Skip to Content
MDPIMDPI

Advanced

Education SciencesEducation Sciences
PDF
  • Article
  • Open Access

4 April 2026

Creative Personality and Academic Achievement in Secondary School Students: Contributions to the Development of a Sustainable Future

,
,
and
Faculty of Education, University of Murcia, 30100 Murcia, Spain
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Educ. Sci.2026, 16(4), 577;https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci16040577
Version Notes
Order Reprints

Abstract

This study investigates the relationship between creative personality and academic achievement in first-year secondary education students, as well as the predictive capacity of creative personality on performance across different subject areas. The sample comprised 125 students who completed Garaigordobil’s Creative Personality Scale, and their academic grades were collected as performance indicators. Academic achievement was analyzed by distinguishing between STEM subjects (biology, technology, and mathematics) and non-STEM subjects (Spanish language, geography, arts, physical education, French, and English). The findings saw a positive association between creative personality and academic achievement in both STEM and non-STEM domains. Moreover, statistically significant sex differences emerged: female students obtained higher scores than male students on creative personality traits associated with problem identification and problem solving, as well as on dimensions related to enjoyment of diverse games and openness to new experiences. These results underscore the relevance of creative personality as a determinant of academic achievement across both scientific and non-scientific areas. They also highlight the importance of fostering creativity as an educational strategy aligned with sustainability goals. This study offers practical implications for the design of evidence-based psycho-pedagogical interventions that incorporate creativity as a means to promote responsible, equitable, and sustainable learning.

