Servicios personalizados
Inglés (pdf)
Articulo en XML
Referencias del artículo
Traducción automática
Enviar articulo por email
Citado por SciELO 
Citado por Google 
Similares en
SciELO 
Similares en Google 
Permalink
Introduction
The social, economic and cultural relevance of creativity has contributed to the consolidation of a complex and dynamic research field, characterized by the presence of different theories, assumptions and methodologies (Kozbelt, Beghetto & Runco, 2010; Long, 2014). According to Long (2014), in the field of creativity predominate quantitative methodologies, specifically psychometric and experimental. In quantitative methodologies, the most used instruments are the divergent thinking tests and the techniques of evaluation of creative products.
Evaluating creativity, and its multiple manifestations, is still a challenge for researchers. Several studies indicated contradictory results and technical problems of tests (Batey, 2012, Kim, 2011, Corbalán & Limiñana, 2010, Piffer, 2012, Sternberg, 2012).
Likewise, debates about the unitary or multidimensional nature of creativity generate controversies in the field of creative process (Baer, 2012). The evaluation of creative abilities or achievements also shows different alternatives for researchers, while capacities refer to people's potentialities (Corbalán et al., 2003; Ivcevic, 2009); achievements imply specific performances in certain areas of knowledge (Silvia, Wigert, Reiter & Kaufman, 2012). Current investigations about everyday creativity use capacities test (Mourgues, Tan, Heina, Elliott & Grigorenkoa, 2016; Yagolkovskiya & Kharkhurinba, 2016) and creative achievements scales (Zhu et al., 2016). Recent studies also refer to the complexity of the processes of evaluation of creativity (Nakano, Primi, Ribeiro & Almeida, 2016) and the necessity to consider specific areas or fields, such as the sciences and technology (Bermejo, Ruiz-Melero, Esparza, Ferrando & Pons, 2016).
The complexity of creativity and the need for measurement instruments and procedures, create an appropriate context for the research proposed in this article. The present research considered advances in the field of creativity, specifically developments in the area of the evaluation of creative abilities, assuming psychometric perspectives and theories of problem formulation or problem finding (Kozbelt et al., 2010). The study assumed that creativity is a capacity to questioning and generating of problems (Corbalán, 2008) and a potentiality of all people that develops in different everyday contexts (Kaufman & Beghetto, 2009; Richards, 2007).
Originality, according to the model proposed by Guilford, is one of the main components of creativity and refers to the ability to generate novel, unique and unusual ideas or products. In addition to originality, flexibility (generating varied responses and modifying ideas) and fluency (producing many ideas) play an important role in creativity (Corbalán et al, 2003). According to Runco and Jaeger (2012), creativity is composed of two main interrelated elements: originality and effectiveness. While the first component refers to novel aspects, effectiveness is related to utility and pragmatism. According to Runco (1999), it is possible to differentiate between objective and subjective procedures in the measurement of originality, whereas the objectives procedures perform statistical evaluation of the frequency of ideas, and subjective measurements assume expert judgments.
"An objective score for originality can be calculated after determining the statistical infrequency of each idea. Very infrequent ideas (for example, those given by 5% of a particular sample) can be defined as originals ... " (Runco, 2011. p. 578).
Following also objective procedures for measuring originality, Hernández, Schmidt and Okudan (2013) proposed an evaluation system that differentiates common ideas from original ideas, considering the frequency of novel ideas.
The present research focused on the study of originality, one of the indispensable components of creativity, considering the frequency of questions in the Creative Intelligence Test CREA (Corbalán et al., 2003). The aim of CREA is to appreciate creative intelligence based on the cognitive evaluation of individual creativity. The ability of people to generate questions in the theoretical context of search and problem solving is the indicator used by the instrument. The theoretical bases of CREA were the classical factors of creativity (divergent production, flexibility, fluency and originality) and approaches to problem formulation, lateral thinking and the study of cognitive styles (Corbalán & Limiñana, 2010). According to CREA´ authors, the creative psychological style supposes a general disposition for the openness and versatility of cognitive schemes. To evaluate this cognitive style, CREA asks people to formulate as many questions as possible about a visual stimulus. Each question involves a new cognitive scheme emerging from the interaction between the stimulus and the ability of the people to open that information to existent knowledges. The CREA proposes a unitary measure of creativity, aimed at evaluating the openness and versatility of cognitive schemes that emerge during the task of formulating questions. However, there is evidence about the correlations between this general capacity and the dimensions traditionally evaluated through other instruments such as the Guilford Battery (Corbalán et al., 2003).
