@brainpilot/skills 0.0.6

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/creativity-self-efficacy-mediation/references/lavaan-templates.md

@@ -0,0 +1,172 @@
+# lavaan Model Templates for Creativity Mediation Analysis
+
+## Basic Mediation Model
+
+### CSE Mediating AI Condition → Creativity (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+
+```r
+library(lavaan)
+
+# ---- Data Preparation ----
+# condition: 0 = no assistance, 1 = ChatGPT (or dummy-coded for 3 conditions)
+# cse: mean of 3 CSE items (Tierney & Farmer, 2002)
+# creativity: AUT originality score, semantic distance, or composite
+
+# ---- Model Specification ----
+med_model <- '
+ # Path a: Condition → Creative Self-Efficacy
+ cse ~ a * condition
+
+ # Path b: CSE → Creativity (controlling for condition)
+ # Path c_prime: Condition → Creativity (direct effect)
+ creativity ~ b * cse + cprime * condition
+
+ # Defined parameters
+ indirect := a * b # Indirect (mediated) effect
+ total := cprime + a * b # Total effect
+'
+
+# ---- Estimation ----
+fit <- sem(med_model, data = df,
+ se = "bootstrap",
+ bootstrap = 5000,
+ estimator = "ML")
+
+# ---- Results ----
+summary(fit, ci = TRUE, standardized = TRUE)
+parameterEstimates(fit, boot.ci.type = "bca.simple",
+ level = 0.95, ci = TRUE)
+```
+
+## Multi-Condition Mediation (3 conditions)
+
+When comparing ChatGPT, Web Search, and No Assistance:
+
+```r
+# Create dummy codes (No Assistance = reference)
+df$chatgpt <- ifelse(df$condition == "chatgpt", 1, 0)
+df$websearch <- ifelse(df$condition == "websearch", 1, 0)
+
+multi_med_model <- '
+ # Path a: Each condition → CSE
+ cse ~ a1 * chatgpt + a2 * websearch
+
+ # Path b and direct effects
+ creativity ~ b * cse + c1 * chatgpt + c2 * websearch
+
+ # Indirect effects for each condition
+ indirect_chatgpt := a1 * b
+ indirect_websearch := a2 * b
+
+ # Total effects
+ total_chatgpt := c1 + a1 * b
+ total_websearch := c2 + a2 * b
+
+ # Contrast: ChatGPT vs Web Search indirect effect
+ indirect_diff := (a1 - a2) * b
+'
+
+fit_multi <- sem(multi_med_model, data = df,
+ se = "bootstrap", bootstrap = 5000)
+```
+
+## Moderated Mediation
+
+### Baseline Creativity (RAT) Moderating the a-path
+
+```r
+# Center the moderator
+df$rat_c <- scale(df$rat_score, center = TRUE, scale = FALSE)
+
+# Create interaction term
+df$cond_x_rat <- df$condition * df$rat_c
+
+modmed_model <- '
+ # Moderated path a: condition effect on CSE depends on RAT
+ cse ~ a1 * condition + a2 * rat_c + a3 * cond_x_rat
+
+ # Path b and direct effect
+ creativity ~ b * cse + cprime * condition + b2 * rat_c
+
+ # Conditional indirect effects
+ # At mean RAT (rat_c = 0):
+ indirect_mean := a1 * b
+
+ # Note: For indirect effects at +/- 1 SD of RAT,
+ # compute manually:
+ # indirect_high = (a1 + a3 * SD_rat) * b
+ # indirect_low = (a1 - a3 * (-SD_rat)) * b
+'
+
+fit_modmed <- sem(modmed_model, data = df,
+ se = "bootstrap", bootstrap = 5000)
+```
+
+### Probing the Interaction (Simple Slopes)
+
+```r
+library(emmeans)
+
+# Using linear regression for simple slopes
+lm_model <- lm(cse ~ condition * rat_c, data = df)
+
+# Simple slopes at ±1 SD of RAT
+emtrends(lm_model, ~ condition, var = "rat_c")
+
+# Or use Johnson-Neyman technique
+library(interactions)
+johnson_neyman(lm_model, pred = condition, modx = rat_c)
+```
+
+## Latent Variable Version
+
+When CSE is modeled as a latent variable (recommended if alpha < 0.85):
+
+```r
+latent_med_model <- '
+ # Measurement model
+ CSE =~ cse1 + cse2 + cse3
+
+ # Structural model
+ CSE ~ a * condition
+ creativity ~ b * CSE + cprime * condition
+
+ # Effects
+ indirect := a * b
+ total := cprime + a * b