1. Introduction

Adolescence is a distinctive stage of development, typically spanning secondary education and high school (Hessen & Kuncel, 2022). It is widely recognized as a period of substantial change and growth, marked by the search for personal identity, the shaping of personality, and active exploration of one’s environment (Serrano et al., 2022). This stage is also critical for creative development, as it provides an opportunity to transform creative aspirations into a consolidated creative identity. At the same time, the role of the environment must be acknowledged, as meaningful experiences, opportunities, and contexts are suggested to significantly support the realization of creative potential (Zaeske et al., 2022).
Creativity is a complex and multidimensional construct that has been studied from various theoretical approaches and perspectives, resulting in diverse definitions that attempt to characterize it, although ultimately they complement one another (Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Hernández Ortiz et al., 2020; Zaeske et al., 2022). Among the theoretical foundations of the scale used in this study are two highly influential theories in the field of creativity: Sternberg and Lubart’s (1995) investment theory, particularly with respect to the personality attributes they identified as characteristic of creative individuals—namely, openness to experience, tolerance for ambiguity, perseverance, risk-taking, and individualism. In addition, the scale is supported by Csikszentmihalyi’s (1988) systems model, which posits that creative achievement occurs when an individual, by mastering the concepts or symbols of a given domain of knowledge, produces an outcome or idea that is deemed valuable and subsequently incorporated into that domain. This perspective also encompasses a set of opposing traits that characterize creative individuals (Csikszentmihalyi, 1998).
Even in the era of artificial intelligence, creative thinking continues to be considered a fundamental 21st-century skill (Goecke et al., 2026). From a psychoeducational perspective, one feature commonly shared across scientific definitions is that creativity involves the generation of novel, valuable, and useful ideas or products (Amabile, 1983; Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Cropley, 2017; Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Guilford, 1967; Singh & Chakrabarti, 2025). The study of creativity involves various personal and contextual factors, including cognitive processes, personality traits, motivation, and environmental conditions (Amabile & Pratt, 2016; Baer & Kaufman, 2005; da Costa et al., 2015; De Bono, 1969; Sternberg & Lubart, 1995), which promote the emergence of novel ideas, work methods, and solutions to problems or tasks (Gajda et al., 2017). It should be noted that this creative ability can manifest in different domains of life, such as art, science, or everyday activities (Baer & Kaufman, 2005; Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009). Ultimately, creativity can be conceived as an inherent human capacity that has been, and continues to be, decisive for the evolution and survival of the species, as it enables the transformation of the environment and the development of the world we live in (Campos, 2018; Fernández et al., 2019; Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2022).
In light of the above, it is important to emphasize the significant role of personality traits in creativity. Personality can be defined as relatively stable and enduring patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that distinguish individuals from one another, regardless of culture or language (Eshet & Margaliot, 2022). Regarding its development, personality becomes relatively stable after late adolescence (Zaeske et al., 2022), while it is more malleable during childhood and adolescence compared to adulthood (Serrano et al., 2022). Consequently, many personality changes tend to occur throughout adolescence.
One of the most influential models in the field of personality is the Five-Factor Model proposed by Costa and McCrae (1992), which postulates the existence of five broad personality dimensions: openness to experience (imagination, curiosity, independent thinking styles, and preference for novel ideas or experiences); conscientiousness (organization, structure, impulse control); extraversion (assertiveness, sociability, interpersonal dynamism); agreeableness (cooperation, sensitivity to others’ needs); and neuroticism or emotional instability (irritability, sadness, anxiety).
Regarding the study of creative personality, research focuses on identifying which personality traits characterize the most creative individuals. However, scientific evidence indicates that there is no single profile; rather, creativity is associated with a constellation of traits, whose relationship with creativity varies depending on the assessment method and the creative domain considered (Chen et al., 2023; Mishra, 2020; Romoa et al., 2017; Ruiz-Melero et al., 2020). Nevertheless, there is consensus regarding certain traits that tend to characterize creative individuals.
Openness to experience has been consistently identified as a central trait of creative personality during adolescence (Asquith et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2023; Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Mishra, 2020; Puryear et al., 2019; Romoa et al., 2017; Zaeske et al., 2022). Romoa et al. (2017) described openness to experience as promoting creativity by facilitating attention to diverse and unusual information. While some authors argue that openness is not the only predictor of creativity, other personality traits, as well as cognitive and contextual variables, have also been identified as significant predictors or moderators (Bridges & Schendan, 2019; Pérez-Luño et al., 2024; Puryear et al., 2019; Ruiz-Melero et al., 2020).
Extraversion is consistently reported as the second most correlated trait with creativity (Pérez-Luño et al., 2024; Puryear et al., 2019; Zaeske et al., 2022). It is positively associated with creativity, as the tendency to be energetic and seek external stimulation and social interaction constitutes a relevant factor for adolescents’ creative ideation (Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Puryear et al., 2019; Ruiz-Melero et al., 2020).
Conscientiousness has shown mixed and inconsistent results (Feist, 1998; Romoa et al., 2017). While some studies report a strong positive relationship with creative production measures (McCrae & Greenberg, 2014; Overskeid et al., 2012), negative associations have also been found with creative ideation and artistic creativity (Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Puryear et al., 2019).
