The Validity and Reliability of the Chinese Version of the Creative Achievement Questionnaire

Abstract

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

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

CLC Number:

B842

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.

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.

References

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]	LI Wenfu, ZHAI Jicun, LI Qingqing, CHEN Jingting. The Effect of Ego Depletion on the Prototype Elicitation Effects of Scientific Innovation Problems Solving [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(5): 677-683.
[2]	LI Jiaojiao, LIU Xiaobing, PEI Dandan, XU Bibo, YIN Xiyang. The Relationship Between Emotional Intelligence and College Students’ Malicious Creativity: A Moderated Mediation Model [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(4): 563-569.
[3]	MIAO Xiuying, CHI Lizhong. The Impact of the Affect Heuristic on Risky Choice [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(3): 325-331.
[4]	XUE Yukang, TIAN Mengyuan, LI Qianqian, GUO Yaqi, MA Xiaoqing, GU Chuanhua. The Microgenetic Change of Social Creativity: A Study Based on Virtual Simulation Technique [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2022, 20(1): 65-72.
[5]	WANG Yanli, CHEN Hong. The Development of Sense of Gain Questionnaire Among Urban Community Residents [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(5): 665-670.
[6]	DU Xiayu, SHI Congrong, ZHAO Ziyi, XUE Ting. The Influence of Emotional Valence and Motivational Emotion on Creativity [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2021, 19(2): 160-165.
[7]	LIU Wen, MENG Xiangrui, CHE Hanbo, ZHANG Jiaqi, SHEN Yi. Development, Psychometric Reliability and Validity of Pupils’ Creative Personality Questionnaire Based on Teacher’s Descriptions [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(5): 624-630.
[8]	LI Yongjie, LIU Chunhui, JIN Hua. A Study on the Group Differences of Undergraduates with High-Level Creativity [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(4): 440-445.
[9]	LI Ang, ZHANG Jinghuan. The Prediction of Parent-Child Relationship and Empathy on Adolescents’ Social Creativity: The Mediating Role of Friendship Quality [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(4): 496-502.
[10]	GONG Zhenxing, ZHANG Ying, LI Xinmin, ZHANG Tiantian. Seeking Consensus can Find Differences: The Impact of the Heterogeneity of the Learning Goal Orientation Between Leader and Subordinate on Creativity [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2020, 18(1): 128-135.
[11]	ZHANG Lina, LU Haidong. Development of Chinese High School Students Perceived Classroom Teaching Approaches Scale [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(6): 773-779.
[12]	HAO Jiajia, CHEN Yinghe, LIU Tuo, BAI Xuejun. The Development of General Thinking Test for Children [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(5): 620-626.
[13]	DAI Binrong. The Development of the Rural Children's Social Adaptation Scale [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(4): 504-511.
[14]	MA Huixia, LIU Huifang, ZHAI Yongfang, LI Guifang. Revision and Verification of the Test of Self-Conscious Affect for Adolescents [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 240-245.
[15]	YANG Hongbo, ZHAO Xuan. QualityAnalysis in National Teacher Certification Examination Based on Multivariate Generalizability Theory [J]. Studies of Psychology and Behavior, 2019, 17(2): 253-258.