Research in many countries and contexts (Corbalán et al., 2014) indicated that the CREA Test uses a parsimonious and efficient procedure for the evaluation of creative intelligence. The CREA complied with the technical quality standards required for this type of test (Martínez, 2003) and was used as a measurement instrument in numerous investigations (Corbalán, et al., 2004, Donolo & Elisondo, 2007, Clapham & King, 2010; Elisondo & Donolo, 2010, Gutiérrez-Braojos, Salmeron-Vilchez, Martín-Romera & Salmerón, 2013, Limiñana Bordoy, Juste & Corbalán, 2010, López Martínez & Brufau, 2010). According to the manual of the test, the questions are scoring following a predominantly quantitative system, considering the number of questions asked by the people in each visual stimulus. Questions are valued based on the number of cognitive schemas recovered. As defined in the manual, additional scores can be assigned to questions that include two or more basic questions in their formulation. However, the consideration of additional scores according to the number of cognitive schemas activated, does not imply any analysis of content or originality of the questions. The study presented in this article focused on the latter aspect not evaluated in the traditional scoring procedure of the CREA.
The aim of the present investigation was to analyze a new scoring procedure in the CREA Test, to measure originality through the analysis of frequencies of questions. The number of times each question was formulated by the reference group is the indicator used to measure originality. The practical purpose of the research was to offer tools for assessing the originality of the questions, providing typical categories and formulations. Considering criticisms made to the CREA Test (Martínez-Otero, 2005), and the possibility of obtaining complementary measures of some components traditionally associated with creativity, such as originality, it was proposed to construct an alternative procedure of scoring with precise criteria and empirically validated. As an advantage over the traditional system, the new procedure offered information relevant to the differential diagnosis in cases where there is a lot of originality and little fluency in the formulation of questions. Another advantage of the new procedure was the consideration of different age groups and the presentation of typological categories for each group.
Method
Design
The study was cross - sectional comparative, the general aim was to analyze relationships between the two scoring procedures (traditional and alternative) in three groups (children, adolescents and adults) and for the three stimuli of CREA. The study applied the typological categories of questions (see Annex) and the scoring system (one point per very frequent question, two points per frequent question and three points for unique questions) constructed in a previous research (Elisondo, 2015). The new procedure aimed to identify less frequent, more original questions, based on an empirically validated procedure.
Sampling was incidental non-probabilistic, although it was sought to include men and women of different ages and different levels of schooling. A quota sampling was established, a minimum number of subjects was defined for each criterion considered (sex, age and schooling).
Participants
The sample included 505 participants: 188 children (51% girls and 49% boys), 116 adolescents (64% female and 36% male) and 209 adults (55% female and 45% male). All the participants resided in the province of Córdoba (Argentina), specifically in Río Cuarto. The age of the children in the sample varied between 6 and 11 years (M = 8.46; SD = 1.70), between 12 and 17 (M = 14.48; SD = 2.11) in adolescents and between 18 and 60 (M = 38.1 SD = 14.1) in adults. Regarding schooling, at the time of administration of the instruments, all children attended the primary level and all adolescents the secondary level1. The group of young people and adults included people with different levels of schooling, primary level (20%), secondary level (55%) and higher level (25%).
