创造性自信心反应与手动和自动交替使用任务评分:横断面研究

Helané Wahbeh , Cedric Cannard , Garret Yount , Arnaud Delorme , Dean Radin
{"title":"创造性自信心反应与手动和自动交替使用任务评分:横断面研究","authors":"Helané Wahbeh ,&nbsp;Cedric Cannard ,&nbsp;Garret Yount ,&nbsp;Arnaud Delorme ,&nbsp;Dean Radin","doi":"10.1016/j.yjoc.2024.100088","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>While behavioral tasks like the Alternate Use task (AUT) quantify creative potential levels, clarifying how they relate to subjective self-report ratings would contribute to the creativity assessment field. Valid and reliable single-item measures to efficiently assess one's creativity level could allow researchers and educators with limited time and resources to use the simpler and shorter self-report item. This study's primary objective was to evaluate the construct validity of a single-item creative self-belief (CSB) measure by comparing it with AUT fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores that were scored using manual and automated methods. It also aimed to assess the single-item CSB's convergent validity and test-retest reliability. In addition, the relationship between the manual and automated AUT scoring methods was evaluated. Data from 1,179 adult participants collected in a more extensive parent study were used for these analyses. CSB was weakly correlated to manual fluency (<em>rho</em> = 0.13, <em>p</em> = 0.004, <em>n</em>-505) and manual originality (<em>rho</em> = 0.11, <em>p</em> = 0.01) but no other AUT measures. CSB was correlated with the personality indices of openness to experience (<em>rho</em> = 0.49, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), extraversion (<em>rho</em> = 0.20, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), neuroticism (<em>rho</em> = -0.20, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), agreeableness (<em>rho</em> = 0.14, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), and conscientiousness (<em>rho</em> = 0.14, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001). CSB test-retest reliability, assessed using entries from participants who completed two sessions, was high (Intraclass Correlation 78.6). The manual elaboration score was strongly correlated with the automated Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI) elaboration score (<em>rho</em> = 0.76, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and manual originality scores were correlated with OCSAI originality scores but less strongly (<em>rho</em> = 0.21, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). These findings support using multiple measures to assess aspects of the creative process, not relying solely on this single-item CSB measure. However, the single-item CSB item may be helpful in limited-time situations and has demonstrated positive content validity, test-retest reliability, and a significant, albeit weak, correlation to AUT fluency and originality. This study also supports the continued use of OCSAI to score elaboration and originality in AUT.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":100769,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Creativity","volume":"34 3","pages":"Article 100088"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374524000141/pdfft?md5=6d5388c6d34eb946436b9192b5043aed&pid=1-s2.0-S2713374524000141-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Creative self-belief responses versus manual and automated alternate use task scoring: A cross-sectional study\",\"authors\":\"Helané Wahbeh ,&nbsp;Cedric Cannard ,&nbsp;Garret Yount ,&nbsp;Arnaud Delorme ,&nbsp;Dean Radin\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.yjoc.2024.100088\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>While behavioral tasks like the Alternate Use task (AUT) quantify creative potential levels, clarifying how they relate to subjective self-report ratings would contribute to the creativity assessment field. Valid and reliable single-item measures to efficiently assess one's creativity level could allow researchers and educators with limited time and resources to use the simpler and shorter self-report item. This study's primary objective was to evaluate the construct validity of a single-item creative self-belief (CSB) measure by comparing it with AUT fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores that were scored using manual and automated methods. It also aimed to assess the single-item CSB's convergent validity and test-retest reliability. In addition, the relationship between the manual and automated AUT scoring methods was evaluated. Data from 1,179 adult participants collected in a more extensive parent study were used for these analyses. CSB was weakly correlated to manual fluency (<em>rho</em> = 0.13, <em>p</em> = 0.004, <em>n</em>-505) and manual originality (<em>rho</em> = 0.11, <em>p</em> = 0.01) but no other AUT measures. CSB was correlated with the personality indices of openness to experience (<em>rho</em> = 0.49, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), extraversion (<em>rho</em> = 0.20, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), neuroticism (<em>rho</em> = -0.20, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), agreeableness (<em>rho</em> = 0.14, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001), and conscientiousness (<em>rho</em> = 0.14, <em>p &lt;</em> <em>0</em>.001). CSB test-retest reliability, assessed using entries from participants who completed two sessions, was high (Intraclass Correlation 78.6). The manual elaboration score was strongly correlated with the automated Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI) elaboration score (<em>rho</em> = 0.76, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001), and manual originality scores were correlated with OCSAI originality scores but less strongly (<em>rho</em> = 0.21, <em>p</em> &lt; 0.001). These findings support using multiple measures to assess aspects of the creative process, not relying solely on this single-item CSB measure. However, the single-item CSB item may be helpful in limited-time situations and has demonstrated positive content validity, test-retest reliability, and a significant, albeit weak, correlation to AUT fluency and originality. This study also supports the continued use of OCSAI to score elaboration and originality in AUT.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":100769,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Creativity\",\"volume\":\"34 3\",\"pages\":\"Article 100088\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374524000141/pdfft?md5=6d5388c6d34eb946436b9192b5043aed&pid=1-s2.0-S2713374524000141-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Creativity\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374524000141\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Creativity","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2713374524000141","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