+'
+
+fit_latent <- sem(latent_med_model, data = df,
+ se = "bootstrap", bootstrap = 5000)
+```
+
+## Model Fit Evaluation
+
+### Fit Indices (for models with measurement component)
+
+| Index | Good Fit | Acceptable | Source |
+|-------|----------|------------|--------|
+| CFI | ≥ 0.95 | ≥ 0.90 | Hu & Bentler, 1999 |
+| TLI | ≥ 0.95 | ≥ 0.90 | Hu & Bentler, 1999 |
+| RMSEA | ≤ 0.06 | ≤ 0.08 | Hu & Bentler, 1999 |
+| SRMR | ≤ 0.08 | ≤ 0.10 | Hu & Bentler, 1999 |
+
+```r
+fitMeasures(fit, c("cfi", "tli", "rmsea", "srmr"))
+```
+
+### For Saturated Path Models
+
+- Path-only mediation models (no latent variables, no constraints) are **saturated** (df = 0)
+- Fit indices are undefined for saturated models
+- Evaluate by: significance of paths, R-squared, indirect effect CIs
+
+## Required R Packages
+
+```r
+install.packages(c("lavaan", "emmeans", "interactions", "boot"))
+
+# Version requirements
+# lavaan >= 0.6-12 (for bootstrap CI types)
+# R >= 4.0
+```

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/divergent-thinking-scoring/SKILL.md

@@ -0,0 +1,238 @@
+---
+name: "divergent-thinking-scoring"
+description: "Domain-validated multi-dimensional scoring system for divergent thinking tasks, including fluency, flexibility, originality, and automated semantic distance methods"
+domain: "cognitive-psychology"
+version: "1.0.0"
+papers:
+ - "Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019"
+ - "Beaty & Johnson, 2021"
+ - "Silvia et al., 2008"
+ - "Organisciak et al., 2023"
+ - "Lee & Chung, 2024"
+dependencies:
+ required:
+ - research-literacy
+review_status: "ai-generated"
+---
+
+# Divergent Thinking Scoring
+
+## Purpose
+
+This skill encodes expert methodological knowledge for scoring responses from divergent thinking tasks (Alternative Uses Task, Unusual Uses Task, instances tasks, etc.). It covers the four standard scoring dimensions — fluency, flexibility, originality, and elaboration — plus modern automated scoring using semantic distance. A general-purpose programmer would typically count responses (fluency) but would not know the domain-specific decisions around flexibility category systems, originality thresholds, inter-rater reliability requirements, or how to compute semantic distance as a creativity metric.
+
+## When to Use This Skill
+
+- Scoring responses from an AUT, Unusual Uses Task, or similar divergent thinking task
+- Choosing between subjective (human-rated) and objective (automated) scoring approaches
+- Computing semantic distance as an automated creativity metric
+- Establishing inter-rater reliability for creativity coding
+- Deciding how to handle the fluency-originality confound
+
+## Research Planning Protocol
+
+Before executing the domain-specific steps below, you MUST:
+
+1. **State the research question** — What specific aspect of divergent thinking is being measured?
+2. **Justify the method choice** — Why these scoring dimensions? What alternatives were considered?
+3. **Declare expected outcomes** — Which dimensions are expected to show effects?
+4. **Note assumptions and limitations** — What does each scoring method assume? Where could it mislead?
+5. **Present the plan to the user and WAIT for confirmation** before proceeding.
+
+For detailed methodology guidance, see the `research-literacy` skill.
+
+
+## ⚠️ Verification Notice
+
+This skill was generated by AI from academic literature. All parameters, thresholds, and citations require independent verification before use in research. If you find errors, please [open an issue](https://github.com/HaoxuanLiTHUAI/awesome_cognitive_and_neuroscience_skills/issues).