1Instruments
The research used two instruments: the CREA test (Corbalán et al., 2003) and a brief socio-demographic questionnaire. The CREA contains three stimuli (Picture A, Picture B and Picture C); participants must formulate the greatest number of possible questions about each stimulus in four minutes. The ability of people to ask questions is the indicator used by CREA to measure creativity. Each question implies a new cognitive scheme born of the interaction between stimuli and the ability of people to open that new information to existent knowledges. This facility for the openness and versatility of cognitive schemas define the creative psychological style. The instruction of the test is: I will present an illustration. Your task is to write down all the questions you can ask about what the picture represents. Try to ask as many questions as possible. The time limit for preparing the questions for each picture is 4 minutes. The CREA is an instrument of individual or collective application designed for the evaluation of creative intelligence in children, adolescents and adults. It has scales with Spanish and Argentine population for the three reference groups. The manual presents norms of correction and additional scoring for questions that incorporate different schemes and contents. After correction and scoring, the raw score is transformed into a percentile score, taking into account the scales for each group and context. The percentile score obtained is interpreted as high, media or low creativity, according to standards available in the manual.
Procedures
The researchers informed to participants and tutors of children and about objectives of study and the manner in which the data were to be processed (anonymity and confidentiality of the information). Participants and tutors of children and adolescents signed the informed consent. The questions formulated by the participants were scoring according to the traditional system, considering the guidelines of the CREA manual, and according to the system constructed in the previous research (Elisondo, 2015) that lists three types of questions: very frequent (1 point), frequent (2 points) and unique (3 points). The scoring considered the types of questions included in the Annex for each group (children, adolescents and adults) and each picture (A, B and C).
Analysis of data
Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 20 specialized program.
Frequency distributions, central tendency measures, dispersion and correlations between variables were performed. In addition, associations between high, medium and low creativity levels were analyzed according to the two scoring systems. Considering the potentialities of the analysis of unique questions in the measurement of originality defined in a previous study (Elisondo, 2015), we analyzed cases of participants who asked this type of questions.
Results
We presented results considering the three groups studied (children, adolescents and adults) and each of the stimuli administered. The analyzes were performed by groups taking into account the differences according to age in the CREA observed in previous studies (Donolo & Elisondo, 2007, Elisondo, 2015) and the indications in the manual.
Children
Descriptive analyzes of the typologies of questions posed by children were presented in Table 1. One hundred and twenty-one children asked questions on Picture A. Of the total number of questions asked (n = 1057) by children in Picture A, 825 (78 %) were very frequent, 213 (20%) frequent and 19 (2%) unique. The total scores according to the traditional system varied between 2 and 23 (M = 8.74; SD = 4.38), and between 3 and 26 according to the alternative procedure (M = 10.80; SD = 5.50). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs =
.944, p < .000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .959). The scores obtained by the traditional procedure and the alternative were classified into three groups: high, medium and low. The percentiles defined in the CREA manual were used to classify scores according to high (99-75), average (74-26) or low (25-1) creativity. Contingency tables were constructed with the three levels of creativity for each scoring procedure and relations between levels were studied. Significant associations were found between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system [X2 (4, N = 121) = 159.45, p < .000].
Table 1 Descriptive statistics of the traditional and alternative scoring for the three pictures of CREA in the three groups.
One hundred and four children asked questions on Picture B. Of the total of questions asked (n = 902), 790 (88%) were very frequent, 94 (10%) frequent and 18 (2%) unique. The total scores according to the traditional system varied between 1 and 23 (M = 8.68; SD = 4.70), and between 1 and 30 according to the alternative procedure (M = 9.92; SD = 5.91). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .960, p <.000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .967). Significant associations were also found between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system [X2 (4, N = 104) = 174.87, p < .000].
One hundred and eighty-eight children asked questions on Picture C. Of the total number of questions asked (n = 1534), 962 (63%) were very frequent, 555 (36%) frequent and 17 (1%) unique. On Picture C, total scores for children according to the traditional system ranged from 1 to 28 (M = 7.63; SD = 4.85), and from 1 to 36 according to the alternative procedure (M = 10.22; SD = 6.53). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .938; p < .000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .94). Likewise, significant associations were observed between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system [X2 (4, N = 188) = 221.68, p <.000].
In summary, in the group of children, high and significant correlations were observed between the two scoring systems in the three pictures (See Table 2). In addition, significant associations between levels of creativity defined with both systems were observed. Most children get the same level of creativity if their questions are scored with the traditional or alternative system. Regarding the typologies of questions per picture, a similar number of unique questions are observed in the three pictures. In Picture B, a higher percentage of very frequent questions were observed with respect to the other pictures.