Agreeableness is the personality trait least associated with creativity (Romo et al., 2017), frequently yielding non-significant, ambiguous, or weak results regarding its relationship with creativity (Dollinger, 2011; Hornberg & Reiter-Palmon, 2017; Ivcevic, 2007). In studies showing some association, findings are inconsistent and vary depending on the creative domain. Some report a negative relationship, suggesting that highly creative individuals exhibit lower levels of agreeableness (Barnhart et al., 2025; Feist, 1998; Zaeske et al., 2022), while others indicate a weak but positive relationship, particularly in domains such as everyday, social, or academic creativity (Campbell & Kaufman, 2015).
Emotional instability has often been considered a negative predictor of creativity (Feist, 1998; Krumm et al., 2018; Puryear et al., 2019). However, some studies have reported positive associations, especially with artistic creativity and ideation (Chen et al., 2023; Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Hernández Ortiz et al., 2020; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2019; Puryear et al., 2019; Zaeske et al., 2022), indicating that some highly creative individuals may also exhibit high levels of this trait, manifested through intense anxiety or nervousness (Chen et al., 2023; Erzhanova, 2024; Pérez-Fuentes et al., 2019). Thus, the relationship between emotional instability and creativity remains highly controversial (Eshet & Margaliot, 2022; Zaeske et al., 2022).
It is also relevant to consider how personal experiences, in addition to broader personality traits, contribute to individuals perceiving themselves as more or less creative (Benedek et al., 2025). In this regard, it is important to acknowledge that various personality-related constructs have been examined in relation to creative achievement, thereby extending the focus beyond traditional trait-based approaches. Among these, self-referential creative beliefs—such as creative self-concept and creative personal identity—are particularly noteworthy, as they shape perceptions of one’s own potential, guide engagement in creative activities, and contribute to the sustainability of creative performance over time (Lebuda, 2024; Lebuda et al., 2021). In this context, the study by Boldt et al. (2024) classified a sample of adolescents into four groups based on their creative self-perception (“I am creative,” “I am not creative,” “I might be creative in math/science,” and “I might be creative, but not in math/science”). The findings indicated that the “I am creative” and “I might be creative, but not in math/science” groups were associated with higher levels of openness to experience and extraversion.
Overall, the interaction of different personality traits can influence how students approach tasks, both creative and academic. Traits such as conscientiousness are clearly linked to academic success, as they support performance in structured tasks, whereas openness to experience better predicts performance in more open-ended academic tasks and perseverance in problem-solving (Chamorro-Premuzic, 2006). Similarly, authors such as Serrano et al. (2022) indicate that conscientiousness has a positive effect on academic performance, whereas openness to experience influences performance only indirectly. High openness combined with low neuroticism may facilitate divergent thinking, while a combination of high conscientiousness and extraversion may support more organized and structured academic performance (Kapoor et al., 2025).
From this perspective, related to the educational context and the transformative potential of schooling, the role of the teacher and the characteristics of the educational environment is highlighted. It is also essential to integrate these constructs into educational programs to foster the generation of sustainable solutions (Harvey-López et al., 2024). This represents a global need requiring collective and integrated responses, combining creativity, collaboration, and participatory methodologies, promoting the co-construction of solutions to complex problems and the development of shared knowledge among students and teachers (Harvey-López et al., 2024).
In this context, the research gap addressed by the present study lies in the fact that, despite existing research on creativity and academic achievement, few studies have specifically analyzed the role of creative personality in early secondary education students (first-year ESO), also considering differences according to sex, the predictive value of creativity, and its various dimensions. This gap highlights the need to further investigate the influence of creative personality on academic achievement at this educational stage; consequently, the general aim of this study is to analyze the role of creative personality in the academic performance of a sample of first-year secondary education students. The specific objectives are: (1) to examine potential sex differences in the studied variables, namely creative personality and academic performance; (2) to investigate the relationships between the analyzed variables; and (3) to explore the influence of creative personality on students’ academic performance. Therefore, this study seeks to address the following research questions: what is the role of creative personality in the academic achievement of first-year ESO students?; are there differences according to participants’ sex in creative personality and academic achievement?; what is the relationship between creative personality and academic achievement in these students?; and to what extent does creative personality influence students’ academic performance?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

The sample consisted of students from a public secondary school in the Region of Murcia, Spain. A non-probabilistic, intentional convenience sampling method was employed based on the criterion that all participants were enrolled in the same grade level. The sample included 125 first-year secondary education students, aged between 12 and 14 years (M = 12.35; SD = 0.54). Regarding the sex distribution, 59.20% were male and 40.80% were female.
The study was conducted at a publicly funded secondary and high school located in southeastern Spain (Region of Murcia), where a structured set of initiatives aimed at fostering creativity, innovation, and students’ transversal competencies is implemented. These initiatives are designed to promote experiential learning and scientific–technological thinking and, among other objectives, to contribute to the development of students’ creative personality. Taken together, these features characterize a school that goes beyond the mere transmission of formal knowledge, seeking to cultivate transversal skills such as creativity, communication, and critical thinking, while also promoting the sociocultural inclusion of its students.