+
+## Scoring Dimensions Overview
+
+| Dimension | What It Measures | Scoring Method | Automation | Source |
+|-----------|-----------------|----------------|------------|--------|
+| **Fluency** | Quantity of responses | Count valid responses | Fully automated | Guilford, 1967 |
+| **Flexibility** | Variety of conceptual categories | Count distinct categories | Semi-automated (COWA) | Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019 |
+| **Originality** | Statistical rarity or novelty | Frequency <5% threshold or subjective rating | Semi-automated | Silvia et al., 2008 |
+| **Elaboration** | Detail and development of ideas | Count additional details per response | Manual only | Guilford, 1967 |
+| **Semantic distance** | Conceptual remoteness from prompt | GloVe/word2vec cosine distance | Fully automated | Beaty & Johnson, 2021 |
+
+## Fluency Scoring
+
+### Definition
+
+Fluency = the **total number of valid, non-redundant responses** a participant generates.
+
+### Scoring Rules
+
+1. **Count each distinct response** as one unit
+2. **Exclude**:
+ - Exact duplicates
+ - Conventional/typical uses of the object (debated — some protocols include them; Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019)
+ - Gibberish or clearly irrelevant responses
+ - Responses that are minor variations of each other (e.g., "use as a hammer" and "use to pound nails" = 1 response)
+3. **When in doubt**, count as separate responses and let originality scoring handle quality
+
+> **Domain insight**: Fluency is the most reliable but least interesting creativity measure. It correlates with personality traits (openness) and general cognitive ability, but does not distinguish truly creative responses from merely numerous ones (Silvia et al., 2008).
+
+## Flexibility Scoring
+
+### Definition
+
+Flexibility = the **number of distinct conceptual categories** across a participant's responses.
+
+### Category Systems
+
+**COWA (Category of Words from AUT)** system (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019):
+
+Provides a standardized taxonomy of response categories for common AUT objects. Example categories for "brick":
+
+| Category | Example Responses |
+|----------|------------------|
+| Construction/Building | "build a wall," "build a house" |
+| Weapon/Violence | "throw at someone," "use as a weapon" |
+| Weight/Anchor | "paperweight," "doorstop," "anchor" |
+| Art/Decoration | "sculpt into art," "garden decoration" |
+| Sport/Exercise | "use as a dumbbell," "exercise weight" |
+| Tool | "hammer," "grinding surface" |
+
+### Scoring Procedure
+
+1. **Train coders** on the category system (minimum 2 coders)
+2. **Assign each response** to its most appropriate category
+3. **Count unique categories** per participant = flexibility score
+4. **Compute inter-rater reliability**: ICC ≥ **0.70** acceptable, ≥ **0.80** good (Lee & Chung, 2024; Shrout & Fleiss, 1979)
+
+## Originality Scoring
+
+### Method 1: Statistical Rarity (Objective)
+
+A response is "original" if it is given by fewer than **5%** of the sample (Wallach & Kogan, 1965; Lee & Chung, 2024).
+
+**Procedure**:
+1. Pool all responses across all participants
+2. Normalize spelling and phrasing (e.g., "door stop" = "doorstop")
+3. Compute the frequency of each unique response
+4. Mark responses given by **<5% of participants** as original (score = 1; else = 0)
+5. Originality score per participant = **sum or proportion** of original responses
+
+**Alternative thresholds**: Some studies use <1% (very strict) or <10% (lenient). The 5% threshold is most common (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).
+
+### Method 2: Subjective Rating (Qualitative)
+
+Human raters judge each response for creativity on a Likert scale (Silvia et al., 2008).
+
+**Procedure**:
+1. **Scale**: 1 (not at all creative) to 5 (highly creative) — or 1-7 for finer discrimination
+2. **Raters**: Minimum **2 independent raters** (Lee & Chung, 2024 used 3)
+3. **Training**: Calibrate raters on anchor examples before scoring begins
+4. **Inter-rater reliability**: ICC (two-way random, average measures) ≥ **0.70** (Lee & Chung, 2024 achieved ICC = 0.72-0.89)
+5. **Scoring**: Average across raters for each response; then average or sum per participant
+
+### Method Selection Decision Logic
+
+```
+Is your sample size large (N > 100)?
