Assessment of Divergent Thinking by means of the Subjective Top-Scoring Method: Effects of the Number of Top-Ideas and Time-on-Task on Reliability and Validity.
Assessment of Divergent Thinking by means of the Subjective Top-Scoring Method: Effects of the Number of Top-Ideas and Time-on-Task on Reliability and Validity.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0033644
复制
发表时间：
2013-11-01
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Neubauer AC
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Benedek M;Mühlmann C;Jauk E;Neubauer AC
发散性思维任务通常被用作创造潜能的指标，但传统的概念独创性评分方法面临着信度低、缺乏收敛效度和区分效度等问题。提出了一种主观的前2名评分方法，要求参与者选择他们最具创造性的两个想法，然后对其进行创造性评估。发现这种方法避免了判别效度的问题，并且在收敛效度方面优于其他评分方法。这些发现激发了对主观最高评分方法的更普遍、更系统的分析。因此，本研究探讨了创意和流畅性分数的信度和效度如何依赖于顶部的想法和任务时间的数量。研究结果证实，主观高分避免了混淆的独创性与流畅性。原创性得分表现出良好的内部一致性，并发现可靠性的证据增加的功能的顶部的想法和时间的任务。然而，收敛有效性的证据是最高的任务时间约为2至3分钟，当使用一个中等数量的约三个顶级的想法。这些研究结果的原因一起讨论了本研究的可能局限性和未来的发展方向。本文还对发散思维主观评分法的评价提出了一些一般性建议。
Divergent thinking tasks are commonly used as indicators of creative potential, but traditional scoring methods of ideational originality face persistent problems such as low reliability and lack of convergent and discriminant validity. have proposed a subjective top-2 scoring method, where participants are asked to select their two most creative ideas, which then are evaluated for creativity. This method was found to avoid problems with discriminant validity, and to outperform other scoring methods in terms of convergent validity. These findings motivate a more general, systematic analysis of the subjective top-scoring method. Therefore, this study examined how reliability and validity of the originality and fluency scores depend on the number of top-ideas and on time-on-task. The findings confirm that subjective top-scoring avoids the confounding of originality with fluency. The originality score showed good internal consistency, and evidence of reliability was found to increase as a function of the number of top-ideas and of time-on-task. Convergent validity evidence, however, was highest for a time-on-task of about 2 to 3 minutes and when using a medium number of about three top-ideas. Reasons for these findings are discussed together possible limitations of this study and future directions. The article also presents some general recommendations for the assessment of divergent thinking with the subjective top-scoring method.
登录
查看更多内容
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Beaty, Roger E.;Silvia, Paul J.
通讯作者：
Silvia, Paul J.
影响因子：
1.6
作者：
Mouchiroud, C;Lubart, T
通讯作者：
Lubart, T
影响因子：
3.6
作者：
Reiter-Palmon, Roni;Illies, Marcy Young;Nimps, Tom
通讯作者：
Nimps, Tom
影响因子：
5.4
作者：
MEDNICK, SA
通讯作者：
MEDNICK, SA
影响因子：
1.3
作者：
CLARK, PM;MIRELS, HL
通讯作者：
MIRELS, HL