gum”

Originality

0. Non-Original
1. Mailing, sending
2. Writing on
3. Recyling, throwing away, compost
4. Arts and crafts, drawing painting, origami, make a toy,
5. Holding various objects, organization, filing
6. Hiding / revealing
 7. Blocking light, sun, wind
8. Cleaning, catching grease / oil etc, picking up something you don’t want to touch
9. Measuring, straightline, ruler
10. Burning, kindling
11. Stabilization
12. Fan
13. Carry / move objects and insects
14. Kill insects
15. Coaster, placemat
16. Bookmark
17. Sign, label, nametag
18. Throw it
19. Play, confetti,

1. Somewhat Original
1. Make noise with, whistle
2. Papercut, slicing / cutting
3. Use the sticky part as glue / to hold something else
4. Let animal chew on
5. As an email icon
6. Toothpick
7. roll a cigarette
8. MI6 trick - I’m not sure what this is? I didn’t find anything on a preliminary google search
(943) gave a point because no one else mentioned it so it has an element of originality
but I’m not sure if it falls under another category
9. chop stick stand

2. Original
1. etrieve an object under a thin opening
2. use for sewing corners
3. dance on a piroutte in the center
4. over dressing for a wound
5. Divination
6. to make a trail while hiking
7. Blot lipstick
8. Mousepad
9. keep a door from locking
10. use it as a dixie cup for drinking water
11. Funnel
12. testing nail polish colors
 4 - HANGER

Fluency

Acceptable Words Unacceptable Word

Hang, poke, unwind, wire, wrap, toy, hook, “Hanging oneself”, “fix things”
wind together, carry, prod, weave, open,
unclog, hit, decoration, melt, retrieve, unlock,
kill, drain, connect, wreath, tool

Categories

1. Hanging
2. Reaching / Tool (Abortion [intense but tool use])
3. Holder (Tie holder, watch holder)
4. Weapon
5. Art (Wire Art)
6. Tying / Binding
7. Games (keep-away game)
8. Electricity
9. Misc. (Scrape

Elaboration
0 “Hanging clothes”, “remove hair from drain”, “to poke eyes”

1 “making an angel shape out of it”

2 “making a brighter smile by putting it in mouth”

Originality

0. Non-Original
1. Hang coats, clothes, ties, jewelry
2. Unlocking a car / picking a lock
3. Crafts
4. TV antenna
5. Roasting marshmallows, hot dogs, cooking
6. Cleaning, unclogging a drain
7. Reaching
8. Back scratcher
9. Scratching surfaces, paint off something, making a mark etc
 10. Hitting someone / weapon
11. Use as wire, conducting electricity
12. Binding, connecting, tying
13. Fence
14. Poking someone or something (including fire stick)
15. Recycling, donation, trash, get rid of
16. Fishing pole
17. Gardening, trellis, support potted plants
18. Bend into another shape
19. Make jewlery, clothes, belt, hat, or costume
20. Straightedge, tracing, drawing, measurement
21. Games / play / sports - bow and arrow, sports, basketball hoop, or playing with an animal
22. Make a hole in something
23. Hanging other objects
24. Musical instruments, drum sticks
25. As a hook
26. Animal trap
27. Flagpole
28. Abortion
29. Divining / dousing rod
30. Drying herbs / flowers
31. Melt and make something else

1.Somewhat Original
1. Jaw / mouth opening
2. Door stopper window stopper
3. move things that are hot
4. Hang photo on the wall
5. Bubble blower
6. Divining / dousing rod
7. Rodent trap

2. Original
1. Make furniture
2. stop sleep apnea by having on back
3. Bookmark
4. use it to relieve tension by twisting
5. make a magnetic coil, make a compass
6. Tanning hide
7. hold open a plastic bag
8. posture reminder
9. use as a splint