2.2. Instruments

To assess self-reported creativity through the exploration of student behaviors and personality traits, the Creative Personality Scale (CPS) by Garaigordobil and Pérez (2005) was used. This scale is based on the theoretical models by Sternberg and Lubart (1995) and Csikszentmihalyi (1998). Creativity is thus conceived as a component inherent to personality traits, a perspective supported by international empirical evidence (Ramos-Vera et al., 2020).
The scale comprises 21 items with affirmative statements, rated on a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from “not at all” to “very much.” The items are grouped into five factors:
  • Problem Identification and Solving Ability—indicates a person’s skill in facing and resolving problems, even in difficult or adverse situations.
  • Independence, Creative Self-Concept, and Inventiveness—characteristic of creative individuals who foster creativity and innovation through art and the creation of new things.
  • Enjoyment and Interest in Diverse Games and Openness to Experience—reflects a person’s ability to remain open to exploration, research, and learning about the unknown.
  • Enjoyment of Intellectual Games and Learning—promotes the development of creativity and intelligence, fundamental aspects for generating novel ideas and creations.
  • Enjoyment of Risk, Construction, and Sense of Humor—relates to the ability to create stories, novels, or fables as a form of emotional and intellectual expression, demonstrating the capacity to confront various challenges in their narratives.
The reliability of the CPS reported by Garaigordobil and Pérez (2005), evaluated through Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, was 0.860, considered satisfactory. For the present study, reliability was also analyzed, yielding a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.831 and a Guttman split-half coefficient of 0.816, indicating adequate reliability. As noted by the authors of the scale, the correlations among the different dimensions are moderate, a pattern that has also been observed in the present study. Therefore, in line with Garaigordobil and Pérez (2005), the unidimensionality of the questionnaire can be assumed, a feature they substantiated through validity studies. Similarly, in our study, moderate correlations were found among the dimensions of the scale, thus yielding results consistent with those reported by the original authors.
To assess academic performance, students’ grades from the second term of the 2024/2025 school year were considered for all subjects studied during this period. Academic performance was analyzed by grouping grades as follows: (a) subjects related to the scientific–technological field and mathematics (Technology, Mathematics, and Biology) and (b) subjects not directly related to this field (Physical Education, Geography, Art, Spanish Language, English, and French). The first group was designated as STEM subjects (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) and the second as non-STEM subjects. The academic achievement variables considered in this study were obtained by calculating the average score of the subjects included in the two categories mentioned above (STEM and non-STEM).

2.3. Data Collection and Analysis Procedure

First, a review of the scientific literature was conducted to select the instrument for assessing creative personality. The school’s management team and guidance department were then contacted to explain the study’s objectives and target population, and informed consent was obtained from the students’ families, ensuring the confidentiality of the collected data. The process adhered to ethical standards established by the American Psychological Association (APA). Data collection was conducted in person, and students’ grades were also recorded for the various subjects. Specifically, during the third term of the 2024/25 academic year, data were collected through the administration of the selected creative personality questionnaire, also taking into account students’ most recent grades, corresponding to the second term of the same academic year.
Subsequently, participants’ responses were entered into Excel, and appropriate statistical analyses were conducted to address the study objectives. The study follows a quantitative, non-experimental paradigm and adopts a cross-sectional, correlational design. Non-parametric statistics and multiple regression analyses were employed to address the objectives of this research. Statistical analyses were performed using SPSS version 28 for Windows, with a significance threshold of 0.05 and a confidence level of 95% (p-value > 0.05). A descriptive analysis of the study variables was conducted (mean, standard deviation, skewness, and kurtosis); the normality of the study variables was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, the results of which led to the use of non-parametric statistics. Specifically, the Mann–Whitney U test was employed to examine differences based on sex, and Pearson’s r was used to analyze effect size. Additionally, Spearman’s rho correlation was applied to investigate the relationships between the study variables. Finally, multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to explore these relationships further, including multicollinearity indicators (tolerance and VIF).

