解释稀缺性和新颖性的措施:调查相对稀缺性和感知评级之间的相关性

M. Weaver, Benjamin W. Caldwell, Vicki Sheafer
{"title":"解释稀缺性和新颖性的措施:调查相对稀缺性和感知评级之间的相关性","authors":"M. Weaver, Benjamin W. Caldwell, Vicki Sheafer","doi":"10.1115/detc2019-97828","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Central to the struggle in design ideation research is the quantification of abstract and qualitative measures. Among these measures, creativity, originality, and novelty are some of the most subjective and generally disagreed upon constructs. In recent years in the design community, novelty has primarily been measured with two distinct styles of metrics: relative infrequency and perceived ratings. Relative infrequency captures how rare an idea is within an idea set for an objective representation of novelty, while ratings quantify the perceptions of appropriate judges for an intuitive understanding of novelty. This paper investigates the convergent validity between these two styles through the implementation of three previously published methods. Moderate convergent validity is shown between a measure of relative infrequency and perceived ratings leading to clear and meaningful recommendations for metrics in future research. However, the degree of disagreement warrants differentiation between the two styles regarding terminology and analysis. This study will aid in the research and interpretation of future studies of creativity in ideation.","PeriodicalId":143350,"journal":{"name":"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology","volume":"16 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-11-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"7","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interpreting Measures of Rarity and Novelty: Investigating Correlations Between Relative Infrequency and Perceived Ratings\",\"authors\":\"M. Weaver, Benjamin W. Caldwell, Vicki Sheafer\",\"doi\":\"10.1115/detc2019-97828\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Central to the struggle in design ideation research is the quantification of abstract and qualitative measures. Among these measures, creativity, originality, and novelty are some of the most subjective and generally disagreed upon constructs. In recent years in the design community, novelty has primarily been measured with two distinct styles of metrics: relative infrequency and perceived ratings. Relative infrequency captures how rare an idea is within an idea set for an objective representation of novelty, while ratings quantify the perceptions of appropriate judges for an intuitive understanding of novelty. This paper investigates the convergent validity between these two styles through the implementation of three previously published methods. Moderate convergent validity is shown between a measure of relative infrequency and perceived ratings leading to clear and meaningful recommendations for metrics in future research. However, the degree of disagreement warrants differentiation between the two styles regarding terminology and analysis. This study will aid in the research and interpretation of future studies of creativity in ideation.\",\"PeriodicalId\":143350,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology\",\"volume\":\"16 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-11-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"7\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2019-97828\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Volume 7: 31st International Conference on Design Theory and Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1115/detc2019-97828","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 7

摘要

设计创意研究的核心是抽象和定性度量的量化。在这些衡量标准中,创造力、原创性和新颖性是最主观的,在构式上通常是不一致的。近年来,在设计界,新颖性主要用两种不同风格的度量标准来衡量:相对频率和感知评级。相对不频繁度捕获了一个想法在一个想法集中的罕见程度,以客观地表示新颖性,而评级量化了适当的法官对新颖性的直觉理解的看法。本文通过实现之前发表的三种方法来研究这两种风格之间的收敛有效性。适度的收敛效度在相对不频繁度和感知评级之间显示,为未来研究的指标提供了明确和有意义的建议。然而,分歧的程度保证了两种风格在术语和分析方面的区别。本研究将有助于对未来关于创意的研究和解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interpreting Measures of Rarity and Novelty: Investigating Correlations Between Relative Infrequency and Perceived Ratings
Central to the struggle in design ideation research is the quantification of abstract and qualitative measures. Among these measures, creativity, originality, and novelty are some of the most subjective and generally disagreed upon constructs. In recent years in the design community, novelty has primarily been measured with two distinct styles of metrics: relative infrequency and perceived ratings. Relative infrequency captures how rare an idea is within an idea set for an objective representation of novelty, while ratings quantify the perceptions of appropriate judges for an intuitive understanding of novelty. This paper investigates the convergent validity between these two styles through the implementation of three previously published methods. Moderate convergent validity is shown between a measure of relative infrequency and perceived ratings leading to clear and meaningful recommendations for metrics in future research. However, the degree of disagreement warrants differentiation between the two styles regarding terminology and analysis. This study will aid in the research and interpretation of future studies of creativity in ideation.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信