虽然像 "交替使用任务"(AUT)这样的行为任务可以量化创造潜能水平,但明确它们与主观自我报告评级之间的关系将有助于创造力评估领域的发展。有效、可靠的单项测量方法可以有效评估一个人的创造力水平,这可以让时间和资源有限的研究人员和教育工作者使用更简单、更短的自我报告项目。本研究的主要目的是通过将单项创造性自信心(CSB)测量方法与使用人工和自动方法进行评分的 AUT 流畅性、灵活性、详尽性和独创性分数进行比较,从而评估单项创造性自信心(CSB)测量方法的构建有效性。研究还旨在评估单项 CSB 的收敛效度和重测可靠性。此外,还对人工和自动 AUT 评分方法之间的关系进行了评估。这些分析使用了在一项更广泛的家长研究中收集的 1,179 名成年参与者的数据。CSB 与手动流畅性(rho = 0.13,p = 0.004,n-505)和手动独创性(rho = 0.11,p = 0.01)呈弱相关,但与其他 AUT 测量值无关。CSB 与以下人格指数相关:经验开放性(rho = 0.49,p = 0.001)、外向性(rho = 0.20,p = 0.001)、神经质(rho = -0.20,p = 0.001)、宜人性(rho = 0.14,p = 0.001)和自觉性(rho = 0.14,p = 0.001)。CSB 测试-重测可靠性很高,使用完成两次测试的参与者的条目进行评估(类内相关性为 78.6)。手动阐述得分与自动人工智能开放式创造力评分(OCSAI)阐述得分有很强的相关性(rho = 0.76,p <0.001),手动原创性得分与 OCSAI 原创性得分有相关性,但相关性不强(rho = 0.21,p <0.001)。这些发现支持使用多种测量方法来评估创造性过程的各个方面,而不仅仅依赖于 CSB 单项测量方法。不过,在时间有限的情况下,单项 CSB 项目可能会有所帮助,而且该项目已证明具有积极的内容效度、重测可靠性以及与 AUT 流畅性和独创性的显著相关性(尽管相关性较弱)。本研究还支持继续使用 OCSAI 对 AUT 的详尽性和独创性进行评分。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Creative self-belief responses versus manual and automated alternate use task scoring: A cross-sectional study

While behavioral tasks like the Alternate Use task (AUT) quantify creative potential levels, clarifying how they relate to subjective self-report ratings would contribute to the creativity assessment field. Valid and reliable single-item measures to efficiently assess one's creativity level could allow researchers and educators with limited time and resources to use the simpler and shorter self-report item. This study's primary objective was to evaluate the construct validity of a single-item creative self-belief (CSB) measure by comparing it with AUT fluency, flexibility, elaboration, and originality scores that were scored using manual and automated methods. It also aimed to assess the single-item CSB's convergent validity and test-retest reliability. In addition, the relationship between the manual and automated AUT scoring methods was evaluated. Data from 1,179 adult participants collected in a more extensive parent study were used for these analyses. CSB was weakly correlated to manual fluency (rho = 0.13, p = 0.004, n-505) and manual originality (rho = 0.11, p = 0.01) but no other AUT measures. CSB was correlated with the personality indices of openness to experience (rho = 0.49, p < 0.001), extraversion (rho = 0.20, p < 0.001), neuroticism (rho = -0.20, p < 0.001), agreeableness (rho = 0.14, p < 0.001), and conscientiousness (rho = 0.14, p < 0.001). CSB test-retest reliability, assessed using entries from participants who completed two sessions, was high (Intraclass Correlation 78.6). The manual elaboration score was strongly correlated with the automated Open Creativity Scoring with Artificial Intelligence (OCSAI) elaboration score (rho = 0.76, p < 0.001), and manual originality scores were correlated with OCSAI originality scores but less strongly (rho = 0.21, p < 0.001). These findings support using multiple measures to assess aspects of the creative process, not relying solely on this single-item CSB measure. However, the single-item CSB item may be helpful in limited-time situations and has demonstrated positive content validity, test-retest reliability, and a significant, albeit weak, correlation to AUT fluency and originality. This study also supports the continued use of OCSAI to score elaboration and originality in AUT.

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
CiteScore
2.10
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信