3. Results

First, the study variables were examined through a descriptive analysis. To this end, the five factors comprising the Creative Personality Scale, as proposed by Garaigordobil and Pérez (2005), along with the academic performance variables, were considered. Mean scores were calculated according to the grouping of STEM and non-STEM subjects (Table 1). The decision regarding this grouping was based on an interdisciplinary and sustainability-oriented curricular approach, taking into account current educational trends in this area (Persano Adorno et al., 2025).
Table 1. Descriptive Analysis of the Variables of Interest.
As shown in Table 1, the mean scores of the EPC scale factors are relatively close to one another. The highest mean values correspond to Factor 2 (Independence, Creative Self-Concept, and Inventiveness) and Factor 5 (Enjoyment of Risk, Construction, and Sense of Humor), whereas the lowest mean is observed for Factor 4 (Enjoyment of Intellectual Games and Learning).
All factors exhibit slight negative skewness, indicating a greater concentration of higher scores in the response distributions, except for Factor 3, whose value close to zero suggests an approximately symmetric distribution.
Regarding academic performance, mean scores of 6.14 for STEM subjects and 6.76 for non-STEM subjects are observed, suggesting slightly higher performance in non-scientific and non-technological areas. Both performance measures show moderate score dispersion. STEM subjects display mild negative skewness, whereas non-STEM subjects exhibit more pronounced negative skewness, indicating a stronger concentration of scores at the upper end of the scale.
Kurtosis values indicate that academic performance in STEM subjects is negative and therefore platykurtic, whereas academic performance in non-STEM subjects is positive and thus leptokurtic.
Before conducting the data analyses required to address the specific objectives of this study, the normality of the variables was assessed using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test, which indicated that most variables did not meet the normality assumption. Therefore, non-parametric statistical methods were employed.
To address the first specific objective—namely, to examine whether there were sex-based differences in the studied variables—the Mann–Whitney U test was used. Criteria were established with a 0.05% margin of error and a 95% confidence level (p value > 0.05) (Table 2).
Table 2. Mann–Whitney U Test for the Comparison of Ranks Between Male and Female Students on the Study Variables.
In this regard, the Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare differences between participants according to sex for the studied variables, since the data did not meet the normality assumptions required for parametric tests, as previously noted. This test is considered statistically powerful in exploratory studies, particularly those with small to moderate sample sizes (Paz Zanini et al., 2025; Sathyanarayana et al., 2024; Vrbin, 2022). In our study, it was applied to each evaluated variable to rigorously analyze differences between male and female students, thereby providing clear statistical evidence regarding the influence of sex on these variables.
As shown in Table 2, first, the mean ranks of the variables analyzed are generally higher for female adolescents, except for Factor 5: Risk-taking enjoyment, construction, and sense of humor, in which male adolescents obtain a higher mean rank. When considering the statistical significance of these observed differences, with regard to the Creative Personality Scale, statistically significant differences are found in Factor 1 (Problem identification and problem-solving ability) and Factor 3 (Enjoyment and interest in varied games and openness to experience), in favor of female adolescents.
Regarding academic performance, female adolescents obtain higher scores than male adolescents; however, statistically significant differences are found only in non-STEM subjects, in favor of female adolescents.
With respect to effect size values, Pearson’s r was used and calculated following the guidelines proposed by Tomczak and Tomczak (2014), yielding small effect size values (Sathyanarayana et al., 2024).
To address the second specific objective, concerning the study of the relationship between the variables analyzed—creative personality and academic performance—Spearman’s rho correlation coefficient was used (Table 3).
Table 3. Correlations between Creative Personality and Academic Performance (Spearman’s Rho).
As shown in Table 3, correlations among the factors of creative personality are mostly statistically significant and range from low to moderate in magnitude, all of them positive. In the case of academic performance, a high correlation is observed between achievement in STEM and non-STEM subjects. When examining the relationship between creative personality and academic performance, it should be noted that all correlations were statistically significant, except for Factors 2 and 5, for which no relationship with academic performance was observed. Although the magnitude of the correlations between creative personality Factors 1, 3, and 4 and academic performance is very similar, it should be noted that the correlations are of greater magnitude in non-STEM subjects.
Given the significance of the correlations obtained between creative personality and academic performance and in order to address Specific Objective 3—aimed at examining the influence of creative personality on students’ academic performance—a multiple linear regression analysis was conducted to determine whether this variable acts as a predictor of achievement in both STEM and non-STEM subjects. It should be noted that a multiple linear regression model was employed in accordance with the objectives of this study, as it allows for the simultaneous analysis of the effects of the various creative personality factors on academic performance. Furthermore, this type of regression does not require a predetermined order of entry for the predictors, thereby reducing subjectivity in model construction and making more efficient use of the available information.
The first model, with academic performance in STEM subjects as the dependent variable, was statistically significant [F(5,117) = 4.190; p = 0.002], yielding an R = 0.390 and an R2 = 0.116, which indicates a moderate predictive capacity.
Table 4 presents the individual coefficients of the model. Of the five EPC factors, only Factor 1 (Problem identification and problem-solving ability) emerged as a statistically significant predictor of performance in STEM subjects. This result suggests that, among the different dimensions of creative personality, the ability to identify and solve problems is particularly relevant for achievement in STEM subjects. It should be noted that the Tolerance and VIF indicators show no multicollinearity among the independent variables, except in the case of F3 (Pleasure and interest in varied games and openness to experience), although the values remain very close to statistically acceptable thresholds (Adeboye et al., 2014).
Table 4. Linear Regression Analysis of Academic Performance in STEM Subjects: Model Coefficients.
The second regression model, conducted with non-STEM academic performance as the dependent variable, was statistically significant [F(5,117) = 5.951; p < 0.001], yielding an R = 0.450 and an R2 = 0.169. This indicates a slightly higher predictive capacity than the previous model, although still representing a moderate level of prediction.
Table 5 presents the individual coefficients of the model. As in the previous model, only Factor 1 (Problem identification and problem-solving ability) emerged as a statistically significant individual predictor of academic performance in non-STEM subjects. In this regard, it should be noted that the Tolerance and VIF values indicate the absence of multicollinearity among the independent variables. As in the previous case, F3 (Enjoyment of and interest in a variety of games and openness to experience) remains close to statistically acceptable thresholds (Adeboye et al., 2014).
Table 5. Linear regression analysis of non-STEM academic achievement: Model coefficients.
Therefore, the results allow us to conclude that Factor 1 (Problem identification and problem-solving ability) is a robust and positive predictor of academic performance in both curricular areas, with stronger explanatory power for performance in non-STEM subjects. This factor thus appears to play a particularly relevant role in students’ school achievement.
Finally, the main findings of this study indicate that participants demonstrated moderate levels of creative personality, slightly higher academic performance in non-STEM subjects, and significant sex differences in certain creative personality traits and in non-STEM achievement in favor of girls. Correlational analyses revealed low to moderate positive associations between several creative personality factors and academic performance. Regression analyses identified problem identification and problem-solving ability as the only significant predictor in both STEM and non-STEM subjects, with modest R2 values. These findings are consistent with meta-analytic evidence suggesting that creativity and personality traits contribute to, but do not predominantly determine, academic outcomes.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