+|
++-- YES --> Do you need fine-grained creativity distinctions?
+| |
+| +-- YES --> Use subjective rating (richer information)
+| |
+| +-- NO --> Use statistical rarity (objective, faster)
+|
++-- NO --> Statistical rarity is unreliable with small N
+ (rare responses may be rare by chance)
+ --> Use subjective rating
+```
+
+## Semantic Distance (Automated Scoring)
+
+### Overview
+
+Semantic distance measures how **conceptually far** a response is from the prompt word in a vector space model. More distant = more creative (Beaty & Johnson, 2021).
+
+### Method (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Organisciak et al., 2023)
+
+1. **Embedding model**: GloVe (Global Vectors for Word Representation; Pennington et al., 2014) trained on Common Crawl — 300-dimensional vectors
+2. **Computation**:
+ - Represent the prompt word (e.g., "brick") as a vector
+ - Represent each response as a vector (average word vectors for multi-word responses)
+ - Compute **cosine distance** = 1 - cosine_similarity(prompt, response)
+3. **Per-participant score**: Average semantic distance across all responses
+4. **Platform**: SemDis (https://semdis.wlu.psu.edu/) — web-based tool by Beaty & Johnson (2021)
+
+### Interpretation
+
+| Semantic Distance | Interpretation |
+|-------------------|----------------|
+| Low (~0.3-0.5) | Response is semantically close to the object (e.g., "brick" → "build a wall") |
+| Medium (~0.5-0.7) | Moderately creative (e.g., "brick" → "use as a paperweight") |
+| High (~0.7-1.0) | Highly creative / remote association (e.g., "brick" → "use as a canvas for art") |
+
+> **Validation**: Semantic distance correlates with subjective originality ratings at r ≈ **0.40-0.60** and predicts real-world creative achievement (Beaty & Johnson, 2021; Organisciak et al., 2023).
+
+### Advantages and Limitations
+
+| Advantage | Limitation |
+|-----------|-----------|
+| Fully automated, no rater training | Misses context — "use as food" for a brick is unusual but gets a moderate distance score |
+| Objective and reproducible | Depends on the embedding model's training corpus |
+| Scales to large datasets | Multi-word responses require averaging, which loses phrase-level meaning |
+| No inter-rater reliability concerns | Not validated for all object types or languages |
+
+## Handling the Fluency-Originality Confound
+
+### The Problem
+
+Participants who generate more ideas (high fluency) have a higher probability of producing at least one statistically rare idea, inflating their originality scores (Silvia et al., 2008).
+
+### Solutions
+
+1. **Ratio-based originality**: Divide originality sum by fluency → proportion of original responses (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019)
+2. **Top-N scoring**: Score only the **top 2-3 most creative responses** per participant, equalizing opportunity across fluency levels (Silvia et al., 2008)
+3. **Statistical control**: Include fluency as a covariate in analyses of originality (Lee & Chung, 2024)
+4. **Multilevel modeling**: Nest responses within participants, accounting for varying response counts
+
+> **Recommendation**: Use **top-2 scoring** (average the 2 most creative responses) when the primary interest is creative quality rather than quantity. This method has the best psychometric properties (Silvia et al., 2008).
+
+## Common Pitfalls
+
+1. **Scoring originality without normalizing text**: "doorstop," "door stop," and "use as a door stop" are the same response. Normalize spelling, capitalization, and phrasing before computing frequency (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).
+
+2. **Using statistical rarity with small samples**: With N < 50, many responses appear "unique" simply because the sample is small. Use subjective ratings instead, or pool responses with published norms (Reiter-Palmon et al., 2019).
+
+3. **Ignoring inter-rater reliability**: Reporting subjective creativity scores without ICC suggests the scores may reflect individual rater bias, not genuine creativity differences. Always report ICC with the model type specified (Lee & Chung, 2024).
+
+4. **Treating semantic distance as a complete creativity measure**: Semantic distance captures novelty but not usefulness/appropriateness — the other key dimension of creativity (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). Combine with subjective ratings for a comprehensive assessment.
