While several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have investigated the effectiveness of creativity interventions, three primary concerns remain: dated research, inconsistent findings, and unclear strategy classifications. To address these gaps, this current study analyzed contemporary research examining the efficacy of creativity interventions to provide a comprehensive synthesis. A systematic search was conducted utilizing 20 years of research from the top four, distinguished creativity journals: Creativity Research Journal, the Journal of Psychology, Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, Thinking Skills and Creativity, Journal of Creative Behavior, which yielded 4,891 articles and 20 qualifying for the analysis. Three primary research questions guided this work, regarding the (a) interventions’ content and administration, (b) samples and contexts studied, and (c) the efficacy of these interventions. The first two questions were addressed using a systematic review. Within this analysis, 18 different strategies were taught within 20 interventions, and most required active engagement (rather than passive incubation). The two most taught cognitive processes were perspective taking and manipulation. Further, the most frequently studied sample included either elementary/middle school students or college students/adults, located in the United States. The full meta-analysis 3 yielded an estimate effect size of 0.26, (p < 0.05), and neither age/education nor the divergent thinking subcomponent (e.g., fluency, flexibility, originality, elaboration) affected the effectiveness of the intervention. Finally, this work identified multiple gaps within reporting techniques in the field while offering insight into the inconsistencies found in earlier research.