Background: All stages of an architectural design process, from research and analysis to form generation, require creativity. Therefore, in architecture, it is crucial to be familiar with creativity and use it correctly. Despite conducting various researches in this field, there is still no common understanding of how to evaluate creativity in architecture and most of the evaluations are based on subjective criteria, which has led to uncertainties and the impossibility of correct evaluation of the work.
Aims: This study is aimed at identifying and prioritizing the components and indicators affecting the evaluation of architects' creativity.
Method: This research has a applied goal, and it has been conducted using an exploratory mixed method. In the first step, the components and indicators were identified using the meta-synthesis method. By searching the databases with purposive sampling. In the quantitative section, data were collected using the questionnaire designed in 2020, and the questionnaires were distributed among 110 participants, including professors, architects, and the staff of the architecture-related management organizations in the city of Mashhad, Iran, who were selected using the cluster sampling method. After collecting the questionnaires and investigating them, they were subjected to confirmatory factor analysis.
Results: The results approved the conceptual model, including the components; novelty,
practicability, usefulness and the artistic aspect )P = .001(.
Conclusions: The results approved novelty, practicability, usefulness and artistic aspect are the important components for the evaluation of architects' creativity in architectural design

 Background: Creativity has an underlying role in architectural design and fostering creativity in architectural design is one of the important tasks of the education system in this field. Despite the great importance of the creativity, we see the multiplicity of incoherent and sometimes contradictory views on the definition of creativity and how it flourishes in students during the design process.
Aims: The main purpose of this study was to identify the components of recognizing students' ability in designing creative architecture.
Method: his research has an applied goal, and it has been conducted using an exploratory mixed method. The research is applied in terms of purpose and terms of the method is mixed research that was conducted in two main steps: qualitative (meta-synthesis) and quantitative (confirmatory factor analysis). The research community in the qualitative section includes documentary studies through Persian and Latin articles related to the research field, which were selected according to the inclusion criteria. In the quantitative part, the data collection tool was a researcher-made questionnaire that was distributed among the research community consisting of 150 professors of architectural design who were selected in a simple random method in 2020 after the collective approval of experts. The obtained model of this part of the research was confirmed
Results: In the qualitative part, using meta-synthesis, for the components of capability in creative architectural design; Knowledge (implicit and explicit), skills (presentation skills, analytical analysis, self-regulation and social), thinking (creative, critical, visual-spatial, and analytical thinking), and motivation (internal and external) were extracted, which is a small part by a questionnaire with Using confirmatory factor analysis, all four components of knowledge, skills, thinking and motivation and their components were confirmed with 95% confidence level (p = 0.001)
Conclusions: To promote the creativity of architectural design in students, it is necessary to cultivate not only the component of thinking but also knowledge, skills, and motivation.