+
+5. **Averaging semantic distance across all responses including poor ones**: Low-quality responses (gibberish, conventional uses) can dilute or inflate average distance. Clean data before computing semantic distance.
+
+6. **Not reporting which scoring method was used**: Different methods yield different results. Always specify whether originality is statistical rarity, subjective rating, or semantic distance, and which threshold or scale was used.
+
+## Minimum Reporting Checklist
+
+Based on Reiter-Palmon et al. (2019) and Silvia et al. (2008):
+
+- [ ] Scoring dimensions used (fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration, semantic distance)
+- [ ] For fluency: definition of "valid response" and exclusion rules
+- [ ] For flexibility: category system used (COWA or custom) and category list
+- [ ] For originality: method (statistical rarity threshold or subjective rating scale)
+- [ ] For subjective scoring: number of raters, training procedure, ICC values (model type specified)
+- [ ] For semantic distance: embedding model, dimensionality, platform/implementation
+- [ ] How fluency-originality confound was handled (ratio, top-N, covariate, or acknowledged)
+- [ ] Data cleaning steps (text normalization, duplicate removal)
+- [ ] Whether scoring was blind to condition
+
+## References
+
+- 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.
+- Guilford, J. P. (1967). *The nature of human intelligence*. McGraw-Hill.
+- Lee, B. C., & Chung, J. (2024). An empirical investigation of the impact of ChatGPT on creativity. *Nature Human Behaviour*. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-024-01953-1
+- 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.
+- Pennington, J., Socher, R., & Manning, C. D. (2014). GloVe: Global vectors for word representation. In *Proceedings of the 2014 Conference on Empirical Methods in Natural Language Processing (EMNLP)*, 1532-1543.
+- 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(2), 144-152.
+- Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. *Creativity Research Journal*, 24(1), 92-96.
+- Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. *Psychological Bulletin*, 86(2), 420-428.
+- Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., et al. (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), 68-85.
+- Wallach, M. A., & Kogan, N. (1965). *Modes of thinking in young children*. Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
+
+See `references/scoring-rubric.md` for detailed scoring examples and training materials.

package/skills/03_Cognitive_Psychology/divergent-thinking-scoring/references/scoring-rubric.md

@@ -0,0 +1,143 @@
+# Divergent Thinking Scoring Rubric and Training Materials
+
+## Subjective Originality Rating Rubric
+
+### 5-Point Scale (Silvia et al., 2008)
+
+| Score | Label | Description | Anchor Example (Object: Brick) |
+|-------|-------|-------------|-------------------------------|
+| 1 | Not at all creative | Common, conventional use; first thing most people would think of | "Build a wall" |
+| 2 | Slightly creative | Somewhat unusual but still a plausible common use | "Use as a doorstop" |
+| 3 | Moderately creative | Uncommon use that requires some imaginative thinking | "Grind into powder for pigment" |
+| 4 | Very creative | Novel and unexpected use; clever repurposing | "Carve into a stamp for printing" |
+| 5 | Exceptionally creative | Highly original, surprising, and well-articulated | "Heat and use as a therapeutic warmer for sore muscles" |
+
+### Rater Training Procedure
+
+1. **Provide the rubric** with 5-10 anchor examples per score level
+2. **Practice round**: Raters independently score 20-30 responses
+3. **Calibration meeting**: Discuss discrepancies, resolve disagreements, refine understanding
+4. **Second practice round**: Score another 20-30 responses
+5. **Reliability check**: Compute ICC; proceed if ICC ≥ 0.70 (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979)
+6. **If ICC < 0.70**: Additional training and calibration until criterion is met
+7. **Production scoring**: Score all responses independently; do NOT discuss scores during production
+
+### Reliability Computation
+
+**Recommended ICC model** (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979):
