Development and Validation of CPAS-K for Everyday Problem Solving Creativity of College Students

& (2018). Development and Validation of CPAS-K for Everyday Problem Solving Creativity of College Students. Korean Journal of Psychology: General, 37(1), 33-64, https://doi.org/10.22257/kjp.2018.03.37.1.33

copy

Abstract

Creativity is a competence to produce useful and novel results in uncertain environment. Creativity is an essencial factor for college students who will lead the society in the near future. In the present study we developed and validated CPAS-K(Creative Product Assessment Scale-K) to investigate college students' everyday problem solving creativity. CPAS-K was developed through theoretical and experiential approach, and validated using empirical data of three different creative products collected from 436 adults. We split the data into two sets. One set of 300 observations was analyzed by exploratory factor analysis using ESEM(exploratory structural equation modeling), and the other set of 136 observations was analyzed by confirmatory factor analysis using MTMM(Multitrait-Multimethod) approach. Then, the total data were used in a multi-group analysis. exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses yielded two factors that were interpreted as Originality and Appropriateness/Resolution. As a result of the multi-group analysis, factor means of the three products were compared. There were some differences between factor means in the Originality and the Appropriateness/Resolution dimensions so that the degree of creativity of products could be differentiated. Finally, implications, limitations, and potential future research directions were discussed.

keywords: everyday creativity, validation, factor analysis, ESEM, MTMM, multi-group analysis, 일상적 창의성, 타당화, 요인분석, ESEM, MTMM, 다집단 분석

Reference

고경화, 윤정미, 이순묵, 이빛나 (2016). 재한중국인 근로자의 한국문화 적응 척도 개발 및 조선족과 한족 간 상이한 내적구조탐색 예비연구. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 29(2), 329-367.

김영록 (2004). 창의적 산물에 대한 평가차 원의요인구조 확인: 한국표본을 사용한 CPAM 모형의 타당화. 석사학위 논문, 성균관대학교.

김영민 (2012). 창의적 산물 평가도구의 개발 및표준화. 석사학위 논문, 성균관대학교.

김종규, 이순묵, 윤창영 (2015). 핵심자기평가의 내적 구조 검토. 한국심리학회지: 산업및 조직, 28(3), 355-384.

김효주 (2016). 대학생용 창의성 수행평가 과제지 개발 및 창의적 산물 평가 척도의 타당화. 석사학위논문, 성균관대학교.

남궁준재, 이순묵, & 김효선 (2013). 상황판단검사에서 시나리오 효과를 통제한 탐색적 요인분석. 한국심리학회지: 산업 및 조직, 26(4), 599-624.

박선희 (2002). 아동의 창의적 산물 평가척도의 타당화 연구. 석사학위논문, 성균관대학교.

안정원, 이순묵 (2015). 조직몰입 3 요소 모형의 내적구조 검토. 한국심리학회지: 산업및 조직, 28(4), 795-827.

이순묵, 김영록, 최인수 (2007). 산물창의성 검사에서의 창의성 요인과 영역효과: 다특질다방법 접근. 교육심리연구, 21(4), 827-846.

10.

이순묵, 윤창영, 김영록 (2005). MTMM 자료분석에 대한 비평적 고찰. 한국심리학회지:산업 및 조직, 18(3), 55-480.

11.

이순묵, 윤창영, 이민형, & 정선호 (2016). 탐색적 요인분석: 어떻게 달라지나?. 한국심리학회지: 일반, 35(1), 217-255.

12.

이해주 (2014). 작은 창의성 범주에서 창의적 산물 평가척도 개발 및 타당화. 석사학위논문, 성균관대학교.

13.

정은이 (2005). 일상적 창의성의 새로운 이해. 한국학술정보.

14.

최인수 (1998). 창의적 성취와 관련된 제 요인들: 창의성 연구의 최근 모델인 체계모델(Systems Model) 을 중심으로. 미래유아교육학회지, 5(2), 133-166.

15.

Amabile, T. M. (1982). Social psychology of creativity: A consensual assessment technique. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 997-1013.

16.

Amabile, T. M. (2010). 창조의 조건 (고빛 샘역). 파주: 북이십일 21세기 북스.(원서출판 1996).

17.

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16(3), 397-438.

18.

Besemer, S. P. (1998). Creative product analysis matrix: Testing the model structure and a comparison among products-three novel chairs. Creativity Research Journal, 11(4), pp. 333-346.

19.

Besemer, S. P., & O'Quin, K. (1999). Confirming the three-factor creative product analysis matrix model in an American sample. Creativity Research Journal, 12(4), 287-296.

20.

Chen, F. F. (2007). Sensitivity of goodness of fit indices to lack of measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 464-504.

21.

Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating Goodness-of-Fit Indexes for Testing Measurement Invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9(2), 233-255.

22.

Cropley, A. J. (1997). Creativity and mental health in everyday life. In M. A. Runco & R. Richards (Eds.), Eminent creativity, everyday creativity, and health (pp. 231-246). Greenwich, CT: Ablex.

23.

Florida, R. (2004). America's looming creativity crisis. Harvard Business Review, 10, 122-124.

24.

Getzels, J. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1976). The creative vision: A longitudinal study of problem finding in art. New York: Wiley.

25.

Jackson, P. W., & Messick, S. (1965). The person, the product, and the response: conceptual problems in the assessment of creativity. Journal of personality, 33(3), 309-329.

26.

Kaufman, J. C., & Beghetto, R. A. (2009). Beyond big and little: The four c model of creativity. Review of General Psychology, 13(1), 1-12.

27.

Lubart, T. I., & Sternberg, R. J. (1995). An investment approach to creativity: Theory and data. In Smith, S. M., Ward, T. B., & Finke, R. A. (Eds.), The creative cognition approach, p. 269-302. The MIT Press.

28.

MacKinnon, D. W. (1978). In search of human effectiveness: Identifying and developing creativity. Buffalo, NY: Bearly Limited.

29.

Maslow, A. H. (1968). Toward a psychology of being. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

30.

Mednick, S. A. (1968). The remote associates test. The Journal of Creative Behavior, 2(3), 213-214.

31.

Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. The Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.

32.

Richards, R. (2010). Everyday creativity: Process and way of life-Four key issues. In J.C. Kaufman & R. J. Sternberg (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity (pp. 189-215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

33.

Rogers, Carl. (1959). A Theory of Therapy, Personality and Interpersonal Relationships as Developed in the Client-centered Framework. In S.Koch (Eds.), Psychology: A Study of a Science. Vol. 3: Formulations of the Person and the Social Context. New York: McGraw Hill.

34.

Rubin, D. B., & Little, R. J. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. 2nd Ed. Hoboken, NJ: J Wiley & Sons.

35.

Sternberg, R. J., & Grigorenko, E. L. (2004). Successful intelligence in the classroom. Theory into practice, 43(4), 274-280.

36.

Sternberg, R. J., & Lubart, T. I. (1996). Investing in creativity. American psychologist, 51(7), 677.

37.

Vandenberg, R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of the measurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recommendations for organizational research. Organizational research methods, 3(1), 4-70.

38.

Yoon, M., & Millsap, R. E. (2007). Detecting Violations of Factorial Invariance Using Data-Based Specification Searches: A Monte Carlo Study. Structural Equation Modeling, 14(3), 435-463.

바로가기메뉴

Article Contents

Vol.37 No.1

Development and Validation of CPAS-K for Everyday Problem Solving Creativity of College Students

Abstract

Reference

Korean Journal of Psychology: General