Table 2 Spearman correlation between Traditional and Alternative scoring in the three pictures of CREA by children, adolescents and adults.
Children have formulated a higher percentage of frequently asked questions on Picture The analyses also included a case study of participant that asked unique questions.
In the group that asked unique questions there were girls and boys, and they had different ages. It was observed that the levels of creativity assigned with both systems were the same in the group of children who had asked unique questions. In the three pictures, were not observed different levels of creativity according to the two systems. In addition, children who ask unique questions did not do it in the three pictures, only in some of them.
Adolescents
Table 1 presented data regarding the types of questions asked by adolescents. One hundred and sixteen adolescents asked questions on Picture A. Of the total number of questions asked (n = 1193), 828 (69%) were very frequent, 325 (27%) frequent and 40 (4%) unique. In Picture A, total scores for adolescents according to the traditional system varied between 2 and 23 (M = 10.27; SD = 4.36), and between 2 and 37 according to the alternative procedure (M = 13.77; SD = 6.43). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .944; p <.000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .93). Likewise, significant associations were observed [X2 (4, N = 116) = 113.37, p <.000], among the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
One hundred and eight adolescents asked questions on Picture B. Of the total number of questions asked (n = 1052), 910 (87%) were very frequent, 128 (12%) frequent and 14 (1%) unique. On Picture B, total scores for adolescents according to the traditional system varied between 1 and 23 (M = 9.75; SD = 4.56), and between 1 and 29 according to the alternative procedure (M = 11.18; SD = 5.70). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .972; p <.000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .96). Likewise, significant associations were observed, [X2 (4, N = 108) = 135.68, p <.000], between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
One hundred and twelve adolescents asked questions on Picture C. Of the total questions (n = 1077), 699 were very frequent (64%), 386 frequent (35%) and 12 unique (1%). Varied between 1 and 21 (M = 9.80; SD = 4.86), in the alternative system between 1 and 38 (M = 13.45; SD = 7.55). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .939; p <. 000).
Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .92). Significant associations were observed [X2 (4, N = 112) = 101.54, p < .000] between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
In summary, in the group of adolescents, high and significant correlations were observed between the two scoring systems in the three pictures (See Table 2). In addition, significant associations between levels of creativity defined with both systems were observed. Most teens get the same level of creativity if their questions are scored with the traditional or alternative system. Regarding the types of questions per picture, a higher percentage of unique questions are found on Picture A. As in the group of children, in Picture B, a higher percentage of very frequent questions and a higher percentage of frequently asked questions are observed in Picture C.
The case study of adolescents who asked unique questions indicated the same level of creativity assigned with both systems of scoring (traditional and alternative). There were 8 cases that asked unique questions before more than one picture. Likewise, the case study indicated diversity in sex and age of the subgroup of adolescents who asked unique questions.
Young and adults
Table 1 presented data regarding the types of questions asked by young and adults.
All young and adults in the sample (n = 209) asked questions on Picture A. Of the total number of questions asked (n = 1931) by 1022 (53%) were very frequent, 874 (45%) were frequent and 35 (2%) were single. On Picture A, total scores for adolescents according to the traditional system varied between 1 and 30 (M = 9.27; SD = 4.09), and between 1 and 42 according to the alternative procedure (M = 13.75; SD = 6.59). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .920; p < .000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .908). Significant associations were observed [X2 (4, N = 209) = 221.84; p < .000] between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
Young and adults asked 1921 questions, 1297 were very frequent (67%), 600 were frequent (31%) and 24 were unique (2%). The total scores according to the traditional system varied between 1 and 24 (M = 9.20; SD = 4.10), and between 1 and 37 according to the alternative system (M = 12.28; SD = 6.07). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .916; p < .000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .916). Significant associations were observed [X2 (4, N = 209) = 221.847; p < .000] between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
The youths and adults, who asked questions on Picture C were 205, performed 1707 questions. A total of 1191 questions (70%) were classified as very frequent, 495 frequent (29%) and 21 unique (1%). The total scores according to the traditional system varied between 1 and 22 (M = 8.33; SD = 4.28), and between 1 and 39 according to the alternative system (M = 12.94; SD = 6.49). The correlations between total scores according to traditional and alternative systems were high and significant (rs = .945; p < .000). Consistency between scores was adequate (α = .930). Significant associations were observed [X2 (4, N = 205) = 219.074; p < .000] between the levels of creativity defined by each scoring system.
