This narrative review seeks to compare the various ways in which motor creativity has been measured and to critically evaluate those methods within the context of our contemporary understanding of motor creativity. Eligible studies included those of any study design, experimental or observational, as long as motor creativity was measured. Three databases (i.e., PubMed, Scopus, and ScienceDirect) were searched from the earliest possible start dates to December 2021. No risk of bias assessment was performed as the study outcomes were not the focus of the review. After screening for eligibility, 23 articles were included for review, all having measured motor creativity. Of the 23 articles, 16 measured generic motor creativity, while the remaining seven measured task-specific motor creativity. Furthermore, 16 of the studies tested motor creativity with largely static environmental constraints, while the remaining seven were conducted with dynamic environmental constraints. Using a contemporary understanding of motor creativity, most motor creativity tests presently do not possess sufficient task specificity and environmental dynamism, which may not provide an appropriate context for the emergence of creative motor action.
Keywords: adaptability; dynamic; flexibility; fluency; originality; variability.