创造力成就问卷的中文修订

摘要/Abstract

摘要： 为验证Carson等人的创造力成就问卷（Creative Achievement Questionnaire，CAQ）在中国成人群体的适用性，对其进行翻译、回译和文化调适后转换为中文版（C-CAQ）。以59名成人为被试，间隔3周的重测信度为斯皮尔曼相关系数ρ=0.77（p<0.01）；以107名成人为被试，施测C-CAQ、托伦斯创造性思维测验（TTCT）的非常规用途任务（UUT）和补全图画任务（PCT）、中国大五人格简式版考察C-CAQ的聚合效度，结果发现与TTCT两个任务的多个指标及大五人格的开放性相关显著（与UUT任务各指标相关为：流畅性0.22、灵活性0.19、独创性0.26，与PCT任务的精致性相关为0.24，与大五人格的开放性维度相关0.29）；用瑞文标准推理测验考察C-CAQ和智力的区分效度，结果显示二者为弱相关且不显著；以324名成人为被试对C-CAQ的10个领域进行探索性因子分析，结果支持问卷的领域特殊性构想；以122名成人为被试施测考夫曼创造力领域量表（K-DOCS）和C-CAQ以考察C-CAQ的效标效度，结果显示二者的科学、艺术领域及总分相关均显著（ρ=0.62, 0.47和0.41）。研究表明，CAQ问卷中文版在我国的成人群体具有较好的信度和效度。

关键词: 创造力成就问卷, 创造力, 信度, 效度

Abstract: To establish the validity and reliability of the Chinese version of Carson et al.’s Creative Achievement Questionnaire (CAQ), the following steps were taken. Firstly, the original questionnaire was translated into Chinese, and then translated back into English, and finally culturally adjusted. Test-retest reliability of the Chinese version of CAQ (C-CAQ; Spearman’s ρ=0.77, p<0.01) was established in a sample of 59 adults. Convergent validity of C-CAQ was established with other measures of creative potential in a sample of 107 adults, including divergent thinking tests (Unusual Uses Task, UUT, with ρs ranging from 0.19 to 0.26; Picture Completion Task, with ρ of CAQ and PCT’s elaborateness being 0.24; all results were statistically significant) and Openness to Experience (The Chinese Big Five Personality Inventory brief version, CBF-PI-B, ρ=0.29, p<0.01). Discriminant validity of C-CAQ was established against IQ (Raven’s Standard Progressive Matrices, RSPM, ρ=0.20, p=0.12) in a sample of 59 adults. Construct validity of C-CAQ was established by exploratory factor analysis of CAQ’s 10 domains in a sample of 324 adults. Criterion validity of C-CAQ was established against everyday creativity performance (Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale, K-DOCS) in a sample of 122 adults, with ρs of C-CAQ’s and K-DOCS’s science, arts and total scores respectively being 0.62, 0.47 and 0.41, and all statistically significant. The study result showed that the Chinese version of CAQ had acceptable validity and reliability among Chinese adults.

Key words: Creative Achievement Questionnaire, creativity, validity, reliability

中图分类号:

B842

王战旗, 张兴利. 创造力成就问卷的中文修订[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(3): 390-397.

WANG Zhanqi, ZHANG Xingli. The Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire[J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(3): 390-397.