Based on the literature review and the results obtained in this study, it can be noted that creative personality is related to academic performance and that students’ ability to identify and solve problems is a relevant personal variable within the academic context. This problem-solving ability has been widely associated with creativity and academic success and is considered a fundamental skill for adolescent development, as it enables students to successfully face and solve a variety of problems with different and original solutions (Keleş, 2022).
In line with the general objective of analyzing the role of creative personality in the academic performance of a sample of first-year secondary education students, the participants were found to exhibit medium levels of creative personality across the factors assessed using the Garaigordobil and Pérez (2005) Creative Personality Scale. Regarding academic performance, the mean grades obtained in non-STEM subjects were slightly higher than those in STEM subjects.
First, when analyzing differences in the variables of interest according to sex, the results show statistically significant differences in the following creative personality traits: Problem identification and problem-solving ability and Enjoyment and interest in varied games and openness to experience, with female students scoring higher. Similarly, a recent large-scale study analyzing creative thinking in 62 countries using data from the 2022 Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) shows that, in most countries, creative thinking competence is higher in girls than in boys, although with considerable variability (Goecke et al., 2026).
However, a systematic review by González and Molero (2022) indicates that, in general, scientific evidence does not show significant sex differences in creativity during adolescence. Regarding sex differences in academic performance, the results obtained indicate that girls perform better in non-STEM subjects. This finding is consistent with previous studies reporting that girls tend to excel in verbal and humanities skills (Caballero & Fernández, 2018). Additionally, Tzachrista et al. (2023) concluded that fostering adaptive creativity positively influences academic performance in girls, whereas in boys, both adaptive creativity and inventiveness are positively associated with academic success. Overall, these findings suggest that the present study aligns with research identifying sex differences in both creativity and academic performance.
Second, when examining the relationship between creative personality and academic performance, positive correlations were found between the factors Problem identification and problem-solving ability, Enjoyment and interest in varied games and openness to experience, and Enjoyment in intellectual games and learning, and academic performance in both STEM and non-STEM subjects. Similar results were reported by Tzachrista et al. (2023), who found a significant positive correlation between creativity and performance in reading, comprehension, and written tasks. Likewise, Ramírez and López (2017) identified a direct and significant correlation between the two variables, indicating that students with higher levels of creativity achieved better grades in Spanish language and mathematics. In contrast, Caballero and Fernández (2018) found a moderate and significant positive correlation between creativity and academic performance, but limited to the Spanish language subject and not observed in mathematics. Finally, Garaigordobil and Torres (1996) showed that verbal creativity maintains a positive relationship with academic performance, whereas graphic creativity exhibits only a weak association.
Third, to determine whether creative personality could be a predictor of academic performance, the regression analysis conducted in this study indicates that creative personality factors explain 16.90% of the variability in non-STEM academic performance, with Problem identification and problem-solving ability being the only significant predictor. A similar pattern was observed for STEM subjects, where creative personality traits accounted for 11.60% of the variability in performance, again with Problem identification and problem-solving ability as the sole significant predictor. Similarly, Chamorro-Premuzic (2006) concluded that students with greater creativity and cognitive flexibility are more persistent in solving problems and completing academic tasks. Ruiz-Melero (2017) also points out that openness to experience is a personality variable that predicts academic performance, alongside creativity and intelligence (Hughes et al., 2013; Livne & Milgram, 2006; McCrae & Greenberg, 2014).
As highlighted throughout this study, the relationship between creativity and academic performance has attracted increasing attention in educational research, particularly regarding its predictive potential. These variables have been consistently identified as positively and significantly related, regardless of the educational stage considered (Gajda et al., 2017). In this regard, Tzachrista et al. (2023) emphasize that creativity is closely linked to academic performance and that the cognitive processes associated with it foster the development of competencies relevant to learning. In line with this perspective, the present study’s finding that Problem identification and problem-solving ability is a significant predictor of academic performance is consistent with theoretical frameworks conceptualizing this skill as a higher-order cognitive process. Such a process is considered fundamental for knowledge acquisition, the transfer of learning, and the achievement of successful academic performance, as highlighted by various authors (Tristán & Mendoza, 2016; Tzachrista et al., 2023).
Practical Implications
The results of this study provide evidence consistent with the scientific literature reviewed, which indicates that creative personality plays a significant role in adolescents’ academic performance, both in STEM and non-STEM areas, in line with previous research highlighting creativity as a fundamental competence for students’ holistic development, particularly during adolescence (Campos, 2018; Cuetos et al., 2024; Tzachrista et al., 2023). They also consistently confirm its relevance for academic success (Ramírez & López, 2017; Tzachrista et al., 2023). The focus on secondary education students and the distinction between performance in STEM and non-STEM areas aligns with current research trends and educational policies promoting the integration of creativity into core subjects, while the findings—particularly the role of problem identification and problem-solving—provide a significant contribution to the literature.
Therefore, the existing body of scientific literature indicates that fostering creativity can act as a catalyst for educational transformation, as education aimed at developing creativity constitutes a crucial starting point not only for transforming educational practices but also for society as a whole, by opening the way to new teaching and learning approaches in which creativity serves as the backbone of a renewed educational model. This approach promotes an education that values creative development as a core principle, considering creativity a key resource for personal well-being and the construction of rich, dynamic life trajectories (Rodrigo-Martín et al., 2022).
Finally, it is worth noting that the relevance of the results provides a basis for designing psycho-pedagogical strategies that integrate creativity as a central element, highlighting the influence of task type and teacher profile, as these factors affect the manifestation and development of creative skills (Gajda et al., 2017). In this regard, following the contributions by Guilford (1967) and Tzachrista et al. (2023), it is recommended to promote activities and assessments that enhance creativity and problem-solving, thereby fostering critical, comprehensive, and sustainable learning. This underscores the current need to incorporate creativity into educational curricula from these perspectives, emphasizing the importance of integrating educational policies and contextual interventions at a global level (Goecke et al., 2026; Nijstad et al., 2026) to enhance adaptation to changing scenarios and the generation of creative responses oriented toward sustainability (Harvey-López et al., 2024). In this regard, Persano Adorno et al. (2025) argue that integrating sustainability across all areas of the curriculum, beyond STEM disciplines, fosters students’ holistic development and environmental awareness, enabling them to participate actively as global citizens. This approach transforms classrooms into spaces of innovation and equips students with the competencies and social commitment required to address twenty-first-century sustainability challenges. From this perspective, a noteworthy example is the FOCUS program, designed for easy integration into classroom practice and aimed at promoting creative problem-solving in the field of sustainability in Secondary Education. It is structured around a two-stage approach that develops flexibility, originality, creative personality, and strategic planning. Furthermore, it incorporates teacher training and a challenge-based learning framework in which students engage in real-world projects related to sustainability. The program’s effectiveness was supported by feedback from both teachers and students, highlighting the potential of challenge-based learning to transform the way adolescents approach real-world problems and to align education with twenty-first-century sustainability goals. Finally, it is worth noting that these findings underscore the importance of implementing innovative approaches in contemporary educational systems (Haim & Aschauer, 2024).
Limitations and Future Research
This study allowed for a detailed analysis within a sample of adolescents, providing valuable insights into the relationships between creative personality and academic performance. Moreover, the data highlight how certain creative personality traits may influence academic achievement, laying the groundwork for future research to explore these links across different educational contexts and larger populations.
However, this study has limitations that restrict the generalizability of its findings. The sample was limited to students from a single grade and school, which constrains its representativeness and the extrapolation of results to other adolescent populations. Additionally, creative personality was assessed exclusively through self-report measures, which may introduce social desirability bias.
Future research should expand the sample across different educational levels, contexts, and schools; incorporate complementary instruments to measure creativity; and examine the role of additional variables, such as self-esteem or other cognitive factors, as control or influential variables in the relationship between creative personality and academic performance, and longitudinal, multimethod, and experimental designs are also recommended to analyze how interventions aimed at developing creativity affect both academic achievement and outcomes related to educational sustainability. In this regard, it is essential to integrate creativity into educational strategies to promote responsible and sustainable learning aligned with the contemporary challenges of sustainability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M. and S.L.-O.; methodology, M.S.-G. and M.J.R.-M.; validation, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M., S.L.-O. and R.B.; formal analysis, M.S.-G. and M.J.R.-M.; investigation, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M. and S.L.-O.; writing—original draft preparation, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M. and S.L.-O.; writing—review and editing, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M., S.L.-O. and R.B.; visualization, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M., S.L.-O. and R.B.; super-vision, M.S.-G., M.J.R.-M., S.L.-O. and R.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was not submitted for review by an ethics committee, as it corresponds to an educational research project involving no clinical intervention and posing no risk to participants; it consisted solely of the administration of a very brief questionnaire (approximately 5 min). Given its nature and scope, formal ethics committee approval was not required. Nevertheless, the research was conducted in accordance with the ethical principles set forth in the Declaration of Helsinki, ensuring respect for the dignity, rights, confidentiality, and well-being of the adolescent participants. Written informed consent was obtained from parents or legal guardians, as well as informed assent from the adolescents, whose participation was entirely voluntary and who were informed of their right to withdraw from the study at any time without consequences. Both parents/guardians and participants were informed that the data collected would be treated confidentially and analyzed in aggregate form for research purposes only. Accordingly, no individual-level results were analyzed or reported, in compliance with applicable data protection regulations (EU Regulation 2016/679 and Organic Law 3/2018).