As in the previous groups, high and significant correlations were observed between the two scoring systems in the three pictures (see Table 2). In addition, significant associations between levels of creativity defined with both systems were observed. Young and adults get the same level of creativity if their questions are scored with the traditional or alternative system. Regarding the types of questions per picture, just as in the group of adolescents, there are more unique questions on Picture A. In Picture B and C, the percentage of very frequent and frequent questions is similar.
The case study of young people and adults who asked unique questions indicated that the levels of creativity assigned with both systems were the same. There were 10 cases that asked unique questions before more than one picture. Two people asked unique questions for the three pictures. Likewise, the case study showed diversity in terms of sex and age of the subgroup of young and adults who asked unique questions.
Discussion and Conclusions
In all groups and pictures, we observed adequate indexes of consistency and high correlations between the traditional scoring system and the alternative procedure that values the originality of the questions. The studies of associations showed significant relationships between levels of creativity, defined according to alternative and traditional procedure, in all the groups and in all the pictures. The analysis indicated that in most cases the participants obtain the same level of creativity with the two scoring procedures. The levels of creativity, measured indirectly according to the versatility of the use of schemas, have been identified according to the interpretation criteria defined by the test authors (Corbalán et al., 2003).
The unique questions represented between 1 and 4% of the total questions asked by the participants. It was observed that Picture A is the one that most promotes the formulation of unique questions, while Picture B stimulates very frequent questions. On Picture C, in the three groups, there were a greater number of frequent questions. In a previous study (Elisondo & Donolo, 2011), we concluded that the procedure of formulating questions in the CREA Test is stable independent of the presented stimuli. It should be clarified that in that study the traditional scoring procedure was used, in the case of the alternative procedure differences in the typologies of questions according to the sheets were observed. Analyzing the incidence of stimuli in the originality of the questions formulated is proposed as a future line of research.
According to the data collected and analyzes carried out, it can be concluded that the originality measurement procedure proposed in this study yields similar results to the traditional CREA scoring. From a theoretical point of view, it was expected considering that originality is a component of creativity.
We observed high correlations between quantity and originality, this result corresponds to previous studies that indicate relations between originality and fluency (Dumas & Dunbar, 2014; Silvia, 2008). Contrary to Guilford's considerations that point to independence of the factors of creativity, current research indicated relationships between originality and the other components of creativity. The high correlations observed between originality and quantity would indicate that in the process of formulating questions different factors or components of creativity are interrelated. Asking questions seems to be a good indirect indicator of creativity as it integrates different cognitive processes linked to creation.
The efficiency of CREA's traditional scoring procedure is indisputable, as a more parsimonious tool, the alternative procedure proposed in this work would not bring any novelty or any advantage for the measurement of this construct. However, the studies carried out regarding the different typologies of questions provide relevant data for a differential diagnosis of originality, focusing on the particularities and potentialities of each person for the development of original thoughts. The efficiency of this procedure, from this point of view, surpasses the procedures that required subjective and non-rigorous assessments of originality. In this sense, Baer (2009) has argued regarding the few evidences of validity and objectivity of the tests of Torrance. On the other hand, Runco, Abdulla, Paek, Al-Jasim and Alsuwaidi (2016), in a recent study comparing creativity measurement in terms of originality, have demonstrated different levels of reliability of divergent thinking tests and have concluded that the use of only one test does not yield generalizable results. Compared with other tests of divergent thinking, figures and unconventional uses proved the least reliable. The procedure constructed in the present investigation, by presenting an exhaustive detail of question typologies for each picture and group, tries to minimize the possibilities of points skewed by the judgment of the evaluator. Also, it is a procedure that values the originality of the productions considering the frequency of formulation of each type of question in a reference group. The consideration of diverse groups is also strength of the study, taking into account observed differences between children, adolescents, young and adults in the measurements of creativity (Donolo
& Elisondo, 2007; Elisondo, 2015).