+
+- **ICC(2,k)** — Two-way random effects, average measures: Use when raters are a random sample from a larger population of possible raters, and you will average scores across raters
+- **ICC(3,k)** — Two-way mixed effects, average measures: Use when raters are the specific raters of interest (most common in practice)
+
+**Benchmarks** (Cicchetti, 1994):
+| ICC | Interpretation |
+|-----|----------------|
+| < 0.40 | Poor |
+| 0.40 - 0.59 | Fair |
+| 0.60 - 0.74 | Good |
+| 0.75 - 1.00 | Excellent |
+
+Lee & Chung (2024) achieved:
+- Fluency ICC = 0.89
+- Flexibility ICC = 0.85
+- Originality ICC = 0.72
+
+## Statistical Rarity Scoring Procedure
+
+### Step-by-Step
+
+1. **Collect all responses** across all participants
+2. **Normalize text**:
+ - Lowercase all responses
+ - Remove leading/trailing whitespace
+ - Correct obvious typos
+ - Merge synonyms (e.g., "door stop" = "doorstop")
+ - Lemmatize when appropriate (e.g., "building" = "build")
+3. **Compute frequency** of each unique (normalized) response
+4. **Apply threshold**: Mark as original if frequency < 5% of total participants
+5. **Compute per-participant score**:
+ - Sum: total number of original responses
+ - Proportion: original responses / total responses (controls for fluency)
+
+### Example
+
+Sample size N = 100, Object = Brick
+
+| Response (normalized) | Frequency | % | Original? |
+|----------------------|-----------|---|-----------|
+| build a wall | 45 | 45% | No |
+| doorstop | 22 | 22% | No |
+| paperweight | 18 | 18% | No |
+| weapon/throw | 15 | 15% | No |
+| grinding surface | 3 | 3% | **Yes** |
+| heated massage stone | 1 | 1% | **Yes** |
+| aquarium decoration | 2 | 2% | **Yes** |
+
+## Semantic Distance Computation Guide
+
+### Using SemDis Platform (Beaty & Johnson, 2021)
+
+1. Go to https://semdis.wlu.psu.edu/
+2. Upload a CSV with columns: `participant_id`, `prompt_word`, `response`
+3. Select model: **GloVe Common Crawl 300d** (recommended default)
+4. Download results: each response gets a cosine distance score
+
+### Manual Computation (Python)
+
+```python
+# Pseudocode for semantic distance computation
+# Requires: gensim or custom GloVe loader
+
+import numpy as np
+
+def cosine_distance(vec1, vec2):
+ """1 - cosine similarity = cosine distance"""
+ sim = np.dot(vec1, vec2) / (np.linalg.norm(vec1) * np.linalg.norm(vec2))
+ return 1 - sim
+
+def response_vector(response, model):
+ """Average word vectors for multi-word response"""
+ words = response.lower().split()
+ vectors = [model[w] for w in words if w in model]
+ if not vectors:
+ return None # OOV response
+ return np.mean(vectors, axis=0)
+
+def semantic_distance(prompt, response, model):
+ """Compute semantic distance between prompt and response"""
+ prompt_vec = model[prompt.lower()]
+ resp_vec = response_vector(response, model)
+ if resp_vec is None:
+ return None # Flag for manual review
+ return cosine_distance(prompt_vec, resp_vec)
+```
+
+### Handling Edge Cases
+
+| Edge Case | Solution |
+|-----------|----------|
+| Response word not in vocabulary | Flag for manual scoring; do not impute |
+| Multi-word response | Average word vectors (Beaty & Johnson, 2021) |
+| Very short response (1 word) | Use the single word vector directly |
+| Ambiguous response | Keep as-is; semantic distance handles ambiguity implicitly |
+| Non-English response | Use language-appropriate embedding model |
+
+## Composite Scoring Approaches
+
+### Option 1: Report All Dimensions Separately (Recommended)
+
+Report fluency, flexibility, originality, and semantic distance as separate DVs. This is the most transparent approach and allows readers to assess which dimensions drive effects.
+
+### Option 2: Creativity Quotient (Snyder et al., 2004)
+
+CQ = (Originality sum × Flexibility) / Fluency
+
+Penalizes high fluency without corresponding quality. Less commonly used but addresses the fluency confound.
+
+### Option 3: Top-N Scoring (Silvia et al., 2008)
+
+Average the subjective creativity ratings of only the top 2 (or 3) most creative responses per participant. This:
+- Controls for fluency differences
+- Captures peak creative ability
+- Has good psychometric properties
+- Is the **recommended method** when creative quality is the primary outcome