参考文献

贡喆, 刘昌, 沈汪兵. (2016). 有关创造力测量的一些思考. 心理科学进展, 24(1), 31-45
蔺素琴, 申超男, 段海军, 胡卫平. (2016). 创造力的领域性研究进展: 从对立到融合的转向. 心理与行为研究, 14(3), 426-432, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2016.03.021
施建农. (2015). 创造性系统模型. 见施建农(编), 创造力与创新教育(pp. 6-13). 北京: 军事医学科学出版社.
涂翠平, 樊富珉. (2015). Kaufman领域创造力量表中文版的验证及初步应用. 心理与行为研究, 13(6), 811-816, doi: 10.3969/j.issn.1672-0628.2015.06.014
王孟成, 戴晓阳, 姚树桥. (2011). 中国大五人格问卷的初步编制Ⅲ: 简式版的制定及信效度检验. 中国临床心理学杂志, 19(4), 454-457
张厚粲, 王晓平. (1989). 瑞文标准推理测验在我国的修订. 心理学报, 21(2), 113-121
张亚坤, 陈龙安, 张兴利, 施建农. (2018). 融合视角下的西方创造力系统观. 心理科学进展, 26(5), 810-830
Anastasi, A. (1982). Psychological testing (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan.
Baer, J. (1991). Generality of creativity across performance domains. Creativity Research Journal, 4(1), 23-39, doi: 10.1080/10400419109534371.
Baer, J. (1998). The case for domain specificity of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 173-177, doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1102_7.
Baer, J. (2016). Domain specificity of creativity. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Baer, J., & Kaufman, J. C. (2005). Bridging generality and specificity: The amusement park theoretical (APT) model of creativity. Roeper Review, 27(3), 158-163.
Barbot, B., Besançon, M., & Lubart, T. I. (2016). The generality-specificity of creativity: Exploring the structure of creative potential with EPoC. Learning and Individual Differences, 52, 178-187.
Barron, F., & Harrington, D. M. (1981). Creativity, intelligence, and personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 32(1), 439-476, doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.32.020181.002255.
Brown, R. T. (1989). Creativity: What are we to measure? In J. A. Glover, R. R. Ronning, & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), Handbook of creativity (pp. 3-32). New York, NY: Springer.
Carson, S. H., Peterson, J. B., & Higgins, D. M. (2005). Reliability, validity, and factor structure of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire. Creativity Research Journal, 17(1), 37-50, doi: 10.1207/s15326934crj1701_4.
Crockenberg, S. B. (1972). Creativity tests: A boon or boondoggle for education? Review of Educational Research, 42(1), 27-45.
Feist, G. J. (2018). In search of the creative personality. In R. J. Sternberg & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), The nature of human creativity (pp. 63-76). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Guilford, J. P. (1950). Creativity. American Psychologist, 5(9), 444-454, doi: 10.1037/h0063487.
Karwowski, M., Kaufman, J. C., Lebuda, I., Szumski, G., & Firkowska-Mankiewicz, A. (2017). Intelligence in childhood and creative achievements in middle-age: The necessary condition approach. Intelligence, 64, 36-44, doi: 10.1016/j.intell.2017.07.001.
Kaufman, J. C. (2009). Creativity 101. New York, NY: Springer.
Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Counting the muses: Development of the Kaufman Domains of Creativity Scale (K-DOCS). Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(4), 298-308.
Kim, K. H. (2008). Meta-analyses of the relationship of creative achievement to both IQ and divergent thinking test scores. Journal of Creative Behavior, 42(2), 106-130.
O’Rourke, P., Kaufman, J. C., Feist, G. J., & Reiter-Palmon, R. (2017). Creativity and personality research: Themes and future directions. In G. J. Feist, R. Reiter-Palmon, & J. C. Kaufman (Eds.), Cambridge handbook of creativity and personality research (pp. 405-413). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Plucker, J. A. (1998). Beware of simple conclusions: The case for content generality of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 11(2), 179-182.
Plucker, J. A. (1999). Is the proof in the pudding? Reanalyses of Torrance’s (1958 to Present) longitudinal data. Creativity Research Journal, 12(2), 103-114.
Plucker, J. A., & Beghetto, R. A. (2004). Why creativity is domain general, why it looks domain specific, and why the distinction does not matter. In R. J. Sternberg, E. L. Grigorenko, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Creativity: From potential to realization (pp. 153-168). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Quenk, N. L. (2009). Essentials of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator Assessment (2nd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rhodes, M. (1961). An analysis of creativity. Phi Delta Kappan, 42(7), 305-310.
Runco, M. A. (1989). The creativity of children’s art. Child Study Journal, 19(3), 177-189.
Sawyer, R. K. (2012). Explaining creativity: The science of human innovation (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Silvia, P. J., Wigert, B., Reiter-Palmon, R., & Kaufman, J. C. (2012). Assessing creativity with self-report scales: A review and empirical evaluation. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 6(1), 19-34.
Sternberg, R. J. (2003). Wisdom, intelligence, and creativity synthesized. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Sternberg, R. J. (2005). The domain generality versus specificity debate: How should it be posed? In J. C. Kaufman & J. Baer (Eds.), Creativity across domains: Faces of the muse (pp. 299-306). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Terman, L. M. (1926). Mental and physical traits of a thousand gifted children (2nd ed.). Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Terman, L. M., & Oden, M. H. (1959). The gifted group at mid-life: Thirty-five years’ follow-up of the superior child (Vol. 5). Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press.
Torrance, E. P. (2002). The Manifesto: A guide to developing a creative career. Westport, CT: Ablex Publishing.

[1]	李娇娇, 刘晓冰, 裴丹丹, 徐碧波, 尹锡杨. 情绪智力对大学生恶意创造力的影响：一个有调节的中介模型[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[2]	苗秀影, 迟立忠. 情感启发式对风险选择的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2022, 20(3): 325-331.
[3]	王艳丽, 陈红. 城市社区居民获得感量表的编制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(5): 665-670.
[4]	杜夏雨, 史从戎, 赵子仪, 薛婷. 情绪效价和动机情绪对创造力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2021, 19(2): 160-165.
[5]	刘文, 孟祥蕊, 车翰博, 张嘉琪, 沈漪. 小学生创造性人格教师评定问卷的编制及信效度检验[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(5): 624-630.
[6]	李永杰, 刘春晖, 金花. 高创造力个体的群体差异性研究[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 440-445.
[7]	李昂, 张景焕. 亲子关系和移情对青少年社会创造力的预测：友谊质量的中介作用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(4): 496-502.
[8]	巩振兴, 张莹, 李新敏, 张甜甜. 求同方能存异：上下级学习目标导向契合对创造力的影响[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2020, 18(1): 128-135.
[9]	张丽娜, 路海东. 高中生感知到的课堂教学方式量表的编制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(6): 773-779.
[10]	郝嘉佳, 陈英和, 刘拓, 白学军. 儿童青少年一般思维能力测验的编制和初步应用[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(5): 620-626.
[11]	戴斌荣. 农村儿童社会适应问卷的编制[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(4): 504-511.
[12]	马惠霞, 刘慧芳, 翟永芳, 李桂芳. 《青少年自我意识情绪测验》的修订及信度效度验证[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(2): 240-245.
[13]	杨宏博, 赵轩. 基于多元概化理论的中小学教师资格考试质量分析——以《综合素质》（中学）科目为例[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2019, 17(2): 253-258.
[14]	郭静, 王瑛, 季丽丽, 贾丽萍, 卢国华. 心理危机脆弱性量表的编制及信效度检验[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(6): 847-853.
[15]	罗杰, 周瑗, 陈维, 潘运, 赵守盈. 青少年学习倦怠量表的多元概化分析[J]. 心理与行为研究, 2018, 16(5): 665-669,712.