Indeed, as some authors of CREA (Corbalán & Limiñana, 2010) point out, creativity is different from invention, innovation, originality or imagination, and if we argue that the former cannot be understood as a mere sum of the others, we should not do the opposite, without advancing in the measure of those, confusing parsimony with simplification.
We proposed in future studies to analyze in more detail unique questions that recover contents, schemes and contexts diverse. The alternative procedure was especially indicated, as a complementary measure to the traditional one, for groups that ask few questions, but these are very original. These cases are generally classified as low creativity by the traditional system, which is not able to detect the originality of the productions of these subjects. It is proposed to include analysis of typologies in the correction of the CREA Test, especially in cases of people who ask few questions. The main contribution of this study is the definition of categories of questions according to originality and the presentation of typical formulations that can be used by other professionals. The analysis of unique questions deserves special attention during the evaluation process of creativity and offers interesting data for the study of originality. As we have pointed out, originality refers to novel, unusual and unique aspects (Runco & Jaeger, 2012). The study also contributes to the field of evaluation of creativity and especially to developments related to the study of ideas frequency as an indicator of originality, as presented in the studies of Runco (1999) and Hernández, Schmidt and Okudan (2013). These researches were interested in study originality as basic component of the creativity, not intended to analyze the value or utility of ideas. The study presented had focused only on the assessment of originality in the formulation of questions in terms of frequency of appearance, it had not been the purpose of research to analyze the questions from subjective criteria, nor consider utility or pragmatic value of the productions. As we said above, while originality is a component of creativity, it is expected that there will be no great differences between traditional and alternative punctuation. When one of the other components fails (fluency or flexibility) or when the subject cannot give many answers, the new system allows visualizing another creative talent: the originality put into play in the resolution of the task. Then, the measure of originality proposed, may also be complementary to the traditional correction of CREA
Limitations and future prospects
The limitations of the study were the type of sampling used, not probabilistic, and the construction of an alternative scoring system that does not value the specific content of each question. In this sense, the analysis of the originality of the questions was limited. It is also a limitation to include only participants from Argentina, the typologies of questions presented in the study should be adapted to other geographical contexts. As shown in the annex, many of the questions included in the typologies refer to language specific uses to the country where the research was conducted.
Considering the effect of explicit instruction on creativity measures (Hong, O'Neil
& Peng, 2016; Sanz de Acedo Lizarraga & Sanz de Acedo Baquedano, 2008), it was a limitation to the study not to have applied directly in the instruction that original questions were valued. In future studies it is proposed to include explicit instructions regarding the formulation of original questions and to include studies of contents and structures of the questions. In the same way, to study in detail of contexts of questions and the metal schemes that recover, can be relevant to extend the qualitative analyzes of the productions.
Deepening the analysis of relationships between originality and fluency is relevant for future studies. Likewise, using the CREA test in a traditional way and with the alternative scoring system to value creative abilities and then establish relationships with creative performances in different contexts is a topic of relevance for the field of everyday creativity. Studies about relationships between creative abilities, according to CREA's traditional and alternative system, and other variables such as intelligence, personality traits, solving logical problems and thinking styles, are also relevant to the current field of study of creativity. In new research, it is necessary to expand the considerations regarding the new procedure taking into account the socio-demographic particularities of the groups. Likewise, it is relevant to analyze new procedures to evaluate creativity in groups of different educational levels, writing abilities, or that present motor, visual or expressive difficulties.
Designing originality studies using the constructed procedure and other measures of creativity using different formats and stimuli such as computerized images (Leutner, Yearsley, Codreanu, Borenstein & Ahmetoglu, 2017), real life problems (An, Song & Carr, 2016) and subjective assessments of creativity (Park, Youngshin & Chun 2016) are also interesting themes for future research.