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author due to privacy and ethical reasons.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Adeboye, N. O., Fagoyinbo, I. S., & Olatayo, T. O. (2014). Estimation of the effect of multicollinearity on the standard error for regression coefficients. Journal of Mathematics, 10(4), 16–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  2. Amabile, T. M. (1983). The social psychology of creativity: A componential conceptualization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 357–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Amabile, T. M., & Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: Making progress, making meaning. Research in Organizational Behavior, 36, 157–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  4. Asquith, S. L., Wang, X., Quintana, D. S., & Abraham, A. (2022). Predictors of creativity in young people: Using frequentist and Bayesian approaches in estimating the importance of individual and contextual factors. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 16(2), 209–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  5. Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The Amusement Park Theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  6. Barnhart, A. S., Tuchel, S., Kuhn, G., & Simons, D. J. (2025). Identifying the boundaries of magic A qualitative study of expert magicians. Journal of Performance Magic, 8(1). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  7. Benedek, M., Saretzki, J., & Lebuda, I. (2025). Why do you think you are creative? An analysis of sources and correlates of creative self-concept judgements. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 57, 101813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  8. Boldt, G. T., Ivcevic, Z., & Kaufman, J. C. (2024). Do you think you are creative? Patterns of self-perceived creativity in adolescents and young adults. Creativity Research Journal, 38(1), 48–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  9. Bridges, D., & Schendan, H. E. (2019). The sensitive, open creator. Personality and Individual Differences, 142, 179–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  10. Caballero, A., & Fernández, M. (2018). Creatividad y rendimiento académico: Un estudio de caso con alumnos de 4º curso de educación secundaria. Revista Iberoamericana de Educación, 78(2), 77–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  11. Campbell, K., & Kaufman, J. C. (2015). Do you pursue your heart or your art?: Creativity, personality, and love. Journal of Family Issues, 38(3), 287–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  12. Campos, G. (2018). Percepciones del alumnado sobre la relevancia de la creatividad en el proceso de enseñanza-aprendizaje. ReiDoCrea, 7, 1–16. Available online: https://www.ugr.es/~reidocrea/7-1.pdf (accessed on 20 January 2026). [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  13. Chamorro-Premuzic, T. (2006). Creativity versus conscientiousness: Which is a better predictor of student performance? Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 521–531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  14. Chen, Q., Christensen, A. P., Kenett, Y. N., Ren, Z., Condon, D. M., Bilder, R. M., Qiu, J., & Beaty, R. E. (2023). Mapping the creative personality: A psychometric network analysis of highly creative artists and scientists. Creativity Research Journal, 35(3), 455–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  15. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory: Professional manual. Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
  16. Cropley, D. H. (2017). Creative products: Defining and measuring novel solutions. In J. Plucker (Ed.), Creativity and innovation: Theory, research, and practice (pp. 61–74). Routledge. [Google Scholar]
  17. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1988). Motivation and creativity: Toward a synthesis of structural and energistic approaches to cognition. New Ideas in Psychology, 6(2), 159–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  18. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1998). Creatividad: El fluir y la psicología del descubrimiento y la invención. Paidós. [Google Scholar]
  19. Cuetos, M. J., Serrano, N., & Yanes, A. M. (2024). Relación entre creatividad y rendimiento académico en alumnado entre 3.º y 6.º de educación primaria. Bordón, Revista de Pedagogía, 76(1), 49–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  20. da Costa, S., Páez, D., Sánchez, F., Garaigordobil, M., & Gondim, S. (2015). Personal factors of creativity: A second order meta-analysis. Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 31(3), 165–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  21. De Bono, E. (1969). Information processing and new ideas—Lateral and vertical thinking. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 3(3), 159–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  22. Dollinger, S. J. (2011). Standardized minds or individuality? Admissions tests and creativity revisited. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 5(4), 329–341. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  23. Erzhanova, A. K. (2024). The big five personality traits as a moderator of the relationship between foreign language classroom anxiety and creative personality. Psychological Science and Education, 29(3), 31–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  24. Eshet, Y., & Margaliot, A. (2022). Does creative thinking contribute to the academic integrity of education students? Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 925195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  25. Feist, G. J. (1998). A meta-analysis of personality in scientific and artistic creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2(4), 290–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  26. Fernández, J. R., Llamas-Salguero, F., & Gutiérrez-Ortega, M. (2019). Creatividad: Revisión del concepto. REIDOCREA, 8, 467–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  27. Gajda, A., Karwowski, M., & Beghetto, R. A. (2017). Creativity and academic achievement: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(2), 269–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  28. Garaigordobil, M., & Pérez, J. I. (2005). Escala de personalidad Creadora: Estudio psicométrico exploratorio. Estudios de Psicología, 26(3), 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  29. Garaigordobil, M., & Torres, E. (1996). Evaluación de la creatividad en sus correlatos con inteligencia y rendimiento académico. Revista de Psicología Universitas Tarraconensis, 18, 87–98. [Google Scholar]
  30. Goecke, B., Benedek, M., Diedrich-Rust, J., Forthmann, B., Patzl, S., & Weiss, S. (2026). Being female and being well-situated implies higher performance on creative thinking tests: Evidence across 62 countries from PISA 2022. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 59, 101963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  31. González, A., & Molero, M. M. (2022). Diferencias de sexo en habilidades sociales y creatividad en adolescentes: Una revisión sistemática. Revista Fuentes, 24(1), 116–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  32. Guilford, J. P. (1967). The nature of human intelligence. McGraw-Hill. [Google Scholar]
  33. Haim, K., & Aschauer, W. (2024). Innovative FOCUS: A program to foster creativity and innovation in the context of education for sustainability. Sustainability, 16(6), 2257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  34. Harvey-López, U. H., Vázquez-Vílchez, M., & Salmerón-Vílchez, P. (2024). The contributions of creativity to the learning process within educational approaches for sustainable development and/or ecosocial perspectives: A systematic review. Education Sciences, 14(8), 824. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  35. Hernández Ortiz, A. F., López-Martínez, O., & Corbalán Berná, F. J. (2020). Creative talent and personality: A primary education study. Sustainability, 12(10), 4203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  36. Hessen, P. R., & Kuncel, N. R. (2022). Beyond grades: A meta-analysis of personality predictors of academic behavior in middle school and high school. Personality and Individual Differences, 199, 111809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  37. Hornberg, J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). Creativity and the big five personality traits: Is the relationship dependent on the creativity measure? In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 275–293). Cambridge University Press. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  38. Hughes, D. J., Furnham, A., & Batey, M. (2013). The structure and personality predictors of self-rated creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 9, 76–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  39. Ivcevic, Z. (2007). Artistic and everyday creativity: An act-frequency approach. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 41(4), 271–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  40. Kapoor, H., Patston, T., Cropley, D. H., Rezaei, S., & Kaufman, J. C. (2025). Creativity predicts standardized educational outcomes beyond GPA and personality. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 56, 101751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  41. Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The Four C model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  42. Keleş, T. (2022). Investigation of high school students’ creative problem-solving attributes. Journal of Pedagogical Research, 6(4), 66–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  43. Krumm, G., Lemos, V., & Richaud, M. C. (2018). Personality and creativity: A study in Spanish speaking children. International Journal of Psychological Research, 11(1), 33–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  44. Lebuda, I. (2024). Broadening perspective on creative personality: Surface and core characteristics as predictors of creative achievements. Creativity Research Journal, 37(2), 250–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  45. Lebuda, I., Zielinska, A., & Karwowski, M. (2021). On surface and core predictors of reallife creativity. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 42, 100973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  46. Livne, N. L., & Milgram, R. M. (2006). Academic versus creative abilities in mathematics: Two components of the same construct? Creativity Research Journal, 18(2), 199–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  47. McCrae, R. R., & Greenberg, D. M. (2014). Openness to experience. In D. K. Simonton (Ed.), The Wiley handbook of genius (pp. 222–243). Wiley Blackwell. [Google Scholar]
  48. Mishra, D. S. K. (2020). Creativity as a function of personality. International Journal of Applied Research, 6(11), 425–428. [Google Scholar]
  49. Nijstad, B., Calic, G., de Faria, P., Grimpe, C., & Kauppila, O. P. (2026). Connecting creativity and innovation research: Building bridges to cross divides. Research Policy, 55(2), 105391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  50. Overskeid, G., Grønnerød, C., & Simonton, D. K. (2012). The personality of a nonperson: Gauging the inner Skinner. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7(2), 187–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  51. Paz Zanini, R. E., Paz Zanini, V. I., Elías, V. M., & Pinto, V. (2025). La pertinencia de la estadística no paramétrica en el análisis de resultados de investigaciones en ciencias sociales. Revista Estado y Sociedad, 12(1), 20–40. [Google Scholar]
  52. Persano Adorno, D., Birsan, E. A., Stoica, S. F., Capatina, M., Cojocaru, C., Tzortzaki, A., Štanfelj, Z., Dinçer, Y. S., & Pizzolato, N. (2025). Sustainability as a cross-curricular link: Creative European strategies for eco-conscious environmental education. Sustainability, 17(11), 5193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  53. Pérez-Fuentes, M. D. C., Molero Jurado, M. D. M., Gázquez Linares, J. J., Oropesa Ruiz, N. F., Simón Márquez, M. D. M., & Saracostti, M. (2019). Self-expressive creativity in the adolescent digital domain: Personality, self-esteem, and emotions. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  54. Pérez-Luño, A., Aguilar-Caro, R., & Muñoz-Doyague, M. F. (2024). The influence of personality and team-member exchange on creativity: A gendered approach. Gender in Management: An International Journal, 39(1), 145–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  55. Puryear, J. S., Kettler, T., & Rinn, A. N. (2019). Relating personality and creativity: Considering what and how we measure. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 53(2), 232–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  56. Ramírez, Y., & López, V. (2017). La creatividad, las inteligencias múltiples y el rendimiento escolar a través de las áreas instrumentales en 1º y 2º de la Educación Secundaria Obligatoria (ESO). Talincrea, 4(7), 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  57. Ramos-Vera, C. A., Serpa, A., & Lemos, V. (2020). Estructura factorial de la Escala de Personalidad Creadora (EPC) en adolescentes peruanos: Invariancia de medida según el sexo. Asociación para el Desarrollo de la Ciencia y la Tecnología; Espacios, 41(18), 1–11. Available online: https://www.revistaespacios.com/a20v41n18/a20v41n18p22.pdf (accessed on 2 January 2026).
  58. Rodrigo-Martín, I., Rodrigo-Martín, L., & Pérez-García, Á. (2022). La creatividad como herramienta para comprender la educación: El papel de la creatividad como catalizador de la transformación de la educación. Visual Review: Revista Internacional de Cultura Visual, 9, 3533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  59. Romo, M., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., & Alfonso-Benlliure, V. (2017). Creativity and personality across domains: A critical review. Anuario de Psicología/The UB Journal of Psychology, 47(2), 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  60. Romoa, M., Sanchez-Ruiz, M. J., & Alfonso-Benlliure, V. (2017). Creatividad y personalidad a través de dominios: Una revisión crítica. Anuario de Psicología, 47(2), 57–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  61. Ruiz-Melero, M. J. (2017). Estudiar los perfiles creativos de los estudiantes en los distintos ámbitos escolares de la Educación Secundaria [Doctoral thesis, Universidad de Murcia]. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ruiz-Melero, M. J., Bermejo, R., Ferrando, M., & Sainz-Gómez, M. (2020). No sólo la apertura define a los estudiantes con mayor potencial creativo. Electronic Journal of Research in Education Psychology, 18(50), 55–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  63. Sathyanarayana, S., Mohanasundaram, T., Pushpa, B. V., & Harsha, H. (2024). Selecting the right sample size: Methods and considerations for social science researchers. International Journal of Business and Management Invention (IJBMI), 13(7), 152–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Serrano, C., Murgui, S., & Andreu, Y. (2022). Improving the prediction and understanding of academic success: The role of personality facets and academic engagement. Revista de Psicodidáctica (English Edition), 27(1), 21–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  65. Singh, S., & Chakrabarti, A. (2025). Assessment of the creative potential of design problems via novelty and usefulness. Design Science, 11, e51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  66. Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. (1995). Defying the crowd: Cultivating creativity in a culture of conformity. Free Press. [Google Scholar]
  67. Tomczak, M., & Tomczak, E. (2014). The need to report effect size estimates revisited. An overview of some recommended measures of effect size. TRENDS in Sport Sciences, 1(21), 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  68. Tristán, A., & Mendoza, L. (2016). Taxonomías sobre creatividad. Revista de Psicología, 34(1), 123–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  69. Tzachrista, M., Gkintoni, E., & Halkiopoulos, C. (2023). Neurocognitive profile of creativity in improving academic performance—A scoping review. Education Sciences, 13(11), 1127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
  70. Vrbin, C. M. (2022). Parametric or nonparametric statistical tests: Considerations when choosing the most appropriate option for your data. Cytopathology, 33(6), 663–667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit] [PubMed]
  71. Zaeske, L. M., Long, H., Kahnke, S. A., & Kerr, B. A. (2022). How personality moderates the relationships between childhood environment, flow metacognitions, and creative ideational behavior: A preliminary study. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 44, 101040. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Scilit]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Journal Statistics
Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.
Perceptions of Pre-Service Teachers in Early Childhood and Primary Education on GenAI-Generated Deepfakes
Previous
Convergent Validity Between Two Fundamental Movement Skills Assessment Tools: The Test of Gross Motor Development-3 and the Canadian Agility and Movement Skill Assessment
Next