Creativity is widely considered a skill essential to succeeding in the modern world. Numerous creativity training programs have been developed, and several meta-analyses have attempted to summarize the effectiveness of these programs and identify the features influencing their impact. Unfortunately, previous meta-analyses share a number of limitations, most notably overlooking the potentially strong impact of publication bias and the influence of study quality on effect sizes. We undertook a meta-analysis of 169 creativity training studies across 5 decades (844 effect sizes, the largest meta-analysis of creativity training to date), including a substantial number of unpublished studies (48 studies; 262 effect sizes). We employed a range of statistical methods to detect and adjust for publication bias and evaluated the robustness of the evidence in the field. In line with previous meta-analyses, we found a moderate training effect (0.53 SDs; unadjusted for publication bias). Critically, we observed converging evidence consistent with strong publication bias. All adjustment methods considerably lowered our original estimate (adjusted estimates ranged from 0.29 to 0.32 SDs). This severe bias casts doubt on the representativeness of the published literature in the field and on the conclusions of previous meta-analyses. Our analysis also revealed a high prevalence of methodological shortcomings in creativity training studies (likely to have inflated our average effect), and little signs of methodological improvement over time-a situation that limits the usefulness of this body of work. We conclude by presenting implications and recommendations for researchers and practitioners, and we propose an agenda for future research. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

创造力训练对创造力表现的影响：对 5 年来创造力训练研究的元分析回顾和批判性评估。


创造力被广泛认为是在现代世界取得成功的必备技能。已经开发了许多创造力培训计划，并且一些荟萃分析试图总结这些计划的有效性并确定影响其影响的特征。不幸的是，以前的荟萃分析存在许多局限性，最明显的是忽视了发表偏倚的潜在强烈影响以及研究质量对效应大小的影响。我们对 5 个十年间的 169 项创造力训练研究进行了荟萃分析（844 项效应量，迄今为止最大的创造力训练荟萃分析），其中包括大量未发表的研究（48 项研究；262 项效应量）。我们采用了一系列统计方法来检测和调整发表偏倚，并评估了该领域证据的稳健性。与之前的荟萃分析一致，我们发现了中等的训练效果（0.53 SD；未根据发表偏倚进行调整）。至关重要的是，我们观察到与强烈的发表偏见一致的一致证据。所有调整方法都大大降低了我们最初的估计（调整后的估计范围为 0.29 至 0.32 标准差）。这种严重的偏见让人对该领域已发表文献的代表性以及之前荟萃分析的结论产生怀疑。我们的分析还揭示了创造力训练研究中方法论缺陷的普遍存在（可能夸大了我们的平均效果），并且随着时间的推移几乎没有方法论改进的迹象——这种情况限制了这项工作的实用性。最后，我们向研究人员和从业者提出了启示和建议，并提出了未来研究的议程。 （PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2024 APA，保留所有权利）。