The consensual assessment technique (CAT) is a measurement tool for creativity research in which appropriate experts evaluate creative products [Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context: Update to the social psychology of creativity. Boulder, CO: Westview]. However, the CAT is hampered by the time-consuming nature of the products (asking participants to write stories or draw pictures) and the ratings (getting appropriate experts). This study examined the reliability of ratings of sentence captions. Specifically, four raters evaluated 12 captions written by 81 undergraduates. The purpose of the study was to see whether the CAT could provide reliable ratings of captions across raters and across multiple captions and, if so, how many such captions would be required to generate reliable scores, and how many judges would be needed? Using generalizability theory, we found that captions appear to be a useful way of measuring creativity with a reasonable level of reliability in